Dassault Rafale vs F-35

Introduction

This article will compare Rafale C and F-35A. Both aircraft have similar, almost identical purposes: they are to replace most other fixed wing aircraft types in use by their respective air forces. Both have land-based and carrier versions. But there are major differences in actual approach, and in the final product. While Rafale’s maneuverability is undisputed, it is often-ignored fact is that F-35 was advertised as a highly-maneuverable dogfighter, before its obvious inability to actually achieve high maneuverability forced Lockheed Martin to change rhetorics.

Air-to-air performance

Impact on pilot skill

Pilot is the most important part of the system. Therefore, most important factors in fighter design are ones that directly affect pilot: sortie rate / maintenance downtime, operating cost, user interface and reliability. In all air wars to date, it has been shown that good pilot in bad aircraft will beat average pilot in excellent aircraft. In 1939, some Polish pilots became aces in open-cockpit biplanes. Early on during Vietnam war, USAFs F-4s achieved negative 2:1 exchange ratios against NVAF MiG-19 and MiG-21. Once USAF put some effort into pilot training, they started regularly achieving positive 2:1 exchange ratios. This is despite the fact that in dogfight, angles fighter (MiG) has no inherent advantage over the energy fighter (F-4) – or the opposite.

Rafale can fly 2,7 hours every day. Direct operating cost is 16.500 USD per hour (cca, 17.000 USD when corrected for inflation). F-35 can fly one hour every two days, and has direct operating cost of 30.000 USD per hour.

Pilots have to fly at least 30 hours per month, preferably 45 hours. Rafale allows up to 81 hour per month in the air (likely somewhat less), while F-35 allows 15 hours per month. However, in such situation direct operating costs per hour of flight will be 1.336.500 USD per month for Rafale and 450.000 USD per month for F-35. For the same price, Rafale will fly only 27 hours per month, which is less than minimum requirement. These are all best-case scenarios, however – average peacetime availability rate is 33% for Rafale and 28% for F-35A, though Rafale achieved close to 100% availability rate during combat deployments.

Situational awareness

Rafale’s primary air-to-air sensor is OSF optical sensor suite on top of the nose, and has 80/130 km detection range against subsonic targets. It consists of IRST sensor with 40 km identification range and video camera with 45-50 km identification range. In addition, it has RBE-2 radar, two fisheye IR MAWS sensors and 4 RWR sensors. MAWS and RWR sensors provide spherical coverage, and can be used to generate firing solution. It has framed canopy providing 360* horizontal and 197,7* vertical visibility, including 16* over the nose, 1,7* over the tail and 27* over the sides, with a maximum of 54* over the side visibility. RBE-2 has 120* angular coverage while RBE-2AA (AESA) has 140* angular coverage.

F-35 has a single IRST sensor (EOTS) under the nose, with 160 km detection range against low-flying targets in afterburner. It is a staring midwave (or dual-band) sensor covering low frontal sector. Additionally, its IR missile warning system (DAS) can (?) be used as IRST. This system provides spherical coverage, with a caveat that it is short-ranged when compared to full-blown IRST systems. It also has radar and RWR sensors. It has a sunk, framed canopy providing 340* horizontal and 188,5* vertical visibility, including 16* over the nose, -7,5* over the tail and 26* over the sides, with a maximum of 40* over the side visibility.

Overall, both aircraft have similar raw situational awareness. Rafale has the advantage of having air-to-air optimized IRST and 360* cockpit visibility, while F-35 may have spherical coverage with DAS providing optical feed to the pilot, assuming that helmet issues are solved. However, pilots still prefer not to use the helmet, as that way they can see with far more clarity and depth perception than what helmet allows. F-35s EOTS may be capable of detecting aircraft at 160 km from the rear, compared to 130 km detection range of OSF, but since aircraft detected was low-flying F-16 in afterburner, it is hard to estimate wether it will be able to detect aircraft from that distance at higher altitudes if it does not engage afterburner; answer is most likely no (most likely range is 50-55 km, based on factors outlined here). Its radar is also optimized for air-to-ground work.

However, data presentation is just as important as data collection when it comes to situational awareness. Rafale’s Human-Machine Interface is similar in concept to Gripen’s, being minimalistic so as to avoid potentially lethal data overload. On the other hand, F-35 presents huge quantity of information, typically in numerical form, which can easily overload the pilot. End result is that Rafale has significant advantage in situational awareness over the F-35.

Stealth

Stealth can be divided into several areas: visual, radar and IR. Visual stealth refers to how easy is to to see the aircraft with Mk.I eyeball. Radar stealth can refer to two things: aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS), and aircraft’s radar emissions (EMCON). IR stealth refers to aircraft’s IR signature.

Rafale is 15,3 m long, 5,34 m high with 10,8 m wing span. F-35 is 15,7 m long, 4,6 m high with 10,7 m wing span. However, F-35 has much fatter body which results in somewhat larger profile from front and side.

When it comes to radar signature, whichever jet uses radar is going to be detected well beyond its own radar range and become a target; SPECTRA will give Rafale firing solution with 1* precision at 200 km. Rafale will have RCS of 0,75-1,10 m2 with 6 missiles, while AN/APG-81 has 160 km range vs 1 m2 target. Thus F-35 will detect Rafale at 149-164 km. Tracking (attack) range will be 119-131 km without jamming, or 22-25 km with jamming; 70-80 km is possible with EOTS. However, since SPECTRA can reduce Rafale’s RCS by factor of 1,5-3, F-35 will detect Rafale at 113-149 km; tracking range will be 90-149 km, with tracking range of 13-119 km. F-35 has RCS of 0,00143 m2 with 4 missiles, while RBE-2 PESA has 139 km range vs 5 m2 target. RBE-2 AESA (which entered service in 2012) has 208 km range vs 5 m2 target, or 278 km when cued by SPECTRA. Detection range will be 18 km for RBE-2 PESA and 27 km for RBE-2 AESA, with 36 km possible if RBE-2 AESA is cued by SPECTRA. This will give attack ranges of 14 km, 22 km or 29 km. Rafale’s OSF has range of 80 km vs subsonic head-on target at 20.000 ft. At 30.000 ft, range may be 80-90 km, which means that Rafale will be able to attack the F-35 from 65-70 km. That being said, ability of both to attack the opponent will be limited by missile effective range (15-100 km for Meteor, 9-36 km for AIM-120D, 4-16 km for MICA).

Rafale’s OSF is its primary sensor for air-to-air combat and radar is primary sensor for air-to-ground combat. Situation with the F-35 is opposite, but its EOTS FLIR is equipped with air-to-air IRST mode, and may be dual-band.

In terms of IR signature, primary factors are size, speed and engine emissions. Rafale has two M88 engines producing a total of 9.953 kgf on dry thrust and 15.077 kgf thrust in reheat, compared to 12.700/19.512 kgf for the F135. Further, since Rafale’s engine emissions are divided in two engines, leading to increased cooling due to greater ratio of plume surface area to crosssection. While normally this advantage would be negated by aerodynamic superiority of single-engined aircraft, this is not the case here. F-35s unaerodynamic fuselage means that it requires full dry thrust to achieve speed of Mach 0,95, while Rafale supercruises at Mach 1,4 at equivalent engine setting, and with 6 missiles. Consequently, Rafale has significantly lower engine IR signature when compared to the F-35 at same speed. Rafale also has smaller frontal and side signature, while shock cone should be of similar size. Note that both size and temperature are important: while at low altitude atmospheric absorption and clutter mean that it is easier to notice hotspots, at high altitude lack of both atmosphere and clutter means that target size and sensor’s resolution play important role as well. Rafale also received Hot Spot treatment, further reducing IR signature.

Cruise performance

Rafale M can cruise at Mach 1,4 with 6 missiles. Assuming that 30% of the onboard fuel (1.425 kg) is used for supercruise, Rafale will be able to cruise for 11 minutes (657 seconds). At 35.000 ft, this will allow it to cover 271,7 km (146,7 nm). Maximum combat radius on internal fuel is 925 km.

F-35 is supposed to supercruise for 150 nautic miles at Mach 1,2 with 4 missiles. 150 miles at 40.000 ft and Mach 1,2 would take 13,08 minutes. At test bench and full dry thrust, F135 consumes 11.089 kg per hour, while the F-35 has 8.280 kg of internal fuel. 2.417 kg theoretically spent for “supercruise” (real value would be less) is 29% of the F-35s onboard fuel. F-22 can cover a maximum of 0,04 miles per pound of fuel at 45.000 ft and Mach 1,5. Its combat radius is 400 nm with 100 nm supercruise; this means that it uses 5.000 lbs of fuel for supercruise and 8.600 lbs for subsonic cruise. As the F-22 has 18.000 lbs of internal fuel, 13.600 lbs of fuel would equalize 76% of the onboard fuel, with just supercruise requirement accounting for 28% of the onboard fuel. Since F-35s supercruise is done without extended subsonic leg, it means that either F-35 has to burn off a portion of fuel to supercruise, or else it can only achieve Mach 1,2 at low afterburner. Following quote suggests the latter, as does the fact that the F-35 can achieve top speed of only Mach 1,67, due to drag issues but also due to using divrterless intakes, which are unfit for supercruise.

“What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going … you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you’re pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you’re cruising,” Griffiths said. “So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air.”

F-35A also has combat radius of 1.082 km with 4 missiles, compared to 925 km with 6 missiles for Rafale. This is despite the higher fuel fraction (0,385 vs 0,332), higher internal fuel load (8.280 kg vs 4.750 kg) and the fact that the F-35 is flying clean while Rafale has only 4 low-drag missile stations. However, since Rafale can supercruise even with external fuel tanks (cca Mach 1,2 with two tanks), it is possible for it to use tanker support to extend the combat radius without sacrificing too much in terms of sortie rate. F-35 is limited to maximum cruise speed of Mach 0,95, which gets reduced to cca Mach 0,8 with external fuel tanks.

Maneuverability

Dassault Rafale has instantaneous turn rate of 30 deg/s, sustained turn rate of 24 deg/s and roll rate of 290 deg/s. F-35 has corner speed of 370 kts for 9 g instantaneous turn and M 0,8 for 4,95 g sustained turn, both values being at 15.000 ft. This gives it instantaneous turn rate of 26,6 deg/s and sustained turn rate of 10,8 deg/s, with roll rate of 300 deg/s. Since two degrees per second turn rate difference allows pilot to dominate adversary in dogfight, and difference in turn rate will be higher than calculated here due to different altitudes used for calculation, it is clear that the F-35 is seriously outmatched in close combat. Rafale also has climb rate of 305 m/s compared to 259 m/s for F-35. Consequently, F-35 will loose energy far more quickly than Rafale while being unable to recover it. Rafale is also aerodynamically clean with two wingtip missiles, compared to F-35s clean configuration of four internal missiles. Further two missiles can be carried on low-drag pylons. Since F-35 internal bay adds permanent drag and weight penalty, both aircraft can be considered to be equal in terms of low-drag air-to-air payload.

Close-coupled delta-canard wing offers significantly higher maximum lift coefficient and positive trim lift on all control surfaces. Further, canards and wing control surfaces overlap in their functionality, unlike with horizontal tail configuration, leading to improved damage resistance. During level flight or sustained turn conditions, canards provide download while trailling edge control surfaces provide upload; F-35 only has tail to provide upload. Modern unstable canard-deltas will have canards provide no moment force during sustained turn conditions, thus reducing drag and improving lift-to-drag ratio; further, presence of canards has beneficial impact on wing L/D ratio during all turn conditions. When initiating a turn, canards will provide upload while trailling edge control surfaces and tail will provide download. When combined with canards’ longer moment arm, this results in higher turn onset and thus improved transient performance, which is crucial for dogfight.

(Note that the best way to escape either missile or gun shot is instantaneous turn in order to put the attacker at 3/9 o’clock followed by acceleration, and if necessary another turn. Sustained turns do not have much place in dogfight. In a multi-ship dogfight, no turn should be followed for more than 90 degrees).

Rafale and F-35 both have good post-stall maneuverability. However, while F-35 requires a chute for spin recovery, Rafale’s close-coupled canards will allow purely aerodynamic spin recovery, something not offered by any other configuration (including long-coupled canard one). This is important since stall spin is the leading cause of maneuver-induced aircraft losses at 31%; post-stall maneuverability by itself has little use in combat. F-35s wing root vortices are also drawn inboard, causing loss of outboard wing control surfaces effectiveness at high angles of attack. Interference between vortices also causes bursting well before they reach wing trailling edge, let alone tail surfaces, leading to reduced tail effectiveness as well as increased vertical tail wear. Rafale’s canard tip vortices meanwhile energize outer portion of the wing, allowing high controllability even at extreme angles of attack, while both canard root and LERX vortices energize inboard portion of the wing, increasing lift. Consequently, Rafale will have superior nose authority at high angles of attack (in fact, Rafale’s nose authority is equal, or superior, to the F-18s). Both Rafale and F-35 will have large amounts of forward fuselage lift during level flight and maneuvers, with Rafale’s fuselage lift being improved through “spillage” from canards as well as LERX. With both aircraft, vortices originating from nose will also improve lift.

F-35s 35* swept wing is optimized for subsonic and transonic maneuverability, whereas Rafale’s 48* swept wing focuses on transonic and supersonic maneuverability, while still retaining excellent subsonic performance thanks to integrated close-coupled canard design. F-35s lower wing sweep results in extended transonic region and much faster supersonic drag rise with Mach number.

During supersonic flight, aircraft will become more stable. Rafale’s close coupled canards will reduce pressure point shift with increased speed, allowing Rafale to remain aerodynamically unstable at higher speeds than non-canard configuration would. Once aircraft does become stable, Rafale can transition trim authority to canards. This means that while F-35s horizontal tail will have to provide download and subtract from lift, thus worsening L/D ratio, Rafale will use canards to keep the nose up, which will lead to improved L/D ratio compared to canard-off configuration and thus increased maneuverability as well as improved cruise performance (cruise speed and efficiency).

Weapons

F-35s primary missiles are AIM-120 for beyond visual range engagement and AIM-9X for within visual range engagement. AIM-120D is a RF BVR missile with 180 km maximum aerodynamic range. It has 40 g maneuvering capability at Mach 4. AIM-9X is an IR missile with 26 km maximum aerodynamic range and 50 g maneuvering capability at Mach 2,7. Block III version was supposed to provide an IR BVRAAM with 42 km range, but its development was cancelled. British F-35s will be equipped with ASRAAM, which has 50 km range and 50 g maneuvering capability, giving it genuine BVR capability.

Rafale’s primary missile is MICA, a dual-role WVR/BVR missile which comes in IR and RF variants. It has 80 km maximum aerodynamic range and 50 g maneuvering capability at Mach 4. Additionally, it will be able to use Meteor as long-range BVR missile; it has 315 km range and 40 g maneuvering capability at Mach 4.

With standard loadout, F-35 has advantage in nominal missile range. However, its BVR missile – AIM-120 – is an active radar missile. Consequently, even if the F-35 does use its IRST for passive attack, missile will give itself away with its own radar, quite possibly long before enemy MAWS notices it. Once it does so, its limited maneuverability and usage of easily jammed or decoyed RF seeker head means that any enemy fighters will easily avoid it.

MICA IR on the other hand uses an IIR seeker. This has two advantages. First, it is passive, which means that enemy gets no warning of an incoming missile until (and unless) his MAWS notices the missile. Second, IIR seekers are very hard to jam and nearly impossible to decoy, forcing enemy fighter to rely on maneuvers to evade it. MICA is also more maneuverable than AIM-120. If used against the F-35, F-35s own limited maneuverability will likely cause it to be a toast against MICA. Further, Rafale’s speed advantage (M 0,33 difference in top speed and M 0,45 difference in cruise speed) will reduce difference in effective missile range.

Rafale has standard loadout of 6 missiles (2 MICA IR + 4 MICA RF) and 3 gun bursts, for a total of 1,47 onboard kills. F-35 has standard onboard loadout of 4 RF BVRAAM and 2,6 gun bursts. This translates into 0,996 onboard kills. Heavy loadout for Rafale is 10 missiles; assuming 8 of these are MICA RF, total number of onboard kills is 1,79. “Heavy” loadout for the F-35 is 8 RF BVRAAM, 2 IR WVRAAM and 2,6 gun bursts, translating into a total of 1,62 onboard kills. As it can be seen, Rafale has a significant advantage in number of onboard kills with standard loadout, but this advantage is reduced with full loadouts. Both aircraft also have options for both IR and RF BVRAAM, though IR BVRAAM are of different capabilities.

Numbers in the air

Rafale may allow up to 81 hour per month in the air, compared to 15 hours for the F-35. However, direct operating cost will be >1.336.000 USD for Rafale, compared to >450.000 USD for F-35. If identical expenditure is assumed, Rafale will allow 27 hours per month, a 1,8:1 advantage.

Since Rafale costs ~93 million USD unit flyaway, compared to 120 million USD at the very least for the F-35, it has 1,29:1 advantage. As Rafale can sustain 2,7 sorties per day, compared to one sortie every two days for the F-35, Rafale has a 7:1 numerical advantage over the F-35.

Response to attacks

While Rafale is capable of taking off roads (like most other fighters), this capability will be restricted by its overly large wing span. F-35s wing span is only 10 cm smaller than Rafale’s. Rafale is also a twin-engined aircraft, making it harder to maintain than e.g. Gripen. While F-35 is single-engined, this provides no maintenance benefit due to the F-35s maintenance-hungry stealth coating and hugely complex electronic systems. Consequently, neither aircraft can be effectively operated from road bases, which may be a lethal disadvantage in the age of precision GPS-guided munitions and Google Earth.

Dassault Rafale supercruises at Mach 1,4 with 6 missiles, compared to the F-35s cruise speed of Mach 0,95 with 4 missiles. At low afterburner, F-35 can maintain Mach 1,2 for 150 miles (241 km), and to achieve even that performance it can carry only 4 missiles in its weapons bay. For comparison, Rafale can likely maintain Mach 1,4 cruise speed for 388 km. Even if that is too optimistic, it is clear that Rafale can cover greater distance than the F-35, and at higher speed.

Engagement kill chain performance

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

Kill chain consists of following steps:

  • detect
    • detection capability
    • identification capability
  • engage
    • cruise speed
    • maximum speed / mach on entry
    • altitude on entry
    • lock on / firing solution range
    • missile seeker diversity
    • endgame countermeasures (inbuilt, towed, disposable; jammers, decoys, chaff, flares)
  • defeat the missile / disengage
    • airframe agility
    • sensors coverage
    • mach on egress / fuel reserves on afterburner
  • destroy
    • BVR missile seeker diversity
    • BVR missile agility
    • BVR missile warhead lethality
    • WVR missile agility
    • WVR missile warhead lethality
    • gun lethality

Detect

As shown before, F-35 will detect Rafale at 113-164 km with radar and cca 80-100 km with IRST, possibly less due to Rafale’s IR signature reduction measures. Rafale will detect the F-35 at 18-36 km with radar, or at 80-100 km with IRST. However, radar is an active sensor, which means that it can be detected at far greater distance than its own detection range. Even assuming that target is a flat plate and that entirety of the signal reaches it, radar will get back 1/16th of the signal – at best. RCS comparison shows automobile to have an RCS of 100 m2 (likely from the side; from the front, 25-50 m2 value can be expected), whereas Rafale has RCS of ~1 m2 when armed. Consequently, F-35s radar receives less than 1/400th of the signal that was sent out. Even when aperture size difference between RWR and radar is accounted for, Rafale will detect F-35s radar signal at two times the distance (>300 km), likely as much as several times farther (note that radar horizon at 10.000 m is at distance of 825 km). Since both fighters have extensive ESM capabilities, radar is not likely to be used.

When it comes to IR signature, Rafale’s smaller size, lower thrust and better thrust-to-drag ratio give it a major advantage over the F-35.Both aircraft have provisions for reduced IR signature, particularly in terms of hiding exhaust plume. OSF may detect F-35 from 70-100 km from front and 110-160 km from the rear, while F-35s EOTS may(?) detect Rafale at 70-100 km from the front and up to 160 km from the rear. While I don’t have figure for EOTS, OSF will allow Rafale to visually identify other aircraft at >50 km. F-35 will also have to rely on IR sensor for identification, as while NCTR works at longer ranges, it is very unreliable (30% identification reliability at best) and can be disabled by jamming or by target maneuvering. Because of this, 82% of the enemy aircraft engaged during Desert Storm had to be identified with help of AWACS, which will not be avaliable against a competent opponents as comlinks will be jammed, and AWACS aircraft will not survive for long against a competent opponent.

Note that radar-based NCTR is also very unreliable (30% identification reliability at best) and can be disabled by jamming or by target maneuvering. Because of this, 82% of the enemy aircraft engaged during Desert Storm had to be identified with help of AWACS, which will not be avaliable against a competent opponents as comlinks will be jammed, and AWACS aircraft will not survive for long in a proper war; remaining 18% were done by NCTR or IFF (and IFF itself will not be useful against a competent opponent). Consequently, IRST is a must for proper BVR engagement even when all other disadvantages of radar (loss of surprise, easily jammed) are ignored.

Engage

Rafale has cruise speed of Mach 1,4 with 6 missiles, and top speed of Mach 2,0. F-35 has cruise speed of Mach 0,95 and top speed of Mach 1,67. While Rafale’s dash speed limit is caused by air intake design, F-35s speed limit is caused by thrust-to-drag ratio. Consequently, Rafale has excess power reserve for maneuvering even at top speed. Cruise speed advantage, combined with supersonic endurance advantage, allows Rafale to dictate terms of engagement and puts the F-35 at constant threat of attacks from the rear. It also means that Rafale can safely disengage from a BVR engagement, while denying that ability to the F-35. Higher cruise speed and faster acceleration will allow Rafale to reach any speed far more quickly than the F-35 will be able to reach it. This is assuming that either fighter will actually have time to do so.

Rafale’s service ceilling of 59.055 ft is higher than the F-35s 50.000 ft limit. Further, Rafale is optimized for air superiority missions at between 30.000 and 50.000 ft, while F-35 is optimized for strike missions at 15.000 – 25.000 ft. This altitude advantage will give Rafale significant superiority in air-to-air combat. First, combination of altitude and cruise speed / dash speed advantage will give Rafale advantage in effective missile range while reducing F-35s missile range. Second, at closer ranges F-35s EOTS may loose sight of Rafale while Rafale itself will be capable of keeping track of the F-35 by using MICA IR seeker head as a short-ranged IRST.

As shown before, Rafale will be able to attack the F-35 from distance of 70 km. F-35 may be able to attack Rafale from 70-90 km by using EOTS, or from distance of cca 30 km if using radar. Both aircraft can use RWR data to cue their IR sensors; Rafale’s SPECTRA also offers 200 km range for firing solution with <1* precision. Consequently, both aircraft will rely solely on IRST, giving Rafale advantage in detection and engagement range. Neither has towed or disposable jammers, making them more vulnerable to home-on-jam mode of modern radar missiles; still, DRFM jamming means that it is not as much of a threat to Rafale as with most other modes of jamming. F-35 has to use its radar, giving up frequency agility, though it may get disposable decoys. Both can engage targets at their six o’clock through usage of onboard sensors.

Both Rafale and F-35 have a selection of RF and IR BVR missiles. However, while ASRAAM has maximum engagement range of 50 km (and is exclusive for UK version of F-35), Rafale’s MICA IR has range of 80 km, giving Rafale significant range advantage when using IR missiles. This range advantage is increased even more by Rafale’s kinematic advantage over the F-35. With RF missiles, F-35 has AIM-120 with maximum engagement range of 180 km. This is significantly inferior to the 315 km range of MBDA Meteor, but superior to 80 km range of MICA RF; Meteor will enter service in 2019, at about the same time the F-35 enters service. Further, Meteor’s ramjet propulsion gives it significant endgame kinematic advantage as well as 100 km range in straight line flight; both of these mean that it will have lethality advantage over the AIM-120. Both AIM-120 and Meteor are vulnerable to countermeasures, however, and F-35 will likely receive Meteor, somewhat reducing its disadvantage.

However, Rafale can cruise at Mach 1,4, compared to F-35s Mach 0,95. Assuming that this is achieved at 40.000 ft, this gives Rafale 258 knot advantage in cruise speed. Missile range from the rear is 1/4 of stated missile range, 100 knot speed advantage reduces missile range 5 to 25%, and effective range is 1/5 of aerodynamic range. Consequently, Rafale with MICA will achieve 10-13 km effective range against F-35, while F-35 with ASRAAM will achieve 0,9-2,2 km effective range against Rafale. With RF missiles, both aircraft will get Meteor with 315 km range, and 100 km effective range. Using Meteor, Rafale will achieve 13-41 km effective range against F-35, while F-35 will achieve 9-22 km effective range against Rafale. (This assumes rear-quarter attacks).

Defeat the missile / disengage

Once warned of a missile launch, first reaction is to properly position the aircraft for evasion. At beyond visual range, it is oftentimes enough to turn the aircraft away from the missile. At shorter ranges (near-visual and visual range), pilot has to quickly position the missile to the aircraft’s 3 or 9 o’clock and then turn into the missile once close enough. Both of these require high instantaneous turn capability, as well as acceleration / climb to recover lost energy. Rafale has instantaneous turn rate of 30 deg/s. sustained turn rate of 24 deg/s and maximum climb rate of 305 m/s; however maximum instantaneous turn rate should be higher as 30 deg/s is achieved with 9 g limit. F-35 has instantaneous turn rate of 26,6 deg/s, sustained turn rate of 10,3 deg/s at 15.000 ft, acceleration time from M 0,8 to M 1,2 of 63 s and maximum climb rate of 259 m/s. This means that Rafale will have major advantage when evading missiles, which will be even more incresed due to Rafale’s superior transient performance.

Rafale and F-35 both have 360* coverage with RWR and MAWS, and frontal-sector-only coverage with radar and IRST. Rafale’s RBE-2 has 120* field of regard, which is identical for F-35s AN/APG-81. RBE-2 AESA has 140* field of regard. Consequently, neither aircraft will be able to track another one with radar or IRST while engaging in defensive maneuvers. However, if F-35 uses radar Rafale may be able to keep track of the F-35 through its SPECTRA system.

There is also an issue of fuel reserves for maneuvering. Assuming that both aircraft have 40% of the fuel avaliable for maneuvers, Rafale will have enough fuel for 4,54 minutes of maximum afterburner while F-35 will have enough fuel for 5,41 minutes of maximum afterburner. However, Rafale is more agile and will thus get more mileage out of its fuel. Since I do not have M 0,8-1,2 acceleration figure for Rafale, I will use only climb figures. Comparison will assume 360* corner-speed sustained turn followed by an equivalent of 10.000 m climb at maximum (initial) climb speed. Rafale will use 15 seconds for a turn, 32,79 seconds for a climb and 0,62 seconds for equivalent of a 180* roll at maximum rate, for a total of 48,41 seconds of maximum afterburner and 5,63 maneuvers. F-35 will use 33,33 seconds for a turn, 38,61 seconds for a climb and 0,6 seconds for a roll, for a total of 72,54 seconds of maximum afterburner and 4,47 maneuvers. As it can be seen, Rafale has higher combat endurance despite smaller fuel fraction and lower fuel load. (Note here that this is based on sea-level figures; at 30.000 ft, actual thrust and fuel consumption will be closer to 1/3rd of those used, which will extend endurance. However, relative figures should stay similar, or slightly increase difference in Rafale’s favor).

In terms of countermeasures, Rafale has onboard AESA jammers, chaff and flares; SPECTRA is also capable of reducing aircraft’s RCS through active cancellation, though this is likely only an option against older-type radars. It does make it immune to home-on-jam mode of modern missiles. F-35 has chaff and flares; it could also theoretically carry disposable jammers but has no internal jammer installed. F-35 will likely have disposable RF decoys, which would give it an option to use jammers, as well as provide immunity to home-on-jam weapons. It can use its radar for jamming, but it only covers 120* forward cone and to do so it has to sacrifice frequency agility, making it vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles. That being said, F-35s low radar crossection makes usage of onboard jammer less beneficial than for most other aircraft, but also increases effectiveness of jamming when it is used.

Destroy

In terms of agility, AIM-120D and Meteor can both pull 40 g at Mach 4, ASRAAM can pull 50 g at Mach 3 and MICA IR can pull 50 g at Mach 4. This means that maximum turn rate is 18,54 deg/s for AIM-120 and Meteor, 30,9 deg/s for ASRAAM and 23,2 deg/s for MICA IR. Comparing this to respective aircraft turn rates (30 deg/s ITR for Rafale and 26,6 deg/s ITR for F-35), it can be seen that both aircraft can evade any of the missiles listed.

AIM-120D has warhead weight of 23 kg, compared to 12 kg for MICA and 10 kg for ASRAAM. Consequently, lack of agility is somewhat compensated for by larger warhead weight; still, even assuming a perfectly cylindrical propagation pattern, AIM-120D has 1,5 times as large lethal radius as ASRAAM while ASRAAM has 1,67 times as high turn rate.

When it comes to WVR missiles, Rafale carries MICA IR as well while F-35 carries no WVR missiles in standard loadout as they have to be mounted on external hardpoints; UK version may be capable of carrying ASRAAM in internal bays. As shown before, F-35 will be able to evade MICA but not easily, while ASRAAM will be unlikely to hit Rafale. MICA also has 12 kg warhead compared to 10 kg for ASRAAM, increasing its lethality.

If both aircraft are flying at Mach 0,9, Rafale’s 11 g turning capability will give it a turn rate of 22,67 deg/s compared to 18,55 deg/s for 9 g limited F-35. Thus Rafale will be capable of easily defeating AIM-120D and Meteor, while F-35 will have difficulty defeating any of the missiles within their no-escape zones.

In terms of gun lethality, Rafale uses GIAT 30 revolver cannon while F-35 uses GAU-22/A rotary gun. GIAT-30 fires 275 g projectile with 17,5% HEI content (~48 g) at 1.025 m/s muzzle velocity. GAU-22/A fires 184 g projectile with 16,7% HEI content (~31 g) at 1.040 m/s muzzle velocity. Further, GIAT-30 projectiles have crossectional density of 38,9 g/cm2 compared to 37,48 g/cm2 for GAU-22, leading to slightly slower loss of speed. Combination of these factors gives GIAT 30 significantly higher per-projectile effectiveness. Further, F-35 has to open up gun trap doors to use the gun, which adds 0,5 second delay. Even if gun doors are opened beforehand, GIAT 30 will fire 19 projectiles in first 0,5 seconds, compared to 16 projectiles for GAU-22/A. This gives total throw weight of 5,23 kg for GIAT 30, with 0,91 kg of HEI. GAU-22 has total throw weight of 2,94 kg with 0,49 kg of HEI. As it can be seen, GIAT 30 is significantly more lethal than GAU-22/A.

Air-to-ground performance

Finding targets

When finding and attacking targets, Rafale can use either its radar, IRST or external pod. Pod can be recce pod or electro-optical laser designation pod. AREOS Reco NG allows it to capture digital imaginery during day and night (IR) and from all altitudes, and feed it to offboard systems. It offers identification range of several tens of kilometers.

F-35s EOTS is basically an internal pod, removing the need for external pod carriage, thus reducing drag and RCS. Like IR pods, it uses midwave IR spectrum, giving it improved resolution and bad weather performance. It also offers identification range of several tens of kilometers. F-35s radar has ISAR capability, but it is more limited than EOTS’ imaging capability.

Range

F-35 has advantage of internal weapons bay in missions where large payloads are not necessary. Thus, it will likely be able to achieve close to 1.082 km maximum combat radius on internal fuel. On the other hand, Rafale with external air-to-ground weapons and no external tanks has combat radius of 530-630 km on air-to-ground mission (530 km lo-lo-lo, 630 km lo-hi-lo), with a caveat that greater percentage of time is spent at low altitude than it is the case with the F-35s mission profile. Rafale achieves 1.090 km combat radius in low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks, which would be a standard ground attack mission profile for Rafale in presence of air defenses.

As it can be seen, F-35 has significant range advantage over Rafale in ground combat. However, this is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, as F-35 only carries two bombs in its internal weapons bay. Its range will be significantly reduced when carrying external air-to-ground munitions, and for now at least there are no external fuel tanks to compensate for that. If Rafale carries external tanks, it will have range advantage, which will be equalized once (if) F-35 gets external tanks.

Payload

Rafale has maximum payload of 9.480 kg, whereas F-35 has maximum payload of 8.160 kg. However, three 380 US gal tanks will weight ~3.900 kg (tank + fuel), reducing Rafale’s useful payload to 5.580 kg, while F-35 in “clean” configuration will carry only 2.268 kg of air-to-ground weapons. Rafale with three external fuel tanks will carry two large air-to-ground weapons and four air-to-air missiles, while F-35 in non-stealth configuration will carry two external fuel tanks, four air-to-ground weapons and four air-to-air missiles. Consequently, while Rafale can either carry much greater weapons load, or achieve far greater range, F-35 strikes more useful balance between range and payload.

Survivability

F-35s high wing loading reduces gust sensitivity; when combined with internal weapons carriage, it significantly increases low-altitude speed achievable. It can also choose wether to fly low or high, as its low RCS will provide survivability advantage against X-band radars.

Rafale’s close-coupled canards also reduce gust sensitivity, but its external weapons carriage increases drag and reduces speed (Mach 0,8 maximum in certain configurations). It also causes large RCS increase when flying up high, though at low altitudes it is not a major issue.

Rafale does have advantage in terms of damage tolerance. Two engines mean that one engine may survive in the case that other engine is hit (this is not given, as engines are fairly close together). Fuel distribution is more favorable for survivability, and fuel will be cooler than F-35s as Rafale does not use it as a coolant. Its canard-delta configuration also provides overlapping control surfaces in case of damage. Overall, however, F-35 will have survivability advantage due to internal bomb carriage and lesser need for external fuel tanks in air-to-ground missions. F-35s maneuvering performance will be less degraded in air-to-ground missions due to carrying internal AtG munitions, though issue of pylon g limits still remains. Rafale however, has superior basic performance, so it still does not mean that F-35 will be more agile. In fact, Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles. F-35A can only sustain 4,6 g when in clean configuration.

Performance in specific missions

In deep strike, both aircraft have similar combat radius (1.090 km for Rafale, 1.082 km for F-35). However, Rafale will be flying at low altitude in order to reduce probability of detection, which will make it vulnerable to small-arms fire, AAA and MANPADS. F-35 will stay at 30.000 ft, keeping out of the range of most threats. VHF SAMs will still be able to engage it, but long- and medium- -range radar SAMs are not as large danger as shorter-ranged air defense weapons. On the other hand, Rafale will carry 12 air-to-ground weapons, compared to only two for the F-35.

Both aircraft are capable of SEAD/DEAD. Rafale can use SPECTRA to target SAMs at long range, and active cancellation can be used to reduce RCS, likely only against older radar types. F-35s lower RCS allows it to come closer to SAM radar, reducing weapons flight time and improving accuracy. As a result, F-35 is likely to achieve better results for a given number of weapons whereas Rafale can carry larger payload and attack from longer range. However, standoff attacks may be effective, of reduced effectiveness or even completely ineffective against mobile SAMs, depending on weapons employment range and SAM mobility (time to pack up and leave). Considering that SA-6 needs 5 minutes to pack up and leave, Storm Shadow cruise missile can be employed from at most 80 km for assured effectiveness (1.000 kph speed), despite having nominal range of 560 km. Vostok-E manufacturer claims 72 km detection range against F-117A in a jammed environment or 352 km in unjammed environment; these ranges will likely be same or higher against F-35, unless it is flying below radar horizon (65 km at 500 m altitude). F-16 will be detected at 100-200 km in jammed environment, and Rafale’s performance even when loaded will be better than that. F-35 at Mach 1,6 will cover 72 km in 2,5 minutes, or 4,2 minutes at Mach 0,95. Rafale at low altitude will cover 65 km in 2,8 minutes at speed of 750 knots (4 minutes at 529 knots with heavy air-to-ground load). As it can be seen, SA-6 is vulnerable to both F-35 and Rafale, despite its new versions being one of the most mobile SAMs in existence. However, F-35 will need jammer support to achieve this performance, whereas Rafale can do it on its own, but will have to utilize nap-of-the-earth flying and expose itself to AAA and MANPADS. Consequently, package price is at minimum one Rafale (90 million USD) vs 1 F-35 + 1 F-18G (a total of >198 million USD), allowing Rafales larger force presence and higher lethality (better ability to find and hit mobile SAMs) but at a price of greater vulnerability and reduced situational awareness. More data on SAM mobility (and other technical data) can be found here. It should be noted that S-400 has instantaneous turn rate of 22 deg/s at sea level, compared to 30 deg/s at unknown altitude for Rafale and 26,6 deg/s at 15.000 ft for F-35; consequently, both aircraft can easily evade it but only if they eject air-to-ground weapons and external tanks.

Neither Rafale or F-35 is capable of carrying out close air support. Both aircraft are thin-skinned, with insufficient number of gun bursts, too high cruise speed and lack of endurance. Further, being multirole, their pilots cannot be trained well enough to carry out proper CAS. If used in the role, Rafale has advantage of significantly more lethal and more precise gun.

Ground survivability

Ground survivability includes possibility of camouflage and ability to operate from road bases. Latter includes STOL capability, wingspan limits, fuel consumption and ease of maintenance considerations. Wingspan should not be greater than 8,74 meters.

Rafale can take off in 590 meters (rolling takeoff) and land in 490 meters. Wingspan is 10,8 meters. Fuel consumption is 1.330 kg/h (?) kg/h cruise, 7.808 kg/h at maximum dry thrust and 25.126 kg/h afterburning.

F-35A requires 2.400 m runway for safe operations, which indicates 1.200 meter takeoff requirement. F-35B can take off in 173 meters (with 2 JDAM, 2 AMRAAM and fuel to fly 450 nm; rolling takeoff) and land vertically; this performance likely requires jump ramp. Wingspan is 10,7 meters for the F-35A and B variants. Fuel consumption is 2.721 kg/h cruise, 8.890 kg/h at maximum dry thrust and 39.000 kg/h with afterburner.

As it can be seen, there is significant difference in aircraft on-ground survivability in Rafale’s favor. Rafale also requires far smaller maintenance support and far less fuel for operations, leading to reduced logistical footprint.

Conclusion

Rafale is significantly superior to F-35 in air-to-air combat (both WVR and BVR), which is logical as it was designed primarily for air-to-air missions. In air-to-ground combat, either can be a better choice, depending on mission requirements.

Further reading

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale-334383/

View at Medium.com

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/comparing-modern-fighter-aircraft/

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/comparing-modern-western-fighters/

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/dassault-rafale-analysis/

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/f-35-analysis/

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/saab-gripen-vs-f-35/

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/rafale-vs-f-35-dogfight-performance/

102 thoughts on “Dassault Rafale vs F-35”

  1. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-it-was-like-being-a-topgun-instructor-while-they-f-1655347873

    A very interesting review of a book about Top Gun both the movie and school. I posted here because I think it has bearing on the subject of pilot training. About half way through the article gives an excerpt of the book which describes a day of training at Top Gun: 3 one hour flights with 3 engagements per flight. This is going on for 5 weeks. Assuming a two day week-end that gives about 75 hours of flight per month, all Air-to-Air training, and not basic stuff just advanced starting stuff and tactics starting with 1v1 then 1v2 then 2v2 and for the last half of the course 2 v unknown number.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. I think it may reflect the different design strategies.

    The French clearly have at least partially learned from the past and kept that in mind when designing their aircraft. The US has remained willfully ignorant of them.

    The F-35 is not an aircraft for fighting wars I am afraid. Do you realize how much closer to WWII most of our military equipment should be?

    Like

    Reply

    1. Agreed. Newer technology =/= better, but main purpose of modern weapons is to be profitable.

      US haven’t remained entirely ignorant of these lessons, F-22, F-15, F-16 and F-18 show that they have accepted that maneuverability is necessary, but F-35 was never designed as an air-to-air fighter, period. It was only pressed in the role once F-22 production stopped.

      Like

      Reply

  3. Thank you Picard for your work, this one is a bit more fair toward the F-35 as it allows for its strengh to come into play. (I’m not advocating for it, it’s still inefficient in cost/tactical value/logistical constraint aspects, but it does have some strengh for sure.)

    About supercruise:

    It seems the F-35 not being able to reach supersonic speed on dry thrust is not so much a determinent factor, as Rafale pilots have suggested (unoficially during last Le Bourget Air Show) that this capacity is not so useful. Actually time spend in transonic to supersonic regimes is costly and also uncomfortable both for pilot and airframe, so they say it’s better to push the throttle, get rid of the sonic boom and all, and then pull throttle back and keep supercruising. It sure costs more fuel, but they say it’s worth the expense.
    I assume on a raw interception profile with four Micas, two Metors and two supersonic (1200L?) tanks it’s more important to climb quick and reach max cruise speed soon, than doing it economically indeed, given there is some margin in fuel VS target distance. (which cannot be that great, since we’re talking about an intercept not a ferrying journey.)

    +However, unability to keep supersonic airspeed on dry thrust is IMO a big flaw considering F-35 deep penetration purpose and possibility of Nuclear Strike especially.
    In itself it also deny by all means claims of “supercruise”. (seems everybody have it’s own definition acording to it’s agenda. As far as I understand it, it just tells being able to keep supersonic airspeed steady on a level flight for a significant period of time.)

    About CAS:

    ” If used in the role, Rafale has advantage of significantly more lethal and more precise gun.”

    +It is true in theory, but it has transpired that GIAT 30mm gun isn’t accomplishing satisfyingly it’s task, being susceptible to overheating (not whistanding its high fire rate). I heard Nexter is working on reducing fire rate.
    Whilst it doesn’t matter in this situation, it is also reported having a much lower dispertion than pilots needs (due to being designed to work with a software which finally wasn’t developped), harming it’s AtA efficiency.

    A note about active jamming VS “stealth” passive RCS reduction:

    +I understand radar specialists are focusing researches more on further detection of the air surrounding the aircraft than the aircraft itself. If true, wouldn’t it mean future detections systems would not only cancel “stealth” desing advantages, but also making them even more vulnerable to detection since they tends to perturbate air more than conventional aerodynamic designs?

    Like

    Reply

    1. “+ It seems the F-35 not being able to reach supersonic speed on dry thrust is not so much a determinent factor”

      Reaching supersonic speed on dry thrust is useless, period. Even F-22 never does it.

      “+However, unability to keep supersonic airspeed on dry thrust is IMO a big flaw considering F-35 deep penetration purpose and possibility of Nuclear Strike especially.”

      IIRC, F-35 is supposed to cruise at 30.000 ft and once in combat zone drop to the deck. Its high wing loading actually is ideal for high-speed low-altitude penetration, though it will have issues due to vulnerability to AAA. At low altitudes, it won’t be able to achieve supersonic speed anyway.

      That being said, if they decide to use hi-hi-hi, then it will be a big flaw indeed.

      “As far as I understand it, it just tells being able to keep supersonic airspeed steady on a level flight for a significant period of time”

      That would be the most correct definition. Some early supercruisers (MiG-31, Concorde) actually supercruised at 60.000 ft (MiG-31, going by memory here) and with reheat.

      “+It is true in theory, but it has transpired that GIAT 30mm gun isn’t accomplishing satisfyingly it’s task, being susceptible to overheating (not whistanding its high fire rate).”

      Interesting. When it becomes an issue, exactly? If it is only an issue in 1 second or longer bursts, then it is not a problem for AtA work.

      “+I understand radar specialists are focusing researches more on further detection of the air surrounding the aircraft than the aircraft itself. If true, wouldn’t it mean future detections systems would not only cancel “stealth” desing advantages, but also making them even more vulnerable to detection since they tends to perturbate air more than conventional aerodynamic designs?”

      Correct. IIRC, I mentioned aerosoil / vortice detection as one of possible counter-stealth measures in my F-22 analysis. It is also possible to use LIDAR for that same purpose, it should give 80-100 km detection range if what I found is true.

      Like

      Reply

      2. Actually, I can’t read French. I’m a Croatian, my nickname is simply a legacy of my love for Star Trek (I started watching it simply because of Patrick Stewart’s performance in ST:TNG, and continued watching it for a ton of different reasons). I can sometimes get a gist of what the article is about with few French words I do know and some that are similar to English counterparts, but that’s it. When I have to read French, I typically use Google Translate. 🙂

        Like

      4. “Interesting. When it becomes an issue, exactly? If it is only an issue in 1 second or longer bursts, then it is not a problem for AtA work.”

        +Actually I don’t know. What I have understood is the gun have had repeated blockages issues due to overheat. Considering the poor numbers of ammunitions in the aircraft, I reckon it must have happened quickly.

        Information about Nexter working on reducing fire-rate rather than trying to solve the issue is just wispers heard around, so don’t take it as solid fact, but for my part I believe it.
        (If they had any intentions of correcting the flaws of that gun they would have begun by developping the “conduite de tir automatique” software.)

        Like

  4. Hi
    Thanks for that detailed matchup.
    I’m curious if you have the sources about some startling claimed numbers :
    “Meteor range of 315 km” : my own guess would have been 160-200km, in ideal situation (head to head, non manoeuvering target)

    Like

    Reply

  6. There’s an interview with Pierre Sprey now on the A-10.
    http://www.1041kqth.com/podcast/harris/321819322.html

    It’s a detailed history about the A-10 and the details behind it. It’s about 30 minutes long, but worthy a listen.

    Avery Kay apparently was the one who was responsible for much of the A-10 because he wrote some of the Key West and he realized that they didn’t follow up on their honoring the “provide CAS to the Army’ part of the agreement.

    See this as well:
    https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/08/19/the-a-10-had-a-very-peculiar-birth/

    There is also a brief history of the Fighter Mafia and the EM Theory. The other is the reform movement and the DO&TE. A lot of of it is stuff that you’ve probably seen, but, there is also some new stuff.

    Then there’s the air force killing the successor to the A-10 and Sprey’s opinions on the JSF.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks, will take a look at podcast when I manage to download it. Regarding the article, I already knew about Cheyenne-killing (Blacktail had something about it) but I didn’t know the details.

      Like

      Reply

  7. I have another update about Rafale and a question.

    On tuesday 15th of september 2015, Rafales C and B of ECE 5/330 “Côte d’argent” (Fighting experimentation Squadron) validated SATCOM datalink over a 3 and half hour flight.
    The whole flight has been monitored from CEAM operators (Center of Military Aerial Expertise), which were exchanging communications of both operational and experimental Nature.

    DGA and Dassault claim the Rafale is now present on the whole datalink spectrum.

    from french defense ministry (in french):
    http://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/communaute-defense/de-nouvelles-capacites-pour-le-rafale

    Honnestly I can’t tell how much of a step it is and why it is important (Satelite coms are rather vulnerable after all), although I recall hearing that pilots were making a fuss about the radio (not encrypted coms, just the damn good old radio system used for standard procedure in real life and exercise protocols). They were saying that it usually don’t work, when it rarely does quality is awfull and it require to keep the plane level and steady. Sounds surprising but since it has been repeated by several pilots it’s probably true. Possibly radio antenna location has not been dictated for radio optimisation but rather to not hamper main objectives of discretion and jamming.

    So maybe it is just (part of) a solution to allow for normal communications in acceptable quality, as the article mention they were chatting during the flight.
    Or else it could be a way to enable communications (and possibly datalink) to and from new US platforms which are not Link-16 compatible (namely F-22 and F-35). Are those using SATCOM or would it require an AWACS to convert data?

    Like

    Reply

    1. I think they should just fix damn radio before making fuss about SATCOM.

      F-35 has SATCOM, it will be funny if it turns out that Rafale and F-35 can talk only to each other but nobody else (OK, good ol’ Growler is also supposed to have SATCOM, but still…).

      Like

      Reply

      1. “I think they should just fix damn radio before making fuss about SATCOM.”

        -Sounds logical, but after 10 years+ of pilot whinning it’s still as bad, so I guess either it’s not that simple to fix, or they really don’t care that much.

        “F-35 has SATCOM, it will be funny if it turns out that Rafale and F-35 can talk only to each other but nobody else”

        -Yeah, somehow it’s funny, especially considering USA were formerly the ones imposing Link-16. Makes me think french are resignated they will have to cooperate with all F-35 equiped allies (the whole of NATO plus most other usual allies as well, bar Sweden). So they pragmaticaly found a way past the Link-16 obsolescence problem.

        Like

      2. “-Sounds logical, but after 10 years+ of pilot whinning it’s still as bad, so I guess either it’s not that simple to fix, or they really don’t care that much.”

        Yeah, I guess there probably isn’t any space inside the aircraft to shift it to.

        “-Yeah, somehow it’s funny, especially considering USA were formerly the ones imposing Link-16. Makes me think french are resignated they will have to cooperate with all F-35 equiped allies (the whole of NATO plus most other usual allies as well, bar Sweden). So they pragmaticaly found a way past the Link-16 obsolescence problem.”

        Probably. But most contries that are buying F-35 are buying it for ground attack and relying on other platforms (F-22, Typhoon) for air superiority. So there is still an issue of not being able to communicate with anything but the F-35. Or they will ask Rafales to fly air cover whenever F-35s go to hit something?

        Like

      3. “Probably. But most contries that are buying F-35 are buying it for ground attack and relying on other platforms (F-22, Typhoon) for air superiority. So there is still an issue of not being able to communicate with anything but the F-35. Or they will ask Rafales to fly air cover whenever F-35s go to hit something?”

        More likely the nations that buy the JSF will be totally reliant on other nations for air superiority. The sheer expense means that for everyone but the US, they cannot afford much else.

        Like

      4. “Yeah, I guess there probably isn’t any space inside the aircraft to shift it to.”

        -Still, they obviously found there was some place to fit a new SATCOM antenna. 😉
        By the way first installations of it (but not same model) were during Rafale assisted testing of the Neuron drone. So its another possible purpose: Datalink with “stealth drones” used to provide target informations from far nearer to the ground threats than Rafale could risk to be. I think I already heard about this doctrine for the future of french AdA, at least Dassault seems to be pushing this way.

        It’s not stupid when you think about it. They’re trying to have both the advantages of “radar steath” platforms while not compromising standard airframes. Making them work in unity, so that Rafales pilots can use drones as cover / weapons / remotely controled pod providing illumination and Reco.

        “More likely the nations that buy the JSF will be totally reliant on other nations for air superiority. The sheer expense means that for everyone but the US, they cannot afford much else.”

        -Even more likely is other NATO platforms will progressively get SATCOM like Rafale just did, or F-35 and F-22 finally getting Link-16 transmition enabled in some secured form.
        BTW Wikipedia of the Raptor states that ” Upgrades due in 2015 will allow the F-22 to employ the AIM-9X and have full Link 16 reception and transmission capability”.For what its worth.

        Like

      5. “By the way first installations of it (but not same model) were during Rafale assisted testing of the Neuron drone. So its another possible purpose: Datalink with “stealth drones” used to provide target informations from far nearer to the ground threats than Rafale could risk to be. I think I already heard about this doctrine for the future of french AdA, at least Dassault seems to be pushing this way. ”

        Saab also has proposed something similar for Gripen.

        “It’s not stupid when you think about it. They’re trying to have both the advantages of “radar steath” platforms while not compromising standard airframes. Making them work in unity, so that Rafales pilots can use drones as cover / weapons / remotely controled pod providing illumination and Reco.”

        Agreed. Albeit I’m a bit sceptical about how stealthy “stealth” drones are against VHF and HF radars. Though if shaped properly, they may fare better than F-117.

        Like

      6. Yes, but if your drone is stealthy and is transmitting/receiving, would not it not defeat the whole idea of stealth?

        Like

      7. Not really. Stealth would be there not to hide it but simply to make engagement more difficult, allowing it to come closer to target and provide more precise targeting information – so as long as transmissions cannot be used to target the drone (e.g., radar emissions), it is fine. If you are using drones for stealth recon, then yes, transmitting would defeat the purpose of stealth; but in this scenario, drone would work alongside nonstealth aircraft anyway.

        Like

      8. “Saab also has proposed something similar for Gripen.”

        Of course they did and probably also tested. Dassault and SAAB where the leaders of the NEURON program, they were the only twp entities involved in every aspect of NEURON but DASSAULT had nominal leadership.
        Coincidentally I chatted a bit a few years back with the sales manager of SAAB’s unmanned division. They are pushing for a completely different operating mode then the US. What SAAB (and probably also Dassault and BAe) are working on are truly Autonomous Unmanned Vehicles, not SATCOM remotely piloted Vehicles like Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk, that can be controlled from a Gripen (or Rafale or Eurofighter).

        Like

      10. “Yes, but if your drone is stealthy and is transmitting/receiving, would not it not defeat the whole idea of stealth?”

        “Not really. Stealth would be there not to hide it but simply to make engagement more difficult, allowing it to come closer to target and provide more precise targeting information – so as long as transmissions cannot be used to target the drone (e.g., radar emissions), it is fine. If you are using drones for stealth recon, then yes, transmitting would defeat the purpose of stealth; but in this scenario, drone would work alongside nonstealth aircraft anyway.”

        -Plus if they’re using directional transmition, like I believe americans are doing, they should be ok. I don’t know if the Rafale is using directional or multidirectional emissions, but with the SATCOM module placed on top of the plane, behind the cockpit they’re at least protected from ground interception.

        ” What SAAB (and probably also Dassault and BAe) are working on are truly Autonomous Unmanned Vehicles, not SATCOM remotely piloted Vehicles like Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk, that can be controlled from a Gripen (or Rafale or Eurofighter).”

        -That’s rather surprising, considering European frilosity on the legal aspects of drones, as opposed to USA.
        IIRC Europeans govts are still unanimously against allowing unmaned aerial vehicle in civil traffic, not even talking about armed drones. With that recurent legit posture it would be bold from them using totally autonomous drones.

        Sounds like its more the vision of the industrials than the one of politics. I fear they are uncompatible.

        USA on the other hand would rather easily embrace that doctrine. They’re not far from it, and are certainly not much embarassed with legal aspects in their current usage of drones.

        Like

      11. “-That’s rather surprising, considering European frilosity on the legal aspects of drones, as opposed to USA.
        IIRC Europeans govts are still unanimously against allowing unmanned aerial vehicle in civil traffic, not even talking about armed drones. With that recurent legit posture it would be bold from them using totally autonomous drones.”

        Pardon my French, but what are you babbling about? European governments are not against allowing unmanned aerial vehicles in civil traffic. In fact Switzerland is a trend setter in this regard having an effective legislation which allows regular usage of UAVs in non-restricted air-space by both military and civilian agencies, both government and private. The chat I had with SAAB manager was at a working meeting in Brussels at Eurocontrol (unified ATM agency of EU) in a project about setting minimal avionics requirements for un-restricted access of UAV both civilian and military armed or not in Eurocontrol manged space. So I don’t understand what you mean about frilosity (is that even a word?). European governments are more careful about allowing RPVs in civilian air-space but that is only because of the limited situational awareness of a remote pilot and the much higher congestion of European air-space when compared to US (we don’t have large desert borders to patrol). Meanwhile instead of going for a limited temporary solution like the US has about drone usage (what the US dose when using drones is basically declaring a corridor of about 100 km in length and 20 km width around the drone as military restricted air-space) the EU is working on a set of permanent regulations to allow autonomous UAVs, un-restricted access to civilian air-space. So SAAB and Dassault working on autonomous UAVs is actually encouraged by the European governments, in fact part of the financing for NEURON came from the EU research project that I talked at the beginning of this post.

        Like

  8. I think that in the American mainstream media, although sometimes they mention the cost overruns, the real mission, to send money to Lockheed is almost taboo. It’s only smaller stations like the one that I linked that say these types of things.

    I’ve noticed that here in Canada, the CBC grants Pierre Sprey an interview and Winslow Wheeler was allowed to the Canadian parliament. See below:
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/09/06/parliamentary-lights/

    Australia, whatever it’s other failings did allow its national broadcaster, the ABC to air that documentary about the F-35. Even though the right-wing government there ended up going with it, at least you saw a serious debate there.

    I mean there are other “taboos”. An example is the refugee crisis right now. This whole thing would have been avoided had the US not invaded Iraq in 2003 under falsified reasons. Likewise, their actions supporting Syrian rebels (I find that bizarre, they are trying to overthrow Assad, yet fight ISIS in Iraq) has caused this current crisis. I have noticed that nobody calls out the neoconservatives in the mainstream American press.

    I can only conclude that it’s advertising money or to toe the corporate line that they want.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Yeah, I agree.

      “I mean there are other “taboos”. An example is the refugee crisis right now. This whole thing would have been avoided had the US not invaded Iraq in 2003 under falsified reasons. Likewise, their actions supporting Syrian rebels (I find that bizarre, they are trying to overthrow Assad, yet fight ISIS in Iraq) has caused this current crisis. I have noticed that nobody calls out the neoconservatives in the mainstream American press. ”

      I’ll be writing an article about that crisis after I finish the article I’m currently writing, but I believe that it was engineered by Western (US, UK, possibly France and Germany as well) capitalists in order to destroy the Europe and push forward their plans for north-Atlantic corporatistic multicultural empire. Because like it or not, nation states are the greatest barrier against neoliberal policies. Multiculturalism, as understood in the West, only helps corporatists.

      Like

      Reply

    2. Well for sure it was engineered by the US and the UK, as they invaded Iraq to begin with, plus they deregulated their banking sectors, leading to a financial meltdown.

      Being an immigrant myself to Canada, perhaps I’m a bit biased, but in some nations, Canada and Australia especially, immigration has been quite good for their respective economies.

      The situation is different in Europe. You could argue that the Nordic nations and perhaps the UK have not seen such gains, though, and it’s led to the rise of right-wing racist and essentially proto-fascist political parties though. Same in France too. I can see how homogenous societies at times have fewer problems and less ethnic tension. Perhaps the main reason is because Canada has been more selective about immigrants, only accepting well educated ones or ones with very specific skills.

      There is also the fact that many corporations deliberately try to immigrate people to drive wages low too in some areas. In Canada, we had a scandal when our banking sector tried to do that.

      I don’t blame the refugees for this though, they were victims of what was beyond their control. They are just trying to get away from the worst of the fighting and survive.

      I mean you could argue the same thing about the Greeks too and what happened with the debt crisis. Contrary to the media’s “lazy Greek, productive German” rhetoric, the Greeks work some of the longest hours in Europe:
      http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/dec/08/europe-working-hours

      Yeah it’s definitely the corporatist trying to push an agenda though. As I said, society is either going to look like George Orwell’s 1984 then collapse (especially if the corporate faction gets what it wants) or it’s going to end up like the Federation in Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek (well maybe not a Federation of many planets and races, depending on if faster-than-light travel is practical, and of course if there are other races), assuming society learns from the past.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Being an immigrant myself to Canada, perhaps I’m a bit biased, but in some nations, Canada and Australia especially, immigration has been quite good for their respective economies. ”

        That depends on what immigrants are like. If they are willing to accept cultural values of country they are settling in, no problem. But most of those entering Europe now are not willing to do that. But you can’t expect completely unconditional help…

        “There is also the fact that many corporations deliberately try to immigrate people to drive wages low too in some areas.”

        That is actually the entire reason (or most of it) for many politicians welcoming immigration. And, I believe, a good part of a reason behind the Arab Spring (which caused this).

        “I don’t blame the refugees for this though, they were victims of what was beyond their control. They are just trying to get away from the worst of the fighting and survive. ”

        True.

        “As I said, society is either going to look like George Orwell’s 1984 then collapse (especially if the corporate faction gets what it wants) or it’s going to end up like the Federation in Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek (well maybe not a Federation of many planets and races, depending on if faster-than-light travel is practical, and of course if there are other races), assuming society learns from the past.”

        It is moving steadily in the former direction, where it will end up…

        Like

      2. Yeah I think you are right about the integration part. Perhaps there is a certain selection bias there amongst what might be called “high quality” immigrants. They are typically well educated, who want to learn about living in a new culture, and perhaps a new language. So they can assimilate much more easily than others. Plus they want to succeed in their adopted homeland, which makes it all the easier.

        The problems:
        – The others though are displaced, often involuntarily so, and less willing to change their ways. They don’t “want” to change their ways – in fact for refugees, they would have stayed if they could have, but the situation in their home has become so dire that they cannot. As I said, I don’t blame them for this – they are often moving because of circumstances beyond their control (in this case the greed of the very rich).
        – Another problem may be that ethnic tensions rise when too many immigrants are let in (not enough time to let assimilate). I think that the race-riots that we have seen throughout Europe (like the cartoons in Denmark) were caused by not assimilating well. The issue I think is that when a group reaches a certain number, if they want to, they can be more assertive due to strength in numbers.
        – A final question is what marketable skills does a given group of immigrants have? If they do come from a well educated background, it will be difficult, but they will adapt. The ones that are not will be a drain on society, consuming healthcare and social security, while not generating as much back in economic activity.

        I’m not saying society should never be compassionate, but it should be aware of the consequences if it wishes to let in refugees. It will be an act of charity, not an act of economic growth.

        If society wants economic growth, than the “high quality” only screening will have to be the way. They will be a drain at first (and I will admit my family was too), but over time, they will create more growth than they drain. The thing is, immigrants, although they compete for jobs, also create demand for services, goods, and by extension create jobs too. They also pay taxes when they buy things and work. The issue is creating more than they take, thereby benefiting society. My guess is, the refugees will not, but the high quality ones will.

        The corporations are the ones that deserve the blame since they started this whole thing to begin with. They wanted to try to lower wages. and make the money off of the wars. It’s being used as an economic weapon to transfer money to the rich.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Pingback: Comparing modern Western fighters « Defense Issues
  10. Pingback: Comparing modern fighter aircraft « Defense Issues

  11. Once again, very precise article Picard!

    About air to ground mission, and deep strike precisely:
    In my opinion, Rafale is unique.
    Rafale has automatic following terrain allowing it to perform 600kts at 100ft, in all weather conditions, day and night. It can perform it without any electromagnetic transmission (keeping it silent). For that, Rafale uses prerecorded maps datas. If necessary (unprecises prerecorded maps or very long run), it will only turns its radar on few seconds in air to ground mod (at a location where radar waves can be covered by relief for example), once or twice, to compare real radar image and prerecorded one, in order to adjust route.

    Low level/high speed deep strike is something l’Armée de l’Air is very very well trained for.
    We can say that this type of flight is historicaly, a french speciality.
    French Mirage IIIE were able to do that at 450Kts/1000ft (or less sometime) in all weather conditions without any automatic stuffs, using the technics called “la ficelle”.

    If at briefing, SAM sites positions and types are known or even predicted:
    The route chosen, plus automatic following terrain at high speed, low level, plus SPECTRA to be aware of not known threats and for self defence, will make Rafale a very difficult target to track, then, very difficult to engage.
    Add to that, AASM, able to be fired from low level at 90° (or 180° if necessary) from the targets at more than 20 Nm. (6 ASSM can be fired on 6 targets in less than 1 minute.)
    For strategic targets, SCALP or ASMP-A, can be used in low level from hundreds Nm.

    All that make me believe that Rafale is the most dangerous plane for deep strike, especialy above not flat terrain.
    And from what i know, i will always prefer to perform a strike as low and as fast as possible than from medium or high altitude. Firing solutions against a plane at low altitude/high speed (from air or from ground) are very short. Firing solutions against a “slow” plane at medium/high altitude are vast.

    If i had to choose Rafale’s best capabilities, i would say:
    Its ability to remain silent in all type of missions, its maneuverability, its payload, its situation awarness, its omirole qualities, its plug and play capabilities for further evolutions, and its deep strike qualities.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Once again, very precise article Picard!”

      Thanks.

      “All that make me believe that Rafale is the most dangerous plane for deep strike, especialy above not flat terrain.”

      Agreed.

      “And from what i know, i will always prefer to perform a strike as low and as fast as possible than from medium or high altitude. Firing solutions against a plane at low altitude/high speed (from air or from ground) are very short. Firing solutions against a “slow” plane at medium/high altitude are vast.”

      True. And at low altitude main danger is optically-aimed AAA, whith secondary danger of IR SAMs / MANPADS. Radar-guided AAA and SAMs are impotent due to jammability and long lockon times vs maneuvering target. Hence importance of small size and IR signature reduction (latter is heavily applied to both Rafale (low-level strike) and A-10 (close air support)).

      “Its ability to remain silent in all type of missions, its maneuverability, its payload, its situation awarness, its omirole qualities, its plug and play capabilities for further evolutions, and its deep strike qualities.”

      Completely agree.

      Like

      Reply

  12. Would you happen to be able to provide any bilbiography or valuable public source about the following elements?
    -SPECTRA radar elements capabilities
    -SPECTRA IR elements capabilities and DAS capabilities
    -OSF capabilities
    -EOTS capabilties

    Very interesting article. Best regards.

    Like

    Reply

  13. What about the externally mounted weapons? Do they have a noticeable effect on visibility on radar, if that would be the standard payload setup on the Rafale? I hear that was the whole hair-brained idea behind putting the weapons inside the F-35. (could of just kept the F-22’s and made something new but… etc)

    But assuming that the F-35 has a higher signature from it’s chubby size, this has already been figured into the calculations? “Stealth” is really only useful until you are detected, a lot of wasted superstition that gimped the F-35?

    Regardless of RCS, wouldn’t the round exterior of a missile on the wing be an excellent radar reflector? Especially when ground-to-air is looking for you? Or does the magical stealth paint make those invisible too?

    I can see “stealth” in dogfight scenarios, but if you have a missile battery actively pinging you, won’t it see the missiles hanging on the bottom of a jet pretty fast?

    (Also, I need some of this awesome magical stealth paint). But I guess I’m screwed with IR either way, right!

    Like

    Reply

    1. “What about the externally mounted weapons? Do they have a noticeable effect on visibility on radar, if that would be the standard payload setup on the Rafale?”

      They do have noticeable effect, enough so that “proper” stealth fighters (those with base RCS of less than 0,01 m2) simply have to carry them internally.

      ““Stealth” is really only useful until you are detected, a lot of wasted superstition that gimped the F-35?”

      Stealth does have make engagement harder as well. But seeing as how radar-guided missiles are easy enough to fool with countermeasures, I see no real value in radar stealth. IR missiles are far more dangerous, so IR stealth is more important – but RCS reduction measures tend to increase both visual and IR signatures.

      “Regardless of RCS, wouldn’t the round exterior of a missile on the wing be an excellent radar reflector?”

      It would. Missile’s fins also create scattering hotspots, and pylon has considerable effect as well. With proper setup and angling it is possible to significantly reduce that effect from the front, but not from the side.

      “Especially when ground-to-air is looking for you? Or does the magical stealth paint make those invisible too?”

      Eh, stealth paint can reduce RCS by one order of magnitude at most (say, from 1 to 0,1 m2). This cuts detection distance to little more than half (56% of the original, to be exact). Remaining RCS reduction has to be achieved by shaping.

      “I can see “stealth” in dogfight scenarios, but if you have a missile battery actively pinging you, won’t it see the missiles hanging on the bottom of a jet pretty fast?”

      Yes, it would. And stealth in dogfight scenarios is kinda useless. The entire idea of stealth is to control the way radar signals reflect off the aircraft. You can do that at BVR and against ground radars, where change of aspect is slow and relatively predictable. In dogfight, it is an impossibility. That being said, simple fact that aircraft are maneuvering relative to each other can screw radar quite badly as well, but that has nothing to do with stealth but rather with changing reflections.

      “But I guess I’m screwed with IR either way, right!”

      Something like that, yes.

      Like

      Reply

  14. Also on a side note, the engine(s) of the Rafale and F-35 are both on the back, exposed and expelling a lot of heat… and saying “Hi” in lots of detectable ways. There are other planes that demonstrate at least trying to hide their exhaust.

    And make sure to cover you undercarriage when releasing bombs, F-35, because we know how much radar loves open bomb bays.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Also on a side note, the engine(s) of the Rafale and F-35 are both on the back, exposed and expelling a lot of heat… and saying “Hi” in lots of detectable ways.”

      Actually, both try to hide the exhaust. Rafale’s M88 engine has a second nozzle around the primary one, which hides the hottest part of the exhaust from most angles. F-35 achieves similar effect by hiding (or trying to hide) the nozzle with tail booms, but these only hide it from sides, not from top and bottom.

      Rafale’s nozzle

      F-35s nozzle

      But seeing F-35s lack of supercruise and hugely powerful engine, its IR signature reduction measures are putting lipstick on an ugly pig, as it were.

      Like

      Reply
  17. Pingback: PAK FA vs F-22 « Defense Issues

  18. Hi, I just wondered how a F-35B and a F-35C would perform against a Rafale M, as they are going to fulffill the same mission, depending of their CATOBAR or STOBAR carrier. The answer is probably going to be “badly” but as they aren’t able to have as much G as the F-35A, I was just wondering.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Badly, yes. F-35B will perform the worst, as it has both high wing loading of A and low g limit of C. F-35C may even perform relatively well, depending on conditions – while its low g limit and low TWR are definetly big problems in an energy fight, at low speeds at or below 7,5 g corner speed its low (compared to other F-35 variants) wing loading will allow it to perform better than other two variants. Not well enough to match Rafale however, as even Rafale M has lower wing loading and higher TWR than F-35C, plus superior aerodynamics.

      Like

      Reply

      1. It seems to be harder than usual to find spec of F-35B despite being the first one to have IOC (even if it’s purely political)

        Like

      2. Yeah, for that reason I have written down specs of all fighters of interest in a single document I use as reference, though portions of it might be slightly outdated, especially regarding fighters which are of less interest to me (any non-NATO fighters, in other words).

        Like

      3. It could interest peoples if you had data on F-35B and F-35C too as it is in fact 3 different aircraft based onone prototype.

        Like

      4. F-35A

        Length: 15,7 m
        Wing span: 10,7 m
        Height: 4,6 m
        Wing area: 42,7 m2
        Tail area: 11,8 m2

        Turn rates:
        9 g @ 370 kts and 15.000 ft (26,6 deg/s ITR)
        4,95 g @ M 0,8 and 15.000 ft (10,8 deg/s STR)
        300 deg/s roll

        Wing loading
        522,9 kg/m2 loaded
        425,5 kg/m2 with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder and 4 AMRAAM
        383,6 kg/m2 with 15% fuel fraction, 2 Sidewinder and 4 AMRAAM

        Thrust:
        12.700 kgf dry
        19.512 kgf wet

        Thrust to weight ratio
        0,874 loaded
        1,074 with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder and 4 AMRAAM
        1,191 with 15% fuel fraction, 2 Sidewinder and 4 AMRAAM

        Fuel fraction
        0,385 (13 199 kg empty, 8 280 kg fuel)

        Weight
        13 199 kg empty
        22 329 kg combat takeoff
        18 169 kg with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder and 4 AMRAAM (can carry only 4 missiles internally)
        16 378 kg with 15% fuel fraction, 2 Sidewinder and 4 AMRAAM

        Maximum AoA:
        50* operational
        110* aerodynamic (60-70* sustained)

        Speed
        Mach 1,67 dash
        Mach 0,95 sustained

        Combat radius
        1.082 km

        Fuel consumption:
        2.721 kg/h cruise
        8.890 kg/h dry
        39.000 kg/h afterburner

        AN/APG-81
        160 km vs 1m2 target

        EO DAS
        Range unknown.

        RCS:
        0,00143 m2 frontal
        0,01 m2 side and rear

        Operational G capability: 9 G @ 60% internal fuel
        Ultimate load factor: <1,5
        Ultimate G limit: <13,5

        Service ceilling: 50.000 ft
        Climb rate: 259 m/s

        F-35 Tested Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers from aviation

        http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

        Clean F-16 outturns clean F-35:
        https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvlimgf4g151bvd/Airjan2015.pdf?dl=0

        F-35B

        http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html

        Length: 15,6 m
        Wing span: 10,7 m
        Wing area: 42,7 m2

        Wing loading
        500,4 kg/m2 loaded
        430,8 kg/m2 with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder, 4 AMRAAM

        Thrust:
        12.250 kgf dry
        18.600 kgf wet
        17.872 kgf STOVL

        Thrust to weight ratio
        0,870 loaded
        1,011 with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder, 4 AMRAAM

        Fuel fraction
        0,29 (14 651 kg empty, 5 942 kg fuel)

        Weight
        14 651 kg empty
        21 368 kg loaded
        18 397 kg with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder, 4 AMRAAM

        Combat radius
        833 km

        Operational G capability: 7 G
        Ultimate G limit: <13,5

        F-35C

        Length: 15,7 m
        Wing span: 13,1 m
        Wing area: 62,1 m2

        Wing loading
        409 kg/m2 loaded
        338 kg/m2 with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder and 4 AMRAAM

        Thrust:
        12.700 kgf dry
        19.500 kgf wet

        Thrust to weight ratio
        0,77 loaded
        0,93 with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder, 4 AMRAAM

        Fuel fraction
        0,36 (15 785 kg empty, 8 860 kg fuel)

        Weight
        15 785 kg empty
        25 424 kg loaded
        20 994 kg with 50% fuel, 2 Sidewinder and 4 AMRAAM

        Combat radius
        1 100 km

        Operational G capability: 7,5 g
        Ultimate G limit: <13,5

        Like

  19. nice job, i just have one question : why do you say that’s rafale was designed primarily for air-to-air missions ? rafale was fully design to be a multirole aircraft, that’s was the purpose of the conception, it had to remplace old jaguar, mirage F1 and 2000, in opposition of eurofighter thyphoon

    Like

    Reply

    1. You cannot design an aircraft for all missions equally. You either optimize for air-to-air work or air-to-ground work, and then add on the compromises required by the second set. Rafale’s design, with low wing loading, moderately swept delta wing, close-coupled canards and high TWR, is optimized for maneuvering air combat, especially in close-in regime. Rafale’s Snecma M88 engine is also optimized more for air-to-air role than air-to-ground role, even more so than EJ200 (which, unlike M88, is based off an older engine designed for Tornado ground attack aircraft). This can be clearly seen from the bypass ratio: M88-2 has a bypass ratio of 0,3, compared to EJ200s 0,4, RM-12s 0,31, F119s 0,2 and F135s 0,57. You can see how greater focus on ground attack leads to higher bypass ratio. In fact, for purely air superiority fighter, a turbojet engine would be ideal due to superior supersonic and high altitude performance and quicker response time than is possible with turbofan (turbofan is simply a turbojet engine with added bypass; turbojet has bypass ratio of 0).

      As far as design goals go, out of Rafale’s five design requirements, three were for air-to-air missions, one of which destruction of low flying helicopters. Last two were payload and range in strike missions (latter of which is also relevant for air combat). Payload and range requirements led to a decision to design a medium-weight twin-engined aircraft, whereas lightweight single-engined aircraft would be optimal for air combat (see FLX 6). But its aerodynamics, sensors (IRST, MAWS) and weapons (gun in particular) are all optimized for air-to-air work.

      Like

      Reply

  20. Seen someone mentioned you here http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27364 , F-16.net are often full of fanboy so I decided to come here to see what it like :
    but i have to say that your analysis have too many mistakes for people with basic aircraft understanding to take it seriously
    here are few things
    1) Spectra doesnot provide firing solution again airborne target , no RWR can do that , even ALR-94 need APG-77 for ranging , and fighter can always share data with each other you will rarely ever seen the whole enemy formation with their radar on full power
    2) don’t make up detection range number for radar with and without jamming , you don’t have any data to back that up so it look very very unprofessional , if you want to write it then atleast use the radar equation , don’t just pull out some random number
    3) higher thrust doesnot equal higher IR signature , a Mi-26 or Tu-95 can easily have much higher thrust than Mig-21 in after burner but that doesn’t mean they have higher IR signature ( what is the BPR ? ) , and just because 1 engine have higher static thrust doesn’t mean it will also have higher thrust at altitude and high speed , ever wonder why LM say F-135 wasn’t designed for supercruise even though it have higher thrust than F-119 ? ( hint : it has to do with bypass and pressuare ratio )
    4) Rafale doesnot have ITR at 11g , just because some pilot does that once or twice doesn’t mean that rafale airframe will be alright after afew times fly at that limit or pilot will now constantly make 11g turn ( just so you know there are also pilots once make F-15 turn 15g , mig-25 turn 10g )
    your measurement of turn rate show that your understanding of it is really bad , you have to remember conner speed are not the same at all altitude infact not even the same with different weight , and then you wrote this ”rafale has sustained turn rate of 27,3 deg/s. Sustained turn rate is achieved at >25.000 ft” no offense but anyone with even a tiny bit of understanding of aerodynamic will laugh at that , do you understand how big lift coefficient need to be to achieve that ?
    5) last point thrust specific fuel consumption varied with altitude and speed , it not a constant number , look at any flight manual and you will see , so you cant measure Rafale range on supercruise by that
    To sum up , while your analysis are very detail , it constant too many basic misunderstanding of both aerodynamic and electronic that can be avoid with throughout research

    Like

    Reply

    1. “1) Spectra doesnot provide firing solution again airborne target , no RWR can do that , even ALR-94 need APG-77 for ranging , and fighter can always share data with each other you will rarely ever seen the whole enemy formation with their radar on full power”

      Spectra + IRST can easily do that. And you don’t necessarily need range estimate for a firing solution.

      “2) don’t make up detection range number for radar with and without jamming , you don’t have any data to back that up so it look very very unprofessional , if you want to write it then atleast use the radar equation , don’t just pull out some random number”

      I did not make it up, it is an estimate based on stated performance of other radar(s) in presence of jamming.

      “3) higher thrust doesnot equal higher IR signature”

      It typically does, if type of thrust is the same. Now, jet engines with lower bypass ratio will have higher IR signature for the same thrust, but thrust differences here are too high for that to matter.

      “and just because 1 engine have higher static thrust doesn’t mean it will also have higher thrust at altitude and high speed , ever wonder why LM say F-135 wasn’t designed for supercruise even though it have higher thrust than F-119 ? ( hint : it has to do with bypass and pressuare ratio )”

      I am well aware of that, and I have pointed it out on several places. Wether engine is designed to supercruise or not has to do with overall thrust-to-drag ratio, and even though F135 has impressive thrust figures, even at sea level its thrust to drag ratio (drag is laregy determined by the engine frontal area, as engine area is a major portion of, and partly dictates, fighter frontal area) is low. Add to that the fact that its high bypass ratio means higher thrust loss at high altitude/speed, and F-35s inability to supercruise is obvious.

      “4) Rafale doesnot have ITR at 11g , just because some pilot does that once or twice doesn’t mean that rafale airframe will be alright after afew times fly at that limit or pilot will now constantly make 11g turn”

      Actually, Rafale C airframe will be alright even if 11 g is used more or less consistently. Naval aircraft have, due to stresses of carrier operation, lower g limits than their land counterparts. Typically, land based fighters have airframes with 1,5 safety factor, whereas naval fighters have 1,85 safety factor. Rafale is designed for naval operations with 1,85 safety factor, which in turn translates that C variant can achieve expected service life even if it regularly pulls more g than it is designed for (9 * 1,85 = 16,65; 16,65 / 1,5 = 11,1 g). In fact, whereas Rafale M has no g override at all, only thing necessary in Rafale C to override the g limit is pulling on the stick a bit harder (there is a “soft” limiter at 9 g and that is all).

      “just so you know there are also pilots once make F-15 turn 15g , mig-25 turn 10g”

      Once. “Once” you can make a turn as hard as the airframe lets you, unless there is FCS to stop you from doing so.

      “your measurement of turn rate show that your understanding of it is really bad , you have to remember conner speed are not the same at all altitude infact not even the same with different weight”

      Typical turn rate measurement assumes 50% fuel + armaments, and you don’t have to teach me the obvious. In fact, you will notice that Rafale’s STR is at higher altitude (25.000 ft) than F-35s (15.000 ft), and I have deliberately left it that way to give advantage to the F-35 (even so, I always got accused of the “F-35 hate” because, apparently, I am never biased enough in F-35s favor).

      “5) last point thrust specific fuel consumption varied with altitude and speed , it not a constant number , look at any flight manual and you will see , so you cant measure Rafale range on supercruise by that”

      I know that, thrust at 30.000 ft is about 1/3rd of that at sea level, albeit SFC increases somewhat. I have in fact pointed that out at another place, but what matters here are relative ranges between Rafale and F-35, and these will stay more or less the same. Since Rafale probably doesn’t achieve its supercruise performance at 30.000 ft, and F-35 is expected to cruise at 15.000 ft, using sea-level figures was the closest I could get to comparing their performance at the same altitude. And comparison is what matters here. Wether actual figures are different is not very relevant as long as relation between them is not changed too much.

      Like

      Reply

      1. 1) similar to RWR , IRST also lack ability to determine range without LRF , LRF have rather close range around 20-30 km
        surely you can still launching your missiles without knowing target speed , distance but the PK would be around 0% with anything further than dogfight range

        2) I don’t know where you got your estimation but it is badly inaccurate , because burn through range is proportional to RCS^1/2 ,and as rcs of F-35 and Rafale is different by a factor of around hundred to thousand , it easily to see that your calculation is flat out wrong , there isno way rafale can track F-35 from 29 km distance while F-35 can only track rafale from 25 km , which ever jamming power that affect APG-81 will affect RBE-2 even more due to simple fact that 2 aircraft have such huge different in RCS
        http://certifytech.tripod.com/references/electronic/electronics/radar.html
        and also we don’t know exact mode that each radar used for their stated detection/ tracking range , the different between look up vs look down or velocity search vs track while scan are very significant , and even if they stated radar range in jamming environment then you still need to remember that not all jammer are the same so your estimation is very misleading too , the only thing known at the moment are that APG-81 have around 1676 T/R modules and RBE-2 has around 900 T/R modules , to achive similar range the modules on RBE-2 need to have much higher power than the one on APG-81 to overcome the different in gain ( due to aperture size )

        3) supercruise has very little to do with aircraft frontal area , it has more to do with engine dynamic thrust , pressure recovery of intake ,overall pressure ratio .For example in term of T/W and total drag , aircraft like concorde , Mig-25 , Mig-31 have much lower T/W and higher drag , however due to their high dynamic thrust they can cruise far faster and higher than rafale or F-35
        ”thrust differences here are too high for that to matter.” wrong , you don’t know their intake recovery ratio , and you don’t know their dynamic thrust either so there would be no way for you to know what is the different in thrust at high speed and altitude

        4) I think you understand the meaning of stress limit wrong , as aircraft fly faster while remain the same turn rate , the g pulled will be higher , the airframes stress limit is for situation when pilot accidently turn aircraft at speed too high ( for example instead of pulling 22 degree/second at mach 0.8 , he do it at mach 1.1 ) , the extra 1.5 safety factor doesn’t in any shape or form mean you can pull more degree/sec at your corner speed , because lift is limited
        and just so you know every aircraft have that extra g safety not just rafale

        5) TSFC varied a lot depending on speed and altitude , and it changed between engine too ( and I can assure you it change a lot just look at the like of F-100 or F-110 for example )
        I don’t know where do you got the idea that F-35 cruise at 15k feet though ??? in all document it always stated that F-35 optimum altitude is around 30-35k feet

        6) there is no way for to rafale achived sustained turn rate of 27,3 deg/s at >25.000 ft , it physically impossible
        let start with aerodynamic 101
        turn rate = [1091tan(bank angle)] /[true air speed in knots]
        G-load = 1/cos( bank angle)
        lift = 1/2         air density * v^2 * S * CL
        now put the weight , speed and air density at 25.000 ft in and you will see how ridiculous you sound

        Like

      2. “1) similar to RWR , IRST also lack ability to determine range without LRF”

        There are several ways in which IRST can estimate range passively. One of them, and easiest to do, is through a weaving maneuver by the aircraft (kinematic ranging). And you don’t even need to know the range to target for a successful engagement.

        “2) I don’t know where you got your estimation but it is badly inaccurate , because burn through range is proportional to RCS^1/2 ,and as rcs of F-35 and Rafale is different by a factor of around hundred to thousand , it easily to see that your calculation is flat out wrong , there isno way rafale can track F-35 from 29 km distance while F-35 can only track rafale from 25 km , which ever jamming power that affect APG-81 will affect RBE-2 even more due to simple fact that 2 aircraft have such huge different in RCS”

        To my knowledge F-35 has no inbuilt jammer except for the radar (having it would kinda defeat the purpose of stealth). So for the F-35 I did not include it into consideration, as would have been noticeable had you bothered to pay attention to what is written in the article.

        “3) supercruise has very little to do with aircraft frontal area , it has more to do with engine dynamic thrust , pressure recovery of intake ,overall pressure ratio”

        It has to do with both aircraft and engine frontal area because both of these have a lot to do with drag and shaping. F-35 is too fat, that is it has too large frontal area for its length, which automatically translates into higher drag, especially supersonic.

        “For example in term of T/W and total drag , aircraft like concorde , Mig-25 , Mig-31 have much lower T/W and higher drag , however due to their high dynamic thrust they can cruise far faster and higher than rafale or F-35”

        But total drag is irrelevant. What matters is thrust-to-drag ratio (not even thrust-to-weight ratio). Further, you are comparing apples to oranges here. Concorde, MiG-25 and MiG-31 are all designed to supercruise at afterburning thrust and very high altitude. Rafale supercruises at lower altitude and with no afterburner (same for the F-22). Consequently, all three aircraft you mentioned have fuel fractions of over 40% (and very specific engine design too – basically, at speeds at which these aircraft cruise, ramjet effect accounts for much ot the thrust, improving fuel efficiency). For Rafale, fuel fraction is mere 33%, and 29% for F-22.

        “I think you understand the meaning of stress limit wrong , as aircraft fly faster while remain the same turn rate , the g pulled will be higher , the airframes stress limit is for situation when pilot accidently turn aircraft at speed too high the airframes stress limit is for situation when pilot accidently turn aircraft at speed too high ( for example instead of pulling 22 degree/second at mach 0.8 , he do it at mach 1.1 ) , the extra 1.5 safety factor doesn’t in any shape or form mean you can pull more degree/sec at your corner speed , because lift is limited
        and just so you know every aircraft have that extra g safety not just rafale ”

        I am aware of that. But most Western fighters (F-22 and F-35 included) are built with 1,5 safety factor, Rafale is built with 1,85 safety factor, which means that g override can be used without worrying about airframe life much. Hence why 9 g limit in Rafale C/B is only soft stick limit. And:

        “the extra 1.5 safety factor doesn’t in any shape or form mean you can pull more degree/sec at your corner speed , because lift is limited”

        Actually it does. Corner speed is a function of both lift and g limits. By changing maximum g, corner speed is also changed, and the end effect is increase in turn rate, as higher speed also means increase in lift. What you said is only true for speeds below both corner speeds, where aircraft would be lift-limited as opposed to g-limited.

        “I don’t know where do you got the idea that F-35 cruise at 15k feet though ???”

        I should have been clearer, cruise in combat area. Ingress/egress is indeed done at 30k feet, but F-35s combat performance (turn rates) are measured at 15k feet.

        Like

      3. 1) waving maneuver or kinematic ranging like you described isn’t something new , it has been well known for very long time

        Click to access gi-proc-154-222.pdf

        Click to access 05bearingsonly.pdf

        http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27364
        however the practical application is extremely limited due to the accuracy and requirement needed for it to work , as you can see very obvious from the study , kinematic ranging have requirement such as :
        _ enemy’s fighter fly at constant speed the whole time
        _ enemy’s fighter keeping exactly the same heading the whole time ( the method measures range by calculate the changing of bearing between enemy fighter and ELINT aircraft when ELINT aircraft fly side to side ” zig zag pattern” , thus it wouldn’t be possible to apply the method if enemy fighter change heading and point their nose to ELINT aircraft new direction all the time)
        _enemy’s fighter will need to constantly illuminate ELINT aircraft for long enough time for it to measure range ( which is terrible again any AESA , PESA due to their agile beam characteristic )
        _ ELINT aircraft have to perform specific maneuver for very long period of times to measure range
        _ Accuracy is terrible , 20-40% error in range is very significant, at 100 km distance that is 20 – 40 km error, at 50 km distance that still 10-20 km error, that is even worse than long wave VHF radar thus not very useful for long range BVR engagement even again AWACs let alone a fighter
        in short , accelerate , decelerate , increase , decrease altitude or changing heading will all messed up kinematic ranging badly
        and range is actually very important if you want to have a successful engagement at BVR because of 2 reason :
        _ firstly , to intercept target with lowest turn rate needed , missiles do a lead intercept , without information about range and velocity that isn’t possible
        _secondly , to achieve long range BVR missiles climb to much higher altitude so that they can cruise in thin air , thus achieve longer range , then only dive down at target at terminal phase ,without range information that isnot possible either , your missiles will have to fly a direct part that will reduce its kinematic energy significantly

        2) APG-81 can perform jamming role too and unless enemy aircraft is not within 120 degree frontal sector then for intend and purpose the APG-81 perform not much different from a jamming pod apart from the fact that it will be a lot more powerful due to higher gain (benefit of aperture size )
        F-35 can also carry towed decoys , which is the ALE-70 ( according to most source it will performance similar to ALE-55)
        another jamming method that F-35 can rely on is the MALD-J which is basically a tiny cruise missiles with a jammer inside , MALD-J can be carried by all USAF platform including F-16 , F-35 , F-22 and C-130
        jamming doesn’t actually defeat the purpose of stealth , both are designed to break the kill chain , stealth are to render you undetectable by radar , jamming is for when you are detected , the purpose is to deny enemy ability to track/lock you by either overwhelm their sensor or create false target
        F-35 will only need to active jamming once it is detected ( which is much later compare to the Rafale )

        3) you cant just look at an aircraft and say it look too fat hence it must have a lot of drag , look are very deceiving , for example an F-16 with 2 CFT look much fatter and more sluggish than an F-16 with 1 LANTIRN pod , however 2 CFT only have drag index of around 5 while a single LANTIRN pod on f-16 have drag index of 32
        back to topic , as explained before , it doesn’t required a lot of thrust to fly supersonic , for example the bell X-1E with a rectangle wing and thrust of merely 26.7 kN once reached mach 3 , the problem with turborfan engine in general is that they tend to lose significant amount of thrust at high speed depending on design ( bypass , pressure ratio , intake recovery ..etc )
        while you understand that thrust to drag is important for speed , you fail to understand that dynamic thrust ( thrust that aircraft can keep at high speed , altitude ) is the main factor while some aircraft can supercruise while other cant
        also fuel fraction is largely irrelevant without taken into account factor such as aircraft weight , TSFC at certain part of flight envelop

        4) just because the KPP is taken at a certain altitude doesn’t mean it the best altitude for F-35 to cruise or combat , document submitted to Norway clearly shown a different cruise altitude
        http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28906
        and can you show me the source that indicate that F-22 , f-35 are only built with 1.5 safety factor ?or is that another speculation in your part ?

        Like

      4. “however the practical application is extremely limited due to the accuracy and requirement needed for it to work , as you can see very obvious from the study , kinematic ranging have requirement such as :”

        These requirements are not as unrealistic as they appear, since much of the time enemy fighter will not be aware of the IRST-using fighter.

        “_enemy’s fighter will need to constantly illuminate ELINT aircraft for long enough time for it to measure range ( which is terrible again any AESA , PESA due to their agile beam characteristic )”

        Unnecessary with IRST, RWR would only need to provide bearing to facilitate IRST acquisition, if even that. And AESA, PESA are still limited by bandwidth requirements much lower than RWRs (X band that radars utilize covers 8-12 GHz frequency, most modern RWRs cover at least 2-18 GHz against continuous wave radars, and much more against pulse radars; this coverage can be reduced to narrower band in order to improve sensitivity), plus lock-on requires continual track (even track-while-scan will require multiple illuminations, and it is not ideal, especially if target is equipped with ECM/EW suite).

        “_ firstly , to intercept target with lowest turn rate needed , missiles do a lead intercept , without information about range and velocity that isn’t possible”

        Actually it is possible, during endgame engagement at least when missile has acquired the target by itself. Sidewinder has a type of guidance that facilitates lead intercept despite being IR missile. Besides, lead intercept can easily become a disadvantage if target notices it is being shot at, as missile will need to correct more for any evasive maneuvers that target makes.

        “_secondly , to achieve long range BVR missiles climb to much higher altitude so that they can cruise in thin air , thus achieve longer range , then only dive down at target at terminal phase ,without range information that isnot possible either , your missiles will have to fly a direct part that will reduce its kinematic energy significantly ”

        That is true, but missiles using ballistic flight path typically do not have energy necessary to hit maneuvering target anyway.

        “F-35 will only need to active jamming once it is detected ( which is much later compare to the Rafale )”

        True, but they still did not include actual internal jammer. And radar is limited by its coverage.

        “3) you cant just look at an aircraft and say it look too fat hence it must have a lot of drag , look are very deceiving , for example an F-16 with 2 CFT look much fatter and more sluggish than an F-16 with 1 LANTIRN pod , however 2 CFT only have drag index of around 5 while a single LANTIRN pod on f-16 have drag index of 32”

        That is completely different situation from comparing the basic design, reason for what you mentioned is a) interference drag and more importantly b) shitty aerodynamics of the LANTIRN pod. But difference in aerodynamics between F-35 and say, F-16, Gripen or Rafale, are not so extreme that crossection is suddenly irrelevant.

        “back to topic , as explained before , it doesn’t required a lot of thrust to fly supersonic ”

        Total thrust is irrelevant, it is thrust to drag ratio that matters.

        “you fail to understand that dynamic thrust ( thrust that aircraft can keep at high speed , altitude ) is the main factor while some aircraft can supercruise while other cant”

        I do not fail to understand that, in fact I believe I have mentioned before that low bypass ratio is important for precisely that reason, as engines with higher BPR loose thrust more quickly with altitude, and also benefit less from increase in thrust due to the ramjet effect (which is not very significant at speeds we’re talking about here, but does exist). And F135 has very high BPR compared to just about any other Western fighter engine due to F-35s primary purpose being ground attack (and is in that regard similar to Russian engines). F135 has BPR of 0,57, compared to 0,4 for EJ200, 0,3 for M88-2 and F404 and 0,2 for F119.

        And even dynamic thrust is only important in relation to drag.

        “and can you show me the source that indicate that F-22 , f-35 are only built with 1.5 safety factor ?or is that another speculation in your part ?”

        It is not a speculation, that is standard safety factor for fighter design in the West, and so far I have not found anything to indicate they are not built with “only” 1,5 safety factor. And at least for F-35, it is possible to mathematically show that it does indeed have 1,5 safety factor. You remember how I mentioned that Rafale has 1,85 safety factor due to naval requirements, and how Rafale M has no override allowing it to pull 11 g, unlike Rafale C? F-35A can pull 9 g operationally, while F-35B is limited to 7 g and F-35C to 7,5 g. 9*1,5 = 13,5; 13,5 / 1,85 = 7,3. This fits quite nicely, considering that F-35C has significantly lower wing loading than F-35A which means that relative stress increase due to carrier ops will not be as significant compared to say Rafale C/M or F-18, as lower wing loading will facilitate lower takeoff and landing speeds than the F-35A would require in the same situation. Similarly, naval F-18s are limited to 7,33 g while land-based ones (Finnish, e.g.) can pull 9 g; again, the above formula factores in.

        BTW, Typhoon has 1,4 safety factor, so I would not call the 1,5 factor “only”. Rafale is quite unusual among modern Western fighters precisely because it has higher than typical safety factor even in land-based variant. Reason for this is that Rafale M is not “navalized” C, instead Rafale C is downgraded Rafale M (by downgraded I mean partial structural downgrading – for example weaker landing gear and maybe less shock-resistant radar instalation as well; airframe and all significant structural components are not downgraded, which is what allows it to pull 11 g in the first place).

        You can read more here:
        https://www.google.hr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjyyOK968vKAhXCtRQKHaxnCF8QFghMMAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fengineering.purdue.edu%2F~andrisan%2FCourses%2FAAE490A_S2007%2FBuffer%2FCalspan%2520VSS%2520Airrcraft%2FF22%2520Flight%2520Teating.doc&usg=AFQjCNE3KVNRYOVKzyoYBF5zJqiUG-7YtQ&sig2=Kigv7uRVCGmlDa98h5SNOA
        “In the ‘ultimate test’ the structure will be taken to 150 percent of its load limit.”
        And some discussion if you are interested:
        http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10663

        Like

      6. If links are included into the reply, it will typically require manual approval by the blog administrator (myself in this case).

        Like

      7. 1) kinematic ranging isn’t something new , it has been known for decade , however it has serious regulation that limit the practical application of it

        Click to access gi-proc-154-222.pdf

        Click to access 05bearingsonly.pdf

        http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27364
        As you can see the method have many requirements and limitation such as:
        _ enemy’s fighter need to fly at constant speed the whole time ( which obviously doesn’t work again fighter )
        _ enemy’s fighter need to keep the same heading the whole time ( because the method measures range by calculate the changing of bearing between enemy fighter and ELINT aircraft when ELINT aircraft fly side to side ” zig zag pattern” , thus it wouldn’t be possible to apply the method if enemy fighter change heading and point their nose to ELINT aircraft direction all the time)
        _enemy’s fighter need to constantly illuminate for long amount of time from when estimation start until it finish ( which is terrible again AESA , PESA radar due to their agile beam characteristic ):
        _ ELINT aircraft have to perform specific maneuver for a certain amount of times to measure range ( fly in zig zag pattern exposed your beam aspect which have much higher RCS )
        _ Accuracy is terrible , 20-40% error in range is very significant, at 100 km distance that is 20 – 40 km error, at 50 km distance that still 10-20 km error, that is even worse than long wave VHF radar thus not very useful for long range BVR engagement again enemy’s fighter
        to sum up any change in speed , altitude or heading of enemy will messed up kinematic ranging very badly so it isn’t a practical method again non cooperate target

        let call the aircraft carry RWR sensor : ELINT aircraft
        To collect data for range measurement the ELINT aircraft must fly zigzag side to side to measure change in bearing , thus showing it’s side aspect RCS to enemy’s radar. And the S maneuver will only work if the enemy fighter fly straight and doesn’t change their heading, fly at constant speed.
        remember that side aspect RCS of any aircraft is very high (often in the range 20-30 dBsm or 100-1000 m2) , so the ELINT aircraft if wasn’t detected by enemy radar earlier will be detected the moment it perform the S shape maneuver. Since most aircraft radar nowadays have no trouble tracking airborne target with RCS =100-1000 m2 from 300-400 km
        So after detecting the ELINT aircraft, all enemy pilot have to do is changing their heading according to the heading of ELINT aircraft ( if the ELINT aircraft turn left, you turn left, if the ELINT aircraft turn right, you turn right, accelerate or decelerate to make your speed not constant)
        that action will neutralize ELINT aircraft passive ranging ability

        and range is actually very important for a successful BVR engagement , because of 2 main reason :
        _ firstly , to pull as minimum G as possible ( conserved energy ) , when intercepting an aircraft missiles will do a lead intercept instead of trying to follow the exact maneuver the aircraft made , and that isn’t possible without range , velocity information
        _ secondly , to achieve long range and conserved energy for end game maneuver , most modern air to air missiles climb to high altitude to cruise in thin air , and only come down in end game stage , such things wont be possible without range information , without range your missiles will have to fly a direct path and deplete most of it’s energy in thick air thus have terrible PK

        2) APG-81 can perform jamming role just as well if not better than a normal internal jammer , unless adversary is out side of 120 degree frontal arcs then the only thing different between APG-81 and normal jammer is that APG-81 only cover X band ( 8-12 Ghz ) while normal jammer can cover a wider range , however the advantage of APG-81 as a jammer is the much more powerful jamming power due to higher gain ( benefit from having much bigger transmitting aperture compare to the jamming aperture of internal jammer )
        F-35 can also use towed decoy such as ALE-70 ( similar in function to ALE-55 ) to perform jamming again enemy at tail on aspect
        another jamming asset that F-35 can rely on is MALD-J , which is basically a tiny cruise missile with a jammer inside and can be carried by all USAF aircraft from F-16 , F-22 , F-35 to C-130 , B-52
        So F-35 has many option to choose from when it need to jam enemy radar . and jamming doesn’t defeat the purpose of stealth , they are both designed to break kill chain , stealth is to render yourself invisible from enemy radar while jamming is used when you are detected to deny enemy’s ability to track or lock you
        F-35 will only need to use jamming when it is detected by enemy radar ( which is obviously much later compare to rafale )

        another important point is only 1 or 2 aircraft need to have their jammer on and it can benefit the whole formation ( support jamming )

        3) you cant just look at something any decided that it is too fat to supercruise
        look can be very deceiving especially with an un trained eye , for example : an F-16 with 2 CFT looks a lot fatter and more sluggish than an F-16 with a single LATIRN pod , however 2 CFT have drag index of merely 5-6 while a single LATIRN pod on F-16 have drag index of 32
        back to topic , flying at supersonic speed doesn’t actually required a lot of thrust like commonly believed , especially at altitude , the Bell X-1E with rectangle wing and thrust of merely 26 kN reached speed of mach 3 before .F-35 slow speed has a lot more to do with engine design-requirement than with it’s outer aerodynamic
        The problem with turbofan engine in general is that they lose a lot of thrust at high speed and high altitude ( lower dynamic thrust compare to turbojet engine ) , especially if the bypass ratio is high , engine designed for supercruise such as F-119 and EJ-200 have very low bypass ratio , hence they provide aircraft with better supersonic performance , however as more percentage of their thrust coming from the core instead of the fan stage their IR signature is also higher. It a trade off , you cant have your cake and eat it too
        fuel fraction is irrelevance without taken into account factor such as aircraft weight , TSFC at certain part of envelop , speed , altitude ,,etc

        4) can you provide the source that stage F-35 , F-22 are only built with safety factor of 1.5 ? or is that another speculation in your part ?

        anyway , you can see in the document that submitted to Norway that F-35 cruise and combat altitude obviously isn’t at 15K feet , just because a certain altitude have been choose to show F-35 sustain turn rate doesn’t mean F-35 kinematic is best when it is at that altitude ( every aircraft achieve best turn rate at sea level )
        http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28906

        .”By changing maximum g, corner speed is also changed, and the end effect is increase in turn rate, as higher speed also means increase in lift” no offence but this indicate that you have a really bad misunderstanding of aerodynamic , while higher speed create more lift , it doesn’t neccesary mean your aircraft will turn at higher rate , look at the basic equation , higher speed will result in more g for the same turn rate

        have you figure out why I said ” it is nonsense and no way rafale can achived sustained turn rate of 27,3 deg/s at >25.000 ft” ?

        turn rate = [1091tan(bank angle)] /[true air speed in knots]
        G-load = 1/cos( bank angle)
        lift = 1/2         air density * v^2 * S * CL

        Like

      8. “fuel fraction is irrelevance without taken into account factor such as aircraft weight , TSFC at certain part of envelop , speed , altitude ,,etc”

        No it is not, since most important factors are sufficiently similar. That being said, you are correct that fuel fraction does not tell the entire story.

        “no offence but this indicate that you have a really bad misunderstanding of aerodynamic , while higher speed create more lift , it doesn’t neccesary mean your aircraft will turn at higher rate , look at the basic equation , higher speed will result in more g for the same turn rate”

        No, it is simply that you do not understand what I am saying. Turn rate is both lift limited and g limited. While you are correct that higher speed will result in more g for the same turn rate, you are vastly oversimplifying the issue. To explain, best turn radius and turn rate are achieved at corner speed. Speed slower than corner speed means that turn radius stays the same while g load and turn rate decrease, while speed above corner speed means that g load stays the same while turn radius increases and turn rate decreases. And since Rafale has lower wing loading than F-35, it will have lower corner speed for any g limit, and hence higher turn rate. It is only above F-35s own corner speed that both aircraft will have same turn rate, and even then Rafale keeps energy advantage due to higher thrust-to-weight ratio as well as requiring lower angle of attack for same turn rate.

        Higher g limit (9 g vs 11 g in Rafale’s case) means that both corner speed and turn rate are increased compared to 9 g case. Lift sufficient to achieve 9 g turn is not sufficient to achieve 11 g turn, which means that aircraft has to fly faster than is the case with 9 g limit. However, increase in speed is not sufficient to completely offset the advantage of higher g limit.

        Understand now?

        “have you figure out why I said “it is nonsense and no way rafale can achived sustained turn rate of 27,3 deg/s at >25.000 ft” ?
        turn rate = [1091tan(bank angle)] /[true air speed in knots]
        G-load = 1/cos( bank angle)
        lift = 1/2         air density * v^2 * S * CL”

        Since you don’t know Rafale’s thrust-to-drag, lift-to-drag, lift-to-weight ratios, or lift coefficient at high AoA, that formula is kinda useless.

        Like

      9. 1 ) ”These requirements are not as unrealistic as they appear, since much of the time enemy fighter will not be aware of the IRST-using fighter.” you are assumed that you can some how see enemy by IRST without being detected , that very unlikely given the fact that Rafale will supercruise while F-35 likely to cruise subsonic ( infrared radiation is around 3 times bigger at mach 1 compared to mach 0.8 )
        another problem is the moment you start your waving maneuver , you will exposed your beam aspect to enemy aircraft ( beam aspect of all aircraft have extremely high RCS , even the like of F-16 , F-35 , f-22 ) , for example side aspect of F-16 has RCS around 20 dBsm ( 100 m2 ) , you will be detected the moment you start waving maneuver and after that enemy no longer keep their constant speed , altitude , bearing and your passive ranging doesn’t work anymore

        2) normally when compare between RWR and radar because RWR only have to listen to signal that travel one way, thus giving them 80 dB advantage compared to radar that have to detect reflected signal that travelling 2 ways people often assumed that RWR will always detect radar first , that however not all the truth
        _ RWR antenna typically has a gain of about 0 dB due to wide angular coverage. Fighter AESA radar has a gain of roughly 40 dB. This means instant 40 dB advantage to the radar.
        _. Radar can operate at much narrower bandwidth as it knows the frequencies it uses and RWR does not and has to operate at much wider bandwidth. RWR receivers have a sensitivity in the region of -40 to -60 dB while radar receivers have a sensitivity is roughly about -100 dB with digital receivers achieving even better sensitivity like -120 dB.

        This can give additional 50 to 80 dB advantage to radar depending on exact design of the systems involved. As AESA has a very wide total bandwidth, RWR must cover that very wide bandwidth leading to much less sensitivity. As the radar signal has a quite narrow bandwidth and radar can process only very narrow bandwidth giving large advantage in sensitivity. For AESA the advantage can be for example in the 60 to 80 dB range.

        _Radar can code or modulate the signal so that it achieves significant processing gain over RWR. Either phase or frequency modulation/coding can be used. As radar knows the coding, it can filter out the signal from noise using matched filters. The RWR can’t know the coding and this gives the radar another big advantage in total gain. This is called Processing gain and it can be tens of decibels. The more complex the coding the larger the processing gain of radar is. Modern AESA radar using Digital Beamforming can use very complex coding schemes and basically only processing power and software is the limit here. A simple calculation about processing gain is dividing the spreading bandwidth (bandwidth where the signal is spread) with actual signal bandwidth.

        _ When the radar main beam is not directly pointing towards the RWR, then it will only be seen through sidelobes. Given that sidelobe level can be lower than -50 dB in AESA radars (about -20 to -30 dB in fighter MSA/PESA radars), this gives the radar a healthy advantage against RWR/ESM systems which it’s not painting. This means RWR will only see very short flashes of main beam and makes it more difficult for the RWR to work effectively.

        Calculated together, radar can suddenly have well over 100 dB advantage over RWR system through mainlobe and over 150 dB advantage otherwise. There are ways for RWR/ESM systems to get some of that back and of course the race is never ending. RWR/ESM system can use more directional antenna, more sensitive receivers and higher processing power

        in searching stage the radar will only illuminate your sector for very short period of time , thus it wouldn’t be enough for RWR to calculate distance by kinematic ranging , once enemy detect ( or decide to lock ) you they will no longer have constant speed , velocity or heading thus passive ranging at that stage isn’t possible either

        3) ”Actually it is possible, during endgame engagement at least when missile has acquired the target by itself. Sidewinder has a type of guidance that facilitates lead intercept despite being IR missile.”
        only at very short range ( when seeker acquired target ) where not much correction needed , for a target from BVR without lead intercept then you are doomed to miss

        ” Besides, lead intercept can easily become a disadvantage if target notices it is being shot at, as missile will need to correct more for any evasive maneuvers that target makes” this is wrong , the only thing difference between lead intercept and direct path is that in lead intercept missiles will aim at the point where enemy fly at while direct path mean missiles will follow exact point of enemy which mean it actually much harder to hit target with direct path

        ” but missiles using ballistic flight path typically do not have energy necessary to hit maneuvering target anyway.” wrong , all modern BVR air to air missiles and surface to air missiles use a ballistic flight path , it save significant amount of energy compare to direct flight path , so if missiles in ballistic path don’t have enough energy to hit target then your missiles in direct flight path will be in much worse situation due to it’s much lower kinematic ( speed due to air resistance ) and potential ( altitude )energy

        4)”True, but they still did not include actual internal jammer. And radar is limited by its coverage.” it depending how you defined an internal jammer
        in 120 degree frontal sector , APG-81 can perform jamming role , unless your aircraft is running aways or flying perpendicular to enemy then it make no different between using APG-81 and using normal jammer ( except that normal jammer cover wider frequency range while APG-81 have higher , more concentrated power )
        if F-35 was to run always or fly perpendicular it can still rely on ALE-70 or MALD-J to jam enemy , both MALD-J and ALE-70 can be carried on board internally
        and you still have the mind set of comparing them 1 vs 1 , in reality a whole formation will only need 1 support jamming asset .

        5) ”That is completely different situation from comparing the basic design, reason for what you mentioned is a) interference drag and more importantly b) shitty aerodynamics of the LANTIRN pod. But difference in aerodynamics between F-35 and say, F-16, Gripen or Rafale, are not so extreme that crossection is suddenly irrelevant”
        it isn’t a different situation at all , a rafale with weapon pylon will also have a lot of interfere drag compared to an F-35 with internal weapon , and as stated earlier , you cannot just look at something and say it have shitty aerodynamic without actual calculation , measurement , look is simply objectively some can look at F-35 and say it is too fat , others can look at Rafale and say it has too much interfered drag , it all subjective and mean nothing without actual calculation and as you said yourself ,you don’t know Rafale’s or F-35 thrust-to-drag, lift-to-drag, lift-to-weight ratios, or lift coefficient at high AoA

        6) ”Total thrust is irrelevant, it is thrust to drag ratio that matters” here is the thing , thrust to drag ratio =( dynamic thrust) to drag ratio , and as stated earlier even an aircraft with rectangle wing ( very high Cd at supersonic )can still reach mach 3 as long as it’s engine doesn’t loose a lot of thrust
        and you even said yourself that F-135 has very high BRP compare to other western fighter indicate that it lost a large amount of thrust at high altitude ,speed . A high BRP doesn’t indicate that and aircraft is designed for ground attack , it indicate that an aircraft focused on range and payload performance more than speed , an example is F-16/79 vs F-16 ( F-16/79 have better altitude and speed performance due to its turbojet engine while normal F-16 can fly further and carry more weapon )
        it important to note that all aircraft now a days have turbofan engine which mean they also focused more about range and payload rather than just altitude and speed , the day of full turbojet engine like F-4 , F-104 are over , btw just so you know Mig-31 also have BPR of 0.56 which is around similar to F-135 , however it can still fly fast due to high pressure recovery ratio of intake and low overall pressure ratio

        Like

      10. “you are assumed that you can some how see enemy by IRST without being detected , that very unlikely given the fact that Rafale will supercruise while F-35 likely to cruise subsonic ( infrared radiation is around 3 times bigger at mach 1 compared to mach 0.8 )”

        If enemy is using radar, passive fighter (or one getting updates from satellites/AWACS) will be able to position itself outside the radar coverage. Especially in Rafale-F-35 situation, where F-35 is far slower than Rafale.

        “another problem is the moment you start your waving maneuver , you will exposed your beam aspect to enemy aircraft ( beam aspect of all aircraft have extremely high RCS , even the like of F-16 , F-35 , f-22 ) , for example side aspect of F-16 has RCS around 20 dBsm ( 100 m2 ) , you will be detected the moment you start waving maneuver and after that enemy no longer keep their constant speed , altitude , bearing and your passive ranging doesn’t work anymore”

        Actually, weaving maneuver will not expose beam aspect, side of the aircraft will still be angled relative to radar. So RCS will increase, but nowhere close to what you are assuming.

        “_. Radar can operate at much narrower bandwidth as it knows the frequencies it uses and RWR does not and has to operate at much wider bandwidth. RWR receivers have a sensitivity in the region of -40 to -60 dB while radar receivers have a sensitivity is roughly about -100 dB with digital receivers achieving even better sensitivity like -120 dB.”

        True, but not that much anymore. Western fighter radars operate in 8-12 GHz span, and with frequency hopping and spread spectrum capabilities – designed to protect against RWR – percentage of utilization is significantly increased.

        “Calculated together, radar can suddenly have well over 100 dB advantage over RWR system through mainlobe and over 150 dB advantage otherwise. There are ways for RWR/ESM systems to get some of that back and of course the race is never ending. RWR/ESM system can use more directional antenna, more sensitive receivers and higher processing power”

        RWR can also store and compare suspected emissions over time, which means that even with frequenc hopping etc., probability of detection increases significantly with lenghtening of time that radar is turned on.

        “this is wrong , the only thing difference between lead intercept and direct path is that in lead intercept missiles will aim at the point where enemy fly at while direct path mean missiles will follow exact point of enemy which mean it actually much harder to hit target with direct path ”

        You are assuming that missile responds instantly to change in conditions. But in reality there is always some lag (due to processing time and missile’s own inertia), and at distances where lag is irrelevant changes in direction mean that missile has to maneuver and lose energy.

        “wrong , all modern BVR air to air missiles and surface to air missiles use a ballistic flight path , it save significant amount of energy compare to direct flight path , so if missiles in ballistic path don’t have enough energy to hit target then your missiles in direct flight path will be in much worse situation due to it’s much lower kinematic ( speed due to air resistance ) and potential ( altitude )energy”

        Missiles typically use ballistic flight path to extend range since they have only limited amount of fuel onboard. At point when they have passed the top of the path, fuel is already spent and they are flying on inertia alone. Few maneuvers by the target and that missile is falling out of the sky. Further, approach from above means that missile is easier to notice by MAWS whereas clutter significantly impacts missile’s detection capabilities, especially for active radar missiles. That again increases the possibility of target evading the missile.

        “it depending how you defined an internal jammer”

        A device or set of devices dedicated to jamming as a primary mission, and capable of jamming enemy radar emissions in 360* field of regard.

        “in 120 degree frontal sector , APG-81 can perform jamming role , unless your aircraft is running aways or flying perpendicular to enemy then it make no different between using APG-81 and using normal jammer ( except that normal jammer cover wider frequency range while APG-81 have higher , more concentrated power )”

        Agreed.

        “it isn’t a different situation at all , a rafale with weapon pylon will also have a lot of interfere drag compared to an F-35 with internal weapon , and as stated earlier , you cannot just look at something and say it have shitty aerodynamic without actual calculation , measurement , look is simply objectively some can look at F-35 and say it is too fat , others can look at Rafale and say it has too much interfered drag”

        F-35 when clean cannot supercruise and is aerodynamically limited to Mach 1,67 top speed. Rafale with six missiles supercruises at Mach 1,4 and is aerodynamically limited to Mach 2,0-2,1 top speed. And that Mach 2 top speed is not even thrust-to-drag limit, it is simply engine pressure recovery limit as Rafale’s relatively simple air intake design cannot slow down air sufficiently for it to achieve any higher speed. On the other hand, F-35s DSI intake should allow it speeds of up to Mach 2,0; in fact, an F-16 testbed for F-35s intake achieved Mach 2,0 without any issue. Only possible explanation is thrust-to-drag limit. So it is clear that combat-configured Rafale has better thrust-to-drag ratio than clean F-35. Further, F-35 accelerates less quickly than F-16, seeing how clean F-16 (two wingtip missiles) only cruises at Mach 1,1 at most, F-35 is definetly incapable of supercruise and has inferior acceleration compared to combat-configured Rafale.

        – note here that F-16 is clean (likely with two wingtip ‘Winders) and with presumably full internal fuel (slide only says no external tanks), whereas F-35s tactical maneuver weight is 50% fuel plus 4 internal missiles; in other words, comparison is significantly biased in F-35s favor
        This comparison shows more clearly F-16s acceleration advantage compared to the F-35:
        http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=221413&d=1380590216

        And Rafale with six missiles has only two “normal” pylons, then there are two semi-conformal missiles plus two conformal wingtip missiles – and conformal wingtip missiles a la F-16, Gripen, Rafale, actually improve aircraft’s lift to drag ratio and reduce interference drag.

        “and you even said yourself that F-135 has very high BRP compare to other western fighter indicate that it lost a large amount of thrust at high altitude ,speed . A high BRP doesn’t indicate that”

        Actually it does. Engines with higher bypass ratio typically loose more thrust at higher speeds and altitudes, and have higher ratio of afterburning to dry thrust, neither of which is good for high-altitude air superiority fighter. They also have lower TWR and lower efficiency at supersonic speeds. Other shortcomings are higher drag and lower thrust-to-drag ratio, especially at supersonic speeds – again, not good for supersonic performance. Further, engines with lower bypass ratios respond more quickly to pilot commands, facilitating quicker transition from one energy state / maneuver to another.

        That is why all aircraft whose engines are oprimized for air-to-air combat either have turbojet engines (BPR 0) or low-bypass turbofan engines (F-22 – F119, BPR 0,2; Rafale – M88-2, BPR 0,3; F-18 – F404, BPR 0,34; F-15/16 – F100, BPR 0,36. YF-18, which was designed as an air superiority fighter – as opposed to F-18s multirole goal – had YJ101 engine with BPR of 0,2). Ground attack aircraft, which typically spend time at low altitudes and, more importantly, subsonic speeds, have high bypass ratio engines. Only exception to this are Typhoon (EJ200, BPR 0,4) and Russian Fulcrum (RD-33, BPR 0,49) and Flanker (Al-31, BPR 0,59) series. However, Typhoon’s engine is a modification of an engine used originally by a ground-attack Tornado aircraft, and Russian fighters were always designed with high emphasis on ground attack role.

        Like

      11. ”It is not a speculation, that is standard safety factor for fighter design in the West, and so far I have not found anything to indicate they are not built with “only” 1,5 safety factor. And at least for F-35, it is possible to mathematically show that it does indeed have 1,5 safety factor. You remember how I mentioned that Rafale has 1,85 safety factor due to naval requirements, and how Rafale M has no override allowing it to pull 11 g, unlike Rafale C? F-35A can pull 9 g operationally, while F-35B is limited to 7 g and F-35C to 7,5 g. 9*1,5 = 13,5; 13,5 / 1,85 = 7,3. This fits quite nicely, considering that F-35C has significantly lower wing loading than F-35A which means that relative stress increase due to carrier ops will not be as significant compared to say Rafale C/M or F-18, as lower wing loading will facilitate lower takeoff and landing speeds than the F-35A would require in the same situation. Similarly, naval F-18s are limited to 7,33 g while land-based ones (Finnish, e.g.) can pull 9 g; again, the above formula factores in.”
        that very ridiculous
        so basically what you saying is you cant find any official source to indicate that F-35A , F-22 only has safety factor of 1.5 so you make it up ????
        F-35A and F-35B m F-35C have very different airframe with the F-35C have massively bigger wing and F-35B have a whole extra engine inside, there isno indication that they have the same maximum load of 13g , what if they both have safely margin of 1.85 ? so max load of F-35B/C would be 13 g ( by your way of logic they would turn 9g fine while F-35 have max load of 16.5 g so it will turn 11 g fine ? ( also according to your way of logic )

        ”No it is not, since most important factors are sufficiently similar. That being said, you are correct that fuel fraction does not tell the entire story.” this is vastly over simplifying there is nothing similar between Rafale and F-35 , from cruise profile to cross section to wing sweep to engine design , even their mission profile isn’t the same

        ”since Rafale has lower wing loading than F-35, it will have lower corner speed for any g limit, and hence higher turn rate”
        rafale doesnot necessary have lower wing loading than F-35 , it all depending on mission profile ( range – afterburner time – weapon load ) , and then it also depending on lift coefficient

        ”Since you don’t know Rafale’s thrust-to-drag, lift-to-drag, lift-to-weight ratios, or lift coefficient at high AoA, that formula is kinda useless.” so how did you make assessment about F-35 turn rate and supercruise performance without knowing thrust-to-drag, lift-to-drag, lift-to-weight ratios, or lift coefficient at high AoA of it ? ( can you provide any number to support that )

        Like

      12. “so basically what you saying is you cant find any official source to indicate that F-35A , F-22 only has safety factor of 1.5 so you make it up ????”

        I didn’t make it up, I just didn’t feel like finding any links and in any case I wanted to explain it first. In any case safety factor of 1,5 is standard for all military and civilian aircraft.
        http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/structures/loads.html

        Click to access 206232.pdf

        https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/agile-thinking-52589/ – Typhoon 1,4
        Rafale’s 1,85 safety factor is mentioned in Fox Three N9

        “F-35A and F-35B m F-35C have very different airframe with the F-35C have massively bigger wing and F-35B have a whole extra engine inside, there isno indication that they have the same maximum load of 13g , what if they both have safely margin of 1.85 ?”

        Basic parts of the airframe are the same, and yes F-35B and C have safety margin of roughly 1,85, as I have shown before. That for F-35A is 1,5.

        “rafale doesnot necessary have lower wing loading than F-35 , it all depending on mission profile ( range – afterburner time – weapon load ) , and then it also depending on lift coefficient ”

        I am discussing air-to-air configuration here. Rafale C with six missiles and full internal fuel has wing loading of 328 kg/m2, F-35A with four missiles and zero internal fuel has wing loading of 329 kg/m2. And Rafale will have superior lift coefficient during maneuvers due to its close coupled canards.

        “so how did you make assessment about F-35 turn rate and supercruise performance without knowing thrust-to-drag, lift-to-drag, lift-to-weight ratios, or lift coefficient at high AoA of it ?”

        By extrapolating from known values, such as aerodynamic configuration, wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratio, g limit, corner speed, engine design and characteristics, top speed, cruise speed, acceleration etc.

        Like

      13. 1if enemy is using radar, passive fighter (or one getting updates from satellites/AWACS) will be able to position itself outside the radar coverage. Especially in Rafale-F-35 situation, where F-35 is far slower than Rafale” iam sorry but how exactly do you expect that to happened ? if you gonna use speed to fly out of F-35 frontal sector then not only you exposed you side aspect with huge RCS but you also exposed your exhaust fumes which have very high IR signature , coupled with the fact that if you want to your high speed then it will be even worse since IR at supersonic is much higher than subsonic speed

        2) ”Actually, weaving maneuver will not expose beam aspect, side of the aircraft will still be angled relative to radar. So RCS will increase, but nowhere close to what you are assuming.”
        it is very high actually , look at radar scattering graph and you will see , APG-81 can track target with RCS of 1 meters from 160 km aways so iam sure if you exposed your side aspect y will be detect from much longer distance around 250-300 km

        3) and also to measure range your RWR need constant illumination , at long distance when F-35 hasn’t detect you then the beam will stay at your sector for fraction of a second not enough for range measurement , at closer range they don’t keep constant speed or altitude anymore , and obviously your IRST arenot gonna detect or track a subsonic aircraft from 300 km away

        4) ”True, but not that much anymore. Western fighter radars operate in 8-12 GHz span, and with frequency hopping and spread spectrum capabilities – designed to protect against RWR – percentage of utilization is significantly increased” well actually no , because radar will always know the exact frequency and direction that it send the signal away while RWR will have to listen to 360 degree around it and the whole range from 0.5-20 Ghz

        5) ”can also store and compare suspected emissions over time, which means that even with frequenc hopping etc., probability of detection increases significantly with lenghtening of time that radar is turned on” while what you saying have a fraction of truth , it take around amillion years for a computer to crack 10 digits password given the unlimited ways of coding and the random characteristic of AESA radar , whether the RWR stored waveform or not is largely irrelevance

        6)”You are assuming that missile responds instantly to change in conditions. But in reality there is always some lag (due to processing time and missile’s own inertia), and at distances where lag is irrelevant changes in direction mean that missile has to maneuver and lose energy.” iam not sure what you trying to say here

        7) ” set of devices dedicated to jamming as a primary mission, and capable of jamming enemy radar emissions in 360* field of regard.” with both APG-81 and ALE-70 the F-35 can jam 360 degree around it and extremely powerful in frontal sector

        8) ”F-35 when clean cannot supercruise and is aerodynamically limited to Mach 1,67 top speed. Rafale with six missiles supercruises at Mach 1,4 and is aerodynamically limited to Mach 2,0-2,1 top speed. And that Mach 2 top speed is not even thrust-to-drag limit, it is simply engine pressure recovery limit as Rafale’s relatively simple air intake design cannot slow down air sufficiently for it to achieve any higher speed. On the other hand, F-35s DSI intake should allow it speeds of up to Mach 2,0; in fact, an F-16 testbed for F-35s intake achieved Mach 2,0 without any issue. Only possible explanation is thrust-to-drag limit. So it is clear that combat-configured Rafale has better thrust-to-drag ratio than clean F-35”
        this is largely your own speculation , and a really bad one actually , her are some problem with your claim :
        _ F-135 and F-110 are very different design with different fan stage and bypass ratio , even with same intake it is normal that they are performing difference
        _ I don’t think you understand what is thrust-drag limit , thrust-drag is limit is dynamic thrust-drag limit , in other word if the intake cant slow air sufficiently enough then it will result in lower thrust , hence aircraft can fly pass a certain limit
        _ difference DSI design will have very difference optimum pressure recovery range , F-16 DSI have much narrower gap compared to the one on F-35 , which indicate it was designed with optimum at higher speed range

        9) ”This comparison shows more clearly F-16s acceleration advantage compared to the F-35:
        http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=221413&d=1380590216 ” ok if you look at fly manual of any aircraft from F-16 , Mig-29 to Su-35 you will realize that that chart is nonsense , Su-27 acceleration with 4 missiles is similar to F-35 actually ”

        10) ”F-35s tactical maneuver weight is 50% fuel plus 4 internal missiles” can you post a source to support that ? , as far as I know F-35 Kpp are always with 2 Aim-120 and 2 2000 pounds JDAM

        11) ”engines with lower bypass ratios respond more quickly to pilot commands, facilitating quicker transition from one energy state / maneuver to another” can you post a source to support this , it sound like a speculation in your part

        12) ”
        And Rafale with six missiles has only two “normal” pylons, then there are two semi-conformal missiles plus two conformal wingtip missiles – and conformal wingtip missiles a la F-16, Gripen, Rafale, actually improve aircraft’s lift to drag ratio and reduce interference drag. ” wing tip reduce flutter but they also have drag , it is explained very clear in F-16 flight manual
        , even an AIM-120 have drag index of 4

        13)
        ”That is why all aircraft whose engines are oprimized for air-to-air combat either have turbojet engines (BPR 0) or low-bypass turbofan engines (F-22 – F119, BPR 0,2; Rafale – M88-2, BPR 0,3; F-18 – F404, BPR 0,34; F-15/16 – F100, BPR 0,36. YF-18, which was designed as an air superiority fighter – as opposed to F-18s multirole goal – had YJ101 engine with BPR of 0,2). Ground attack aircraft, which typically spend time at low altitudes and, more importantly, subsonic speeds, have high bypass ratio engines. Only exception to this are Typhoon (EJ200, BPR 0,4) and Russian Fulcrum (RD-33, BPR 0,49) and Flanker (Al-31, BPR 0,59) series.”
        your explanation doesn’t make sense , first you say aircraft whose engines are oprimized for air-to-air combat either have turbojet engines (BPR 0) or low-bypass turbofan engines but then you also listed Typhoon (EJ200, BPR 0,4) and Russian Fulcrum (RD-33, BPR 0,49) and Flanker (Al-31, BPR 0,59) series and say they are the exception ??? how about Mig-31 ? which one is more optimised for air to air the F-16/79 or F-16 C/D ? what make you think F-35 isn’t the exception ?
        like I said , too much speculation with really little data

        Like

      14. “iam sorry but how exactly do you expect that to happened ? if you gonna use speed to fly out of F-35 frontal sector then not only you exposed you side aspect with huge RCS but you also exposed your exhaust fumes which have very high IR signature , coupled with the fact that if you want to your high speed then it will be even worse since IR at supersonic is much higher than subsonic speed ”

        You are assuming that enemy fighter is necessarily dead ahead of the F-35, and that radar detection performance is not reduced by jamming.

        “it is very high actually , look at radar scattering graph and you will see , APG-81 can track target with RCS of 1 meters from 160 km aways so iam sure if you exposed your side aspect y will be detect from much longer distance around 250-300 km”

        I know scattering graph of a typical fighter by memory, and while increase is significant, it would still be nowhere near to the RCS of a perfect beam aspect. And as before, your performance figures do not account for jamming.

        “well actually no , because radar will always know the exact frequency and direction that it send the signal away while RWR will have to listen to 360 degree around it and the whole range from 0.5-20 Ghz ”

        Radar will know the frequency it sends out but it still has to filter out noise in that particular frequency, especially if it is using multiple frequencies. And RWR does not have to listen to the whole range. That figure is only maximum frequency range (and is incorrect, most RWRs I have found cover 2-18 GHz against CW and 0,5/1-40 GHz against PD radars), not necessarily what RWR is considering in any particular moment.

        “it take around amillion years for a computer to crack 10 digits password given the unlimited ways of coding and the random characteristic of AESA radar , whether the RWR stored waveform or not is largely irrelevance ”

        Password is irrelevant, what matters are signal properties.

        “iam not sure what you trying to say here ”

        Missile lags behind the target’s evasion maneuvers, hence a properly timed maneuver means that missile cannot respond and will miss. At longer ranges, where missile can adapt, distance by which it leads the target is very large, which means that target has time to perform a 180* turn and force missile to bleed energy. As simple as that.

        More on topic here:
        https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/evading-air-to-air-missile/

        “with both APG-81 and ALE-70 the F-35 can jam 360 degree around it and extremely powerful in frontal sector ”

        ALE-70 is a countermeasure dispenser system. F-35 may get disposable jammers (such as CloudFlare), but it has neither towed or internal jammer. Which may be a problem against SAMs.

        “_ F-135 and F-110 are very different design with different fan stage and bypass ratio , even with same intake it is normal that they are performing difference”

        Yes, and engine performance is part of aircraft performance. It figures into thrust-to-drag ratio.

        “_ I don’t think you understand what is thrust-drag limit , thrust-drag is limit is dynamic thrust-drag limit , in other word if the intake cant slow air sufficiently enough then it will result in lower thrust , hence aircraft can fly pass a certain limit”

        No, you don’t understand it. What you are talking about is engine pressure recovery limit, not basic thrust-to-drag limit. There are two possibilities for aircraft’s top speed limit when it comes to engine performance limit. First one is that engine reaches limit of its power long before air intake becomes incapable of providing it with subsonic flow of air. That is thrust to drag limit. Second one is that engine does have enough power to theoretically achieve higher speeds, but intake design cannot slow down air to subsonic velocities at any speed greater than what aircraft is flying at, which means that engine loses power and again thrust balances out drag. This is pressure recovery limit. End result is the same – thrust balances out drag and aircraft cannot achieve any higher speed – but causes of the effect are different.

        “can you post a source to support that ? , as far as I know F-35 Kpp are always with 2 Aim-120 and 2 2000 pounds JDAM”

        That is not tactical maneuver weight, aircraft is not expected to maneuver with bombs. And even two JDAMs would barely compensate for half the fuel spent.

        “can you post a source to support this , it sound like a speculation in your part ”

        It is not a speculation, it is basic physics (do you know anything about inertia?).

        https://books.google.hr/books?isbn=1420034723
        https://books.google.hr/books?id=I9o_CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=engine+bypass+ratio+responsiveness&source=bl&ots=cQdrN-79I6&sig=ns2PERKYjaE65D7mx0Gg4TJBZ_Q&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP0c6frM3KAhVE1ywKHUnVBj4Q6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q=engine%20bypass%20ratio%20responsiveness&f=false
        “and the need for additional responsiveness, military engines have low bypass ratios”

        “your explanation doesn’t make sense , first you say aircraft whose engines are oprimized for air-to-air combat either have turbojet engines (BPR 0) or low-bypass turbofan engines but then you also listed Typhoon (EJ200, BPR 0,4) and Russian Fulcrum (RD-33, BPR 0,49) and Flanker (Al-31, BPR 0,59) series and say they are the exception ??? how about Mig-31 ? which one is more optimised for air to air the F-16/79 or F-16 C/D ? what make you think F-35 isn’t the exception ?”

        I have already explained why, Typhoon’s engine is based off Tornado’s which in turn is designed primarily for ground attack while Fulcrum and Flanker have dual-role air-to-air and ground attack missions. MiG-31 uses engine with bypass ratio of 0,57, which while high by today’s standards is apparently a standard in Russian aviation industry. In any case MiG-31 cruised on afterburner thrust, nothing to do with supercruise as defined today. F-16/79 is more optimized for air-to-air than F-16C/D, being modified from F-16A.

        Like

      15. 1) ” Basic parts of the airframe are the same, and yes F-35B and C have safety margin of roughly 1,85, as I have shown before. That for F-35A is 1,5.”
        the main path that make significant different in safety margin are the wing of the F-35C and the engine , reduced weight reduction of the F-35B
        i think your logic is extremely flawed , if F-35B/C have safety margin of 1.85 then F-35A safety margin of only 1.5 is very unreasonable given the fact that F-35 much smaller wing will result in stronger structure

        2 ”I am discussing air-to-air configuration here. Rafale C with six missiles and full internal fuel has wing loading of 328 kg/m2, F-35A with four missiles and zero internal fuel has wing loading of 329 kg/m2”
        that is incorrect , an empty Rafale weight 10,300 kilograms , it’s full interal fuel load is 9,850 kilograms , with reference wing area of 45.7 m2 , it wing loading is 440 kg/m2 , and i haven’t included the weight of 6 missiles or pilot yet
        i don’t understand how could you make mistake with the basic math there ??

        3) ”By extrapolating from known values, such as aerodynamic configuration, wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratio, g limit, corner speed, engine design and characteristics, top speed, cruise speed, acceleration etc.” the problem is you made a lot of mistake in your calculation and a really bad one as well , for example the assumption that Rafale can somehow sustain 27 degree/second at 25000 feet or the assumption that some how at similar altitude Rafale sustain 9g while F-35 can sustain only 4.6g ??

        Like

      16. “if F-35B/C have safety margin of 1.85 then F-35A safety margin of only 1.5 is very unreasonable given the fact that F-35 much smaller wing will result in stronger structure”

        Other parts of the structure will not be different.

        “that is incorrect , an empty Rafale weight 10,300 kilograms , it’s full interal fuel load is 9,850 kilograms , with reference wing area of 45.7 m2 , it wing loading is 440 kg/m2 , and i haven’t included the weight of 6 missiles or pilot yet
        i don’t understand how could you make mistake with the basic math there ??”

        I’ll throw that right back into your face, apparently you have no bloody idea about basic specifications of the aircraft you are discussing. Rafale C’s empty weight is 9.550 kg with 4.750 kg internal fuel, and MICA weights 112 kg. Its operational empty weight (which includes the pilot) is 9.979 kg, so combat weight will be 9.979 kg + 6112 kg + 0,54.750 kg = 13.026 kg. With wing area of 45,7 m2, wing loading is 285 kg/m2.

        “the problem is you made a lot of mistake in your calculation and a really bad one as well”

        After what you did right above, you don’t exactly have right to complain.

        “for example the assumption that Rafale can somehow sustain 27 degree/second at 25000 feet or the assumption that some how at similar altitude Rafale sustain 9g while F-35 can sustain only 4.6g ??”

        You are assuming that because F-35 cannot do it Rafale cannot do it either. But there are a lot of factors in sustaining a turn, such as lift/drag, thrust/drag ratios, and in all of them Rafale has advantage over the F-35.

        Like

    2. I also noted that you said ”F-35 can use its radar for jamming, but it only covers 120* forward cone and to do so it has to sacrifice frequency agility, making it vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles” but then ignore the same case for Rafale ? double standard ?
      any way home on jam or anti radio station missiles can be defeated very easy by cooperative jamming , with 2 jamming asset turn on and off their jammer in turn to attract and deplete energy of the home on jam missiles ( either between 2 F-35 or between an F-35 and a MALD-J )

      another very obvious mistake is
      ”In fact, Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles. F-35A can only sustain 4,6 g when in clean configuration.” it is completely nonsense ,I would really want to see the source that sate such thing

      ”Rafale achieves 1.090 km combat radius in low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks,”
      and can you give a source for this too , this sound like performance of F-15E or F-111 rather than a medium weight fighter like rafale , I really hope it not just another speculation

      ”On the other hand, Rafale will carry 12 air-to-ground weapons, compared to only two for the F-35” this is wrong , with Spear III or SDB II even the F-35B can carry 8 internal air to ground weapon with multi mode seeker and range around 100 km

      Like

      Reply

      1. “but then ignore the same case for Rafale ? double standard ?”

        Rafale does not use radar for jamming, it has a dedicated ECM suite which works on DRFM basis, and can also use active cancellation if some things I’ve read are correct.

        “it is completely nonsense ,I would really want to see the source that sate such thing ”

        Which part? Your standard for “complete nonsense” is apparently “I don’t like it”.

        https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale-334383/
        – 5,5 g in air-to-ground stores mode

        “and can you give a source for this too , this sound like performance of F-15E or F-111 rather than a medium weight fighter like rafale , I really hope it not just another speculation ”

        It is not, albeit I don’t have the original source saved and this one has some mistakes:
        http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/fighters/fighters.html

        “this is wrong , with Spear III or SDB II even the F-35B can carry 8 internal air to ground weapon with multi mode seeker and range around 100 km”

        And smaller than what Rafale typically carries.

        Like

      2. 1)” Rafale does not use radar for jamming, it has a dedicated ECM suite which works on DRFM basis,”
        just because F-35 use it’s radar as a transmitter for jamming signal doesn’t mean it cannot employs deceptive jamming ( DRFM ) , DRFM method arenothing news they are available decade ago even these old jamming system like ALQ-211v9 , ASPIS II, ALQ-131 has DRFM
        nevertheless DRFM will be very ineffective again AESA radar due to simple fact that DRFM jammer need to received signal , analysis , create a false signal then send the false signal back while AESA have random frequency , PRF , waveform characteristic , the radar will always change it’s frequency give it ability to distinguish between false and real target very easy .
        brutal force noise jamming are a lot more effective again frequency agile radar
        btw F-35 does have internal jammer other than APG-81 and ALE-70 , ASQ-239 can also perform jamming role , and you forget to mentioned the MALD-J too

        2) ” and can also use active cancellation if some things I’ve read are correct.”
        Active cancellation doesn’t work, it is the same kind of BS as plasma stealth, which sound very cool in theory but with basic physics knowledge you will know that it not possible
        In theory active cancellation rely on destructive interference to work
        Firstly, destructive interference is the phenomenon that occurs when two waves meet while traveling along the same medium. The interference of waves causes the medium to take on a shape that results from the net effect of the two individual waves upon the particles of the medium.Consider two pulses of the same amplitude traveling in different directions along the same medium. Let’s suppose that each displaced 1 unit ( opposite with the other) at its crest and has the shape of a sine wave. As the sine pulses move towards each other, there will eventually be a moment in time when they are completely overlapped. At that moment, the resulting shape of the medium would be zero
        Once the two pulses pass through each other, there is still an upward displaced pulse and a downward displaced pulse heading in the same direction that they were heading before the interference. Destructive interference leads to only a momentary condition in which the medium’s displacement is less than the displacement of the largest-amplitude wave. The meeting of two waves along a medium does not alter the individual waves or even deviate them from their path. Yet two waves will meet, produce a net resulting shape of the medium, and then continue on doing what they were doing before the interference
        http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/Interference-of-Waves
        So the only way for active cancellation to work is if you can transmitting the wave from every where on your aircraft , exact frequency with enemy’s radar wave, exactly out of phase by odd multiple of π, and most importantly , in the exact opposite direction with enemy’s wave ( otherwise the destructive interference effect would be momentary only) . We’re talking about getting a pulse, determining the frequency and phase of pulse at all parts of your aircraft, even where there aren’t T/R modules, then determining the frequency and phase it’s at when it gets back to all enemy Rxs and cancelling it at that point down to the millimetre, allowing for propagation time, . It’s comical. you cant transmitting wave from every part on your aircraft, and not in all directions, unless you make your whole fighter become a big antenna. Even if you can some how cover the whole aircraft with T/R modules , active cancelation would required transmitter, receiver with unrealistic accuracy , and even then active cancellation wouldn’t work if radar wave from 2 source hitting the same place on your aircraft

        Go try develop a system that cancels random music perfectly to produce complete silence, so that nobody, regardless of where they’re standing hears a thing and you see how unrealistic it is to have something active cancellation

        ( and i have not even mentioned the fact that AESA doesn’t use constant frequency, PRF or scan pattern which make active cancellation even more unrealistic)

        3) ”Which part? Your standard for “complete nonsense” is apparently “I don’t like it
        – 5,5 g in air-to-ground stores mode”.
        yes I don’t like it because it have very basic misunderstand
        there isno where in that link state that Rafale can sustain 5.5 g with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles , the only thing they described is ”The DFCS is a “g” demand system with +9.0g/29° angle of attack (AoA) limit in air-to-air mode and +5.5g/20° AoA limit in both of the two air-to-ground/heavy stores modes (ST1 and ST2) to cater for forward or aft centre of gravity”
        basically they describe the FBW software which is in fact has the same function as the CAT II , CAT III limiter on F-16 ( limit g when AG weapon carried on certain station ) , you know the maximum g limit is very different from the sustain g limit right ??? and also sustain g limit are very different between altitude and load out

        4) ”It is not, albeit I don’t have the original source saved and this one has some mistakes” there is no where in the link state that ””Rafale achieves 1.090 km combat radius in low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks ” , what they have is some badly draw table , the performance you listed if actually real should be available quite widely

        5) ”And smaller than what Rafale typically carries” but has they has more range and multi mode seeker make them much harder to jam

        Like

      3. “DRFM will be very ineffective again AESA radar due to simple fact that DRFM jammer need to received signal , analysis , create a false signal then send the false signal back while AESA have random frequency , PRF , waveform characteristic , the radar will always change it’s frequency give it ability to distinguish between false and real target very easy .”

        Not really, it all depends on how quickly it is done.

        “Active cancellation doesn’t work, it is the same kind of BS as plasma stealth, which sound very cool in theory but with basic physics knowledge you will know that it not possible”

        It is possible against non-frequency pulse doppler radars, it will never achieve “invisibility” but it can reduce detection range. Which is the entire point of SPECTRA that you missed, not invisibility but reduced engagement range. Hence most of the rest of your post about that is superfluous as it is based on an incorrect premise (invisibility vs stealth).

        “4) ”It is not, albeit I don’t have the original source saved and this one has some mistakes” there is no where in the link state that ””Rafale achieves 1.090 km combat radius in low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks ” , what they have is some badly draw table , the performance you listed if actually real should be available quite widely ”

        I don’t have time to go search for sources now, but this is Rafale’s combat radius:
        925 km air superiority on internal fuel
        530 km lo-lo-lo
        630 km lo-hi-lo
        1.090 km low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks,
        1.850 km with 8 MICA and 3×2.200 l tanks

        Like

      4. 1) ”Not really, it all depends on how quickly it is done.”
        unless it take zero seconds to process , analysis and making a new fake signal then your false signal will always has quite significant delay compared to the actual reflected pulse

        2) ”It is possible against non-frequency pulse doppler radars, it will never achieve “invisibility” but it can reduce detection range. Which is the entire point of SPECTRA that you missed, not invisibility but reduced engagement range. Hence most of the rest of your post about that is superfluous as it is based on an incorrect premise (invisibility vs stealth).” i didnt missed it , not at all, even if your goal is only reduce RCS you will still have to deal with what i described , the only factor that you dont have to worry about anymore is create exact amplitude , but to reduce RCS you will still have to rely on destructive interference

        destructive interference doesnot mean the wave get destroyed , it mean you reduced it’s amplitude by sending another wave overlap with it and out of phase by odd multiple of π
        so the only way for active cancellation to work is if Spectre can transmitting the wave from every where on Rafale airframe ,with exact frequency with enemy’s radar wave, exactly out of phase by odd multiple of π, and most importantly , in the exact opposite direction with enemy’s wave ( otherwise the destructive interference effect would be momentary only) . We’re talking about getting a pulse, determining the frequency and phase of pulse at all parts of your aircraft, even where there aren’t T/R modules, then determining the frequency and phase it’s at when it gets back to all enemy Rxs and cancelling it at that point down to the millimetre, allowing for propagation time, . It’s comical

        3) ”1.090 km low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks,”
        i can bet that this doesnt exist , more likely that you misunderstand something , similar to when you miss read FBW limiter with sustain g limit

        Like

      5. “unless it take zero seconds to process , analysis and making a new fake signal then your false signal will always has quite significant delay compared to the actual reflected pulse ”

        It will have a delay, which is why I said that it can only reduce RCS. But radar can’t change frequency instantaneously either.

        “so the only way for active cancellation to work is if Spectre can transmitting the wave from every where on Rafale airframe”

        Incorrect. Just radar and few ECM emitters transmitting the wave will reduce RCS. And Rafale’s airframe is designed so that reflected signal is concentrated in several spikes, just like stealth fighters, the only difference is external missile carriage.

        “i can bet that this doesnt exist , more likely that you misunderstand something , similar to when you miss read FBW limiter with sustain g limit”

        I did not misread anything, it says precisely that.

        Like

      6. 1) ”It will have a delay, which is why I said that it can only reduce RCS. ”
        to reduce RCS , you need to be able to affect the amplitude of the pulse before it reflected back , which is not possible , because there is no way you can create the ”cancellation signal” fast enough and you wont be able to transmit it so that it overlap with enemy wave to the micrometer either

        2) ” But radar can’t change frequency instantaneously either.”
        radarcan change frequency with pulse while your deceptive jammer will always have to follow that

        3) ” Incorrect. Just radar and few ECM emitters transmitting the wave will reduce RCS.”
        Wrong , the ECM cant just magically reduce RCS , whether you use your radar as a transmitter or not is irrelevant , basic radio wave physic : to affect RCS ( the correct term here is skin return signal ) , you have to transmit “cancelling signal ” with exact frequency with enemy’s radar wave, exactly out of phase by odd multiple of π, and most importantly , in the exact opposite direction and completely overlap with enemy’s wave down to micrometer

        4) ”And Rafale’s airframe is designed so that reflected signal is concentrated in several spikes, just like stealth fighters, the only difference is external missile carriage”
        Iam sorry but this is absolute nonsense , all aircraft has spike with enormous RCS ( even for stealth fighter spike can be as high as 10-15 dBsm )
        but that doesnt mean eliminate these spike will suddenly make aircraft stealthy , in fact, the figure you saw online for aircraft RCS never counted value of these spike in the first place because unless your aircraft use straight non masked intake then these spike are never at the frontal
        5) ”I did not misread anything, it says precisely that.” where exactly does it say that rafale can sustain 5-6g with 2 storm shadow , 3 2000 fuel tank and 6 Mica ??? in the whole airticle they only mentioned the g limit by control software when weapon are carried on A-G station , the CAT III limiter on F-16 has exactly the same function . If you cant distinguish between max G limit then how can you be so sure you didnt mis read anything ?
        and if yo didnt mis read it then where is the link for ”1.090 km low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks,” ??

        Like

    3. 1) ”You are assuming that enemy fighter is necessarily dead ahead of the F-35,”
      no , but iam assumed the enemy is atleast within 120 degree frontal sector ( it not actually easy to fly out of that sector like you think ( imagined a circle with radius of 200-300 km what would be the arc length of a 120 degree angle ? )
      surely you can make up scenario where Rafale approaching F-35 from behind or from the side but that would be largely irrelevance and biased

      2) ”and that radar detection performance is not reduced by jamming.” here is another misconception of your , but it alright , a lot of people make the same mistake , here are the important thing to remember : stealth and jamming arenot the same , stealth prevent enemy from detecting you , jamming prevent enemy from track-locking you , it doesn’t matter whether you use deceptive jamming or noise jamming once you turn on your jammer you will appear on enemy’s RWR ( because for your jammer to work enemy radar need to received the jamming pulse you sent out ). Unlike stealth ,a jammer will aim to stop enemy from attacking you by denying their ability to get accurate information about : range , velocity or altitude , angle
      once you turn on your jammer , enemy will know you are out there even if they cant get targeting solution yet , they will no longer keeping constant speed , constant heading or constant altitude for your passive ranging to work

      3) ”I know scattering graph of a typical fighter by memory, and while increase is significant, it would still be nowhere near to the RCS of a perfect beam aspect. ”.
      obviously aircraft RCS will be highest at perfect beam aspect , however even at near side aspect aircraft RCS are already increased significantly due to conner reflector created by missiles fin , wing-pylon , wing- vertical tail . A typical small aircraft like F-16 , mig-29 has perfect beam aspect RCS of around 30 dBsm ( 1000 m2 ) , and near beam aspect RCS of around 10-20 dBsm ( 10-100 m2 )

      3) ”Radar will know the frequency it sends out but it still has to filter out noise in that particular frequency, especially if it is using multiple frequencies. And RWR does not have to listen to the whole range. That figure is only maximum frequency range (and is incorrect, most RWRs I have found cover 2-18 GHz against CW and 0,5/1-40 GHz against PD radars), not necessarily what RWR is considering in any particular moment.”
      wrong , not only RWR need to filter out noise , they will have a much harder job compared to radar because they cant create their own waveform but has to analysis what they received
      let me took a simple example : as you already know PESA and AESA are famous for their extremely fast scan rate and thin beam characteristic , they can perform air to air and air to ground search mode at the same time , here are the problem : when the radar beam shine at ground there will be reflection going up too , so how can your RWR know whether the reflection beam coming up to it , is from some grounds SAM radar or from some aircraft with their radar in SAR mode ? that not to mention the interference from datalink , refraction effect , jamming scattering ..etc

      4) ”Password is irrelevant, what matters are signal properties” it is an analogy , what iam trying to explain to you is waveform characteristic , because the number of different waveform a radar can use is practically unlimited

      5) ”Missile lags behind the target’s evasion maneuvers, hence a properly timed maneuver means that missile cannot respond and will miss. At longer ranges, where missile can adapt, distance by which it leads the target is very large, which means that target has time to perform a 180* turn and force missile to bleed energy. As simple as that.”
      at long range when missiles is far ways then the correction angle it needed for your maneuver is actually very small , at terminal phase obviously a properly timed turn can defeat missile , however , you only thinking about defeating 1 missiles , in reality there is often more than one missiles coming at you , while your maneuver time may be right again the first missiles , it isn’t necessary right again the second missiles coming

      6) ”ALE-70 is a countermeasure dispenser system. F-35 may get disposable jammers (such as CloudFlare), but it has neither towed or internal jammer. Which may be a problem against SAMs”
      no ALE-70 is a RF towed decoy , in frontal arc it’s main internal jammer is APG-81 , and according to BAE the ASQ-239 also have jamming function so F-35 does indeed has internal jammer
      http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Aircraft+self-protection+against+sophistication.-a0363687470

      Click to access 0182_6.pdf

      http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system

      7) ” Yes, and engine performance is part of aircraft performance. It figures into thrust-to-drag ratio.”
      the difference is engine will changed depending on block

      8) ”No, you don’t understand it. What you are talking about is engine pressure recovery limit, not basic thrust-to-drag limit. There are two possibilities for aircraft’s top speed limit when it comes to engine performance limit. First one is that engine reaches limit of its power long before air intake becomes incapable of providing it with subsonic flow of air. That is thrust to drag limit. Second one is that engine does have enough power to theoretically achieve higher speeds, but intake design cannot slow down air to subsonic velocities at any speed greater than what aircraft is flying at, which means that engine loses power and again thrust balances out drag. This is pressure recovery limit. End result is the same – thrust balances out drag and aircraft cannot achieve any higher speed – but causes of the effect are different”
      here is the thing : engine thrust does not suddenly stop at a certain speed , it reduced gradually in similar rate as the intake ability to recover pressure reduced , the problem is you just assumed that Rafale speed limit is due to it’s intake while F-35 speed limit is due to aerodynamic without actual evidence and very weak speculation , we don’t know the actual dynamic thrust of either Rafale engine or F-35 engine , we don’t know the exact pressure recovery limit of their intake , we don’t know their Cd or Cl either , thus making comment such as ” it too fat hence it cant go faster ” is base less and largely irrelevance

      9)”That is not tactical maneuver weight, aircraft is not expected to maneuver with bombs”
      so you cant provide a source for your comment and it is basically your speculation ? , performance metrics would depending a lot on missions profile and requirement , there isn’t anything to say that F-35 sustain g performance isn’t based on 2 aim-120 + 2 JDAM load out ( just like they done with others F-35 metric )

      10) ” And even two JDAMs would barely compensate for half the fuel spent.” talking about fuel , it is likely that Rafale would need some where 100% internal fuel to fly same distance that F-35 can do on 50-60% internal fuel

      11) ”I have already explained why, Typhoon’s engine is based off Tornado’s which in turn is designed primarily for ground attack while Fulcrum and Flanker have dual-role air-to-air and ground attack missions. MiG-31 uses engine with bypass ratio of 0,57, which while high by today’s standards is apparently a standard in Russian aviation industry. In any case MiG-31 cruised on afterburner thrust, nothing to do with supercruise as defined today. F-16/79 is more optimized for air-to-air than F-16C/D, being modified from F-16A.”
      the problem is your explanation doesn’t make a lot of sense , if you consider Flanker and Fucrum to have dual air to air and air to ground attack mission then every single aircraft you listed except the F-22 have dual air to air and air to ground mission requirement
      whether Mig-31 cruise on afterburner or not is largely irrelevant to my point , what said is BPR doesn’t necessary indicate aircraft role : Mig-31 can still fly at very high speed despite big draggy airframe , low T/W and high BPR
      also F-16/79 isnot more optimized for air to air than F-16 C/D , it was a degraded version of F-16 to sell to some countries that F-100 cannot be exported , F-16 C/D have much better thrust at transonic range which translate to better dogfight performance

      12 ) ”Other parts of the structure will not be different.” you have the main part which is the wing significantly different , on the F-35B the buk head , the mid body engine , the vanes , the weapon bays design are all different

      13 ) ”You are assuming that because F-35 cannot do it Rafale cannot do it either. But there are a lot of factors in sustaining a turn, such as lift/drag, thrust/drag ratios, and in all of them Rafale has advantage over the F-35.”
      no , I didn’t assume that because F-35 cant do that hence Rafale cant do , iam saying Rafale cant do it because it would go again physic law
      let put it in simple term : 27 degree/ seconds at 800 km/h is around more than 10g , the air density at 25k ft is less than half of the air density at sea level , to sustain that amount of turn rate at 25k feet , the Rafale would need magic wing which doesn’t lose any lift at high altitude and a magic engine which doesn’t loose any thrust at altitude either
      ( you may come up with : but rafale turn at speed lower than 800 km/h , well that is even more impossible because the dynamic pressuare will reduce which mean the wing will need even more magic to create lift , if you go faster then it wont be much better because the g value will increase which also mean wing need more lift and know engine will have to overcome more drag )

      Like

      Reply

      1. “no , but iam assumed the enemy is atleast within 120 degree frontal sector ( it not actually easy to fly out of that sector like you think ( imagined a circle with radius of 200-300 km what would be the arc length of a 120 degree angle ? )”

        Problem with F-35 is that it has low cruise speed so if the enemy knows where it is, either that or another fighter can catch it from behind. And radius of a circle won’t be anywhere close to 200-300 km with all the clutter and jamming that will be going on during the war.

        “surely you can make up scenario where Rafale approaching F-35 from behind or from the side but that would be largely irrelevance and biased”

        Actually it would be very relevant. War isn’t as orderly as you seem to assume.

        “here is another misconception of your , but it alright , a lot of people make the same mistake , here are the important thing to remember : stealth and jamming arenot the same , stealth prevent enemy from detecting you , jamming prevent enemy from track-locking you , it doesn’t matter whether you use deceptive jamming or noise jamming once you turn on your jammer you will appear on enemy’s RWR”

        You are talking about noise jamming here actually, with modern AESA jammers and proper deceptive jamming, only fighter that is using the radar will be targeted by the jammer, and its radar and possibly RWR will both assume that signal is actually a reflection from fighter’s own radar. And with RWR it doesn’t really matter that much anyway, as it is not used for targeting.

        And stealth and jamming are the same in that they have the same function, only approach is different. Plus, some types of jamming can actually improve aircraft’s stealth (Rafale’s SPECTRA can actually reduce aircraft’s RCS in one of its modes).

        “let me took a simple example : as you already know PESA and AESA are famous for their extremely fast scan rate and thin beam characteristic , they can perform air to air and air to ground search mode at the same time , here are the problem : when the radar beam shine at ground there will be reflection going up too , so how can your RWR know whether the reflection beam coming up to it , is from some grounds SAM radar or from some aircraft with their radar in SAR mode ?”

        Ground is not a flat metal plate as you seem to assume. Fighter radars are already weaker on average than ground radars, and reflection will change beam characteristics as well (primarily in terms of strength). RWR may get a false return from the ground but it will notice airborne radar as well.

        “that not to mention the interference from datalink , refraction effect , jamming scattering ..etc”

        All of which impacts the radar as well.

        “because the number of different waveform a radar can use is practically unlimited ”

        Theoretically, but not practically.

        “at long range when missiles is far ways then the correction angle it needed for your maneuver is actually very small , at terminal phase obviously a properly timed turn can defeat missile , however , you only thinking about defeating 1 missiles , in reality there is often more than one missiles coming at you , while your maneuver time may be right again the first missiles , it isn’t necessary right again the second missiles coming ”

        That is correct, which is why Russian doctrine calls for 3-4 missiles in a salvo. But countermeasures against one missile can also defeat an upcoming missile as well, depending on a situation. And you have to keep in mind that in a salvo, one missile will typically go haywire with no external cause.

        “no ALE-70 is a RF towed decoy , in frontal arc it’s main internal jammer is APG-81 , and according to BAE the ASQ-239 also have jamming function so F-35 does indeed has internal jammer”

        ASQ-239 is an integrated defensive suite, any jammers regardless of type are counted in it. Wording in documents is iffy at best, they may be interpreted as pointing towards the internal jammer but may as well be talking about towed / disposable cartridges as well.

        “here is the thing : engine thrust does not suddenly stop at a certain speed , it reduced gradually in similar rate as the intake ability to recover pressure reduced , the problem is you just assumed that Rafale speed limit is due to it’s intake while F-35 speed limit is due to aerodynamic without actual evidence and very weak speculation”

        Thrust does indeed reduce gradually but point is that jet engine cannot utilize supersonic air and in most modern fighters intake’s inability to slow down air to subsonic speeds is the limiting factor, not lack of thrust as such. With a more complex intake/ducting system with additional shocks, Rafale, Typhoon and F-22 would all easily achieve Mach 2,5. As it is, they are limited to Mach 2,0. F-35 on the other hand should be capable of achieving Mach 2,0 due to its intake design, yet it cannot do so.

        Of course, all air will not become supersonic immediately, it is indeed a gradual process, but one that significantly increases past certain speed. And it does not change my point about F-35s intake design and top speed.

        “thus making comment such as ” it too fat hence it cant go faster ” is base less and largely irrelevance ”

        It is not just being too fat but yes it plays a large role. Wing sweep also has impact, as does the fact that F135s higher bypass ratio means quicker thrust loss with increasing speed. End result is still the same: thing cannot supercruise, or at the very least “supercruise” performance is extremely marginal (if 150 nm supercruise statement really is correct, then it means that F-35 either A) supercruises at low afterburner and not dry thrust or B) has to burn off most of its internal fuel before even thinking about supercruise). Notice that all supercruising aircraft so far (English Electric Lightning, Mirage IIIO, F-104, Tornado F3, F-16, Gripen A/C/E, Rafale, Typhoon, F-22) had or have top speed of Mach 2,0 dash and Mach 1,8 operational.

        “talking about fuel , it is likely that Rafale would need some where 100% internal fuel to fly same distance that F-35 can do on 50-60% internal fuel ”

        Incorrect. Combat radius in air-to-air configuration is 925 km for Rafale and 1.082 km for F-35A, 833 km for F-35B and 1.100 km for F-35C. One-way range on internal fuel is 2.100 km for Rafale, 2.200 km for F-35A, 1.670 km for F-35B and 2.600 km for F-35C. Even for the F-35C, and accounting for the fuel necessary for takeoff etc., F-35 cannot fly the same distance as Rafale on just 60% internal fuel. Especially not F-35A, which is the “baseline” F-35 model and as such typically used in comparisons. (“Baseline” as in most numerous, from design point of view, F-35B is a baseline model for F-35 variants, just as is Rafale M for Rafale variants).

        In air-to-ground configuration, Rafale has combat radius of some 530-630 km on internal fuel. Lower value is about half of F-35A/Cs combat radius, but even so, F-35 would need lot more than just 50% fuel to achieve such combat radius (as I mentioned, you have to account for the fuel necessary to take off, climb, etc.).

        “the problem is your explanation doesn’t make a lot of sense , if you consider Flanker and Fucrum to have dual air to air and air to ground attack mission then every single aircraft you listed except the F-22 have dual air to air and air to ground mission requirement”

        Incorrect. There is a difference between operational mission and design goal. Design requirements as outlined for F-22, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, F-15, F-16, F-18, all placed emphasis on air-to-air mission. In fact, as far as F-22, F-15, F-16, F-18 (and possibly Typhoon) design teams were concerned, air-to-air combat was the only design requirement, air-to-ground mission was simply thrown on at a later date when somebody had a bright idea that they needed more multirole fighters.

        “whether Mig-31 cruise on afterburner or not is largely irrelevant to my point, what said is BPR doesn’t necessary indicate aircraft role : Mig-31 can still fly at very high speed despite big draggy airframe , low T/W and high BPR”

        It is extremely relevant to your point. Engine at dry thrust relies primarily on core thrust/air, whereas bypass air plays important (actually, primary) role when it comes to afterburning thrust. You see, with dry thrust, fuel is injected into the engine core where it burns up and provides thrust relatively efficiently. But that air has less oxygen left to feed the afterburner (still a significant amount, though). Therefore, in turbofan engines afterburner utilizes bypass air in addition to core air. Consequence of this is that turbojets typically achieve greater percentage of total thrust when running at military/dry thrust, and also have higher power density relative to frontal area. Hence why F119, which is designed for supercruise, has such low bypass ratio. Unlike F-22, MiG-31 cruised on afterburner which necessitated higher bypass ratio (for both propulsion purposes and cooling of the engine itself), but F.35 does not have characteristics required for that (high fuel fraction of over 40%, large total fuel load, large wing for high altitude flight as efficient afterburning cruise is only possible at high altitudes, and high wing sweep of at least 45*).

        “no , I didn’t assume that because F-35 cant do that hence Rafale cant do , iam saying Rafale cant do it because it would go again physic law
        let put it in simple term : 27 degree/ seconds at 800 km/h is around more than 10g”

        Rafale’s sustained corner turn performance is 9 g at 360 kts / 667 km/h, do your calculation and you will see it goes to exactly 27 deg/s. And F-22 is also said – by a pilot IIRC – to achieve 28 deg/s sustained turn rate at 20.000 ft. Unless the pilot in question is lying, I don’t see any reason why Rafale – with superior aerodynamics and lower wing loading – would not be able to achieve 27 deg/s STR at 25.000 ft.

        Like

      2. 1) ”Problem with F-35 is that it has low cruise speed so if the enemy knows where it is, either that or another fighter can catch it from behind. And radius of a circle won’t be anywhere close to 200-300 km with all the clutter and jamming that will be going on during the war.”
        Rafale can fly faster than F-35 but not that much faster , and the only ways for you to somehow circle behind something without it being able to react is if your angular speed is so fast that enemy cannot turn with it , which mean either you are at very close range like 1-2 km or enemy can only fly in straight line , in reality at distance of 100 km and higher , there isno way for Rafale to circle around F-35 fast enough that it cannot turn and face toward the new direction that Rafale coming from , even if the Rafale moving at mach 20 ( which it doesnt obviously )
        and if you turn on your jamming , you will be detected so you wont be able to sneak behind the F35 either
        it is important to note that , if you fly at higher altitude than enemy you wont benefit from clutter ( because enemy radar will track you again sky background )

        2) “Actually it would be very relevant. War isn’t as orderly as you seem to assume.” if you want to create a scenario that is completely biased in favor of Rafale then you can but then that doesnt mean you are comparing 2 platform anymore , for example : you can also make up scenario where Mig-21 with ground control guide can shot down Rafale

        3) ”You are talking about noise jamming here actually, with modern AESA jammers and proper deceptive jamming, only fighter that is using the radar will be targeted by the jammer, and its radar and possibly RWR will both assume that signal is actually a reflection from fighter’s own radar. ”
        no , it doesnt matter which kind of jamming you use , the jamming must be atleast be strong enough for enemy radar to detect it , hence there is no way you can use your jammer while still stay invisible to enemy , jamming is to break track , lock, not to stay undetected
        and because you will be detected by enemy RWR or radar when you use your jammer , the enemy will know there are something out there instantly and thus no longer keep a constant heading or speed or altitude as a result you wont be able to use it to aid your passive ranging or ” circling behind enemy ”
        and actually similar to a radar , the jammer will also send out a radio beam ( jamming signal in this case ) , depending on the aperture of the transmitter the beam could be wide ( low gain ) or thin ( high gain ) . The disadvantages of an internal jammer ( like Spectra ) compare to using radar jammer ( apg-81 ) is that , the transmitting aperture of internal jammer is much smaller hence they cant create beam as thin so not only it is easier to be detect by aircraft that you not targeted but your jamming also required more power for same effectiveness

        4) ”And with RWR it doesn’t really matter that much anyway, as it is not used for targeting.” :
        funny that you would say such thing now , because as we both know that before the discussion with me you think Spectra can somehow give fring solution again fighter from 200 km ( and still have corrected that yet , or at least mentioning the weakness of passive ranging )

        5) ” And stealth and jamming are the same in that they have the same function, only approach is different. ” : stealth and jamming are similar in the fact that they both used to break the kill chain , however stealth help you hide from enemy while jamming stop enemy from attack you by create false information about range , velocity or heading ..etc

        6) ”Plus, some types of jamming can actually improve aircraft’s stealth (Rafale’s SPECTRA can actually reduce aircraft’s RCS in one of its modes).”
        jamming will be more effective if your fighter has low RCS , however , jamming doesnot improve stealth ( or RCS ). What you tried to describe for Spectra is active cancellation , which i has already explained earlier that it wont work , even if your aim is only to reduce RCS not becoming invisible , active cancellation will face the exact problem that i described earlier
        the only way for active cancellation to work is if you can transmitting the wave from every where on your aircraft , exact frequency with enemy’s radar wave, exactly out of phase by odd multiple of π, and most importantly , in the exact opposite direction with enemy’s wave ( otherwise the destructive interference effect would be momentary only) . We’re talking about getting a pulse, determining the frequency and phase of pulse at all parts of your aircraft, even where there aren’t T/R modules, then determining the frequency and phase it’s at when it gets back to all enemy Rxs and cancelling it at that point down to the millimetre, allowing for propagation time, . It’s comical. you cant transmitting wave from every part on your aircraft, and not in all directions, unless you make your whole fighter become a big antenna. Even if you can some how cover the whole aircraft with T/R modules , active cancelation would required transmitter, receiver with unrealistic accuracy , and even then active cancellation wouldn’t work if radar wave from 2 source hitting the same place on your aircraft

        7) ”Ground is not a flat metal plate as you seem to assume. Fighter radars are already weaker on average than ground radars, and reflection will change beam characteristics as well (primarily in terms of strength). RWR may get a false return from the ground but it will notice airborne radar as well.”
        it not that simple , not all ground radar are more powerful than air radar , and difference radar mode also have completely different beam power , for example velocity search will transmitting much higher power down range compare to search while track , then there are also others factor such as PRF and duty cycle that change the beam strength (average – peak power ) significantly
        without proper analysis and clutter filtering your RWR will have load of false return from all over the place , and since RWR doesnt have ability to estimate range again airborne target without kinematic ranging , if you fly higher than enemy then your RWR wont know whether the radar it detected is airborne or ground based either ( unless it can identify the radar from waveform characteristic or PRF , waveform and in a modern AESA , PESA radar none of these factor mentioned above are constant so RWR has a much harder job than you can imagine . )

        8)”All of which impacts the radar as well.” : radar can always change it’s waveform , PRF , frequency ..etc to filter out clutter signal , on the other hand RWR can so also listen and try to figure out what it listen to

        9)” Theoretically, but not practically. ” practically it will be limited by the number of waveform that engineer , programmer put in the software

        10) ” But countermeasures against one missile can also defeat an upcoming missile as well,”
        often unlikely because missiles often come a few second apart , so your maneuver timing will often only work again the first missiles that come

        11) ” And you have to keep in mind that in a salvo, one missile will typically go haywire with no external cause.” any source to support this ?

        12) ”ASQ-239 is an integrated defensive suite, any jammers regardless of type are counted in it. Wording in documents is iffy at best, they may be interpreted as pointing towards the internal jammer but may as well be talking about towed / disposable cartridges as well.”
        BAE clearly stated that AN/ASQ-239 provides all-aspect, broadband protection, allowing the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars. The system stands alone in its ability to operate in signal-dense environments, providing the aircraft with radio-frequency and infrared countermeasures, and rapid response capabilities , clearly ASQ-239 can jam enemy radar by it own
        Nevertheless whether ASQ-239 achieved that through the use of fiber optic towed decoy like ALE-70 or through a separate antenna are rather irrelevance , my point stand correct , F-35 does indeed have atleast 3 way to jam enemy radar 360 degree around it (APG-81 ,ALE-70 ,ASQ-239, MALD-J)

        13) ”Thrust does indeed reduce gradually but point is that jet engine cannot utilize supersonic air and in most modern fighters intake’s inability to slow down air to subsonic speeds is the limiting factor, not lack of thrust as such. With a more complex intake/ducting system with additional shocks, Rafale, Typhoon and F-22 would all easily achieve Mach 2,5. As it is, they are limited to Mach 2,0. F-35 on the other hand should be capable of achieving Mach 2,0 due to its intake design, yet it cannot do so ”
        that based on your flaws speculation that F-35 DSI is the same as F-16 DSI while the 2 clearly have very different geometry , and the much thinner gap of F-16 DSI clearly show that it will have better pressure recovery at high speed than F-35 DSI, , your eye ball speculation is basically like saying : ” f-15 and Mig-31 intake look the same , Mig-31 can fly at mach 3.2 while F-15 limited to mach 2.5 on standard day , so that mean F-15 must be very draggy and aerodynamic limited )

        14) ”It is not just being too fat but yes it plays a large role. ”
        again , this is subjective , F-16 with CFT will look much fatter than F-16 with FLIR pod but F-16 with CFT actually has lower drag

        15)”Wing sweep also has impact, ” , much smaller impact than you think , if wing sweep was the main factor then Mirage 2000 would have fly much faster than F-15 , Mig-25

        16) ”as does the fact that F135s higher bypass ratio means quicker thrust loss with increasing speed.” this is correct , however high bypass ratio also mean lower exhaust velocity which in turn result in less infrared radiation

        17) ” End result is still the same: thing cannot supercruise, or at the very least “supercruise” performance is extremely marginal (if 150 nm supercruise statement really is correct, then it means that F-35 either A) supercruises at low afterburner and not dry thrust or B) has to burn off most of its internal fuel before even thinking about supercruise) ”
        the 150 miles figure are supersonic dash in combat radius which normally including subsonic length , take off and landing too ( just like how the supercruise radius of F-22 is only 100 nm ) , and your problem is that you use static dry TSFC to measure aircraft fuel consumption in supercruise then calculate their range from fuel weight , however that is badly inaccurate because TSFC changed significantly with speed and altitude , TSFC of military thrust at mach 1.4-1.5 can be as high as static afterburner TSFC ), unless you fly a concorde or SR-71 then your time in supersonic fly are rather limited
        http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137659-Rafale-Vs-Typhoon-Combat-radius

        18 ) ”Incorrect. Combat radius in air-to-air configuration is 925 km for Rafale and 1.082 km for F-35A, 833 km for F-35B and 1.100 km for F-35C. One-way range on internal fuel is 2.100 km for Rafale, 2.200 km for F-35A, 1.670 km for F-35B and 2.600 km for F-35C ”
        you are compare 2 aircraft combat radius in completely different mission profile , even between the 3 F-35 version ( A , B and C )has completely different mission profile

        F-35 can achieve more than 700 nm ( 1300 km ) combat radius in both both AA and AG depending on mission profile

        Click to access 2370_F-35_Briefing-Keith_Knotts,_LMCO-Oct_2,_2013.pdf

        https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada

        LM chief test pilot also said F-35 can have 800 miles ( around 1288 km ) combat radius in A2A missions

        according to Norwegian JSF/F-35 LM Brief, with 2 GBU-12 , 2 AIM-120 internally , F-35 combat radius is 728 nm ( 1348 km) for recon mission profile

        when comparing using the same air to air mission profile , Rafale with 3 external fuel tank achieved combat radius of 896 nm ( similar to F-18 ) while F-35 on internal fuel alone achieve combat radius of 751 nm
        http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22488&mode=view
        http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21434

        19) ”as I mentioned, you have to account for the fuel necessary to take off, climb, etc.”
        Rafale will have to take off , climb , accelerate ..etc too

        20) ”Incorrect. There is a difference between operational mission and design goal. Design requirements as outlined for F-22, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, F-15, F-16, F-18, all placed emphasis on air-to-air mission”
        Rafale requirement was clearly a multirole fighter , F-16 requirement was to be a low cost aircraft that will do both A-G and AA
        , F-18 requirement cannot be fighter alone because as a fleet aircraft , it will have to do strike missions alot , also not even SAAB say their Gripen is pure fighter , only Typhoon , F-15A , F-22 can be confidence say they has no pound for air to ground at start

        21 ) ”Rafale’s sustained corner turn performance is 9 g at 360 kts / 667 km/h, do your calculation and you will see it goes to exactly 27 deg/s. And F-22 is also said – by a pilot IIRC – to achieve 28 deg/s sustained turn rate at 20.000 ft. Unless the pilot in question is lying, I don’t see any reason why Rafale – with superior aerodynamics and lower wing loading – would not be able to achieve 27 deg/s STR at 25.000 ft.”
        the person that said F-22 can sustain 28 degree/second at 20000 ft isnt a pilot but a general and if you look at F-22 kpp sustain g spec and has some basic understand of aerodynamic you will realised that what he said is bullshit nonsense too
        now back to the Rafale here is the reason why i said it cant sustain 9g at 667 km/h ( or 27 degree/second ) at 25k ft
        basic aerodynamic 101 :
        Lift = CL * ( v^2 ) * d * A * 0.5
        air density at 25k feet is 0.548981519715 kg/m3
        Velocity as you said is 360kts or 185 meter/second
        wing area of Rafale is 45.7 m2
        CL = lift coefficient
        to pull a certain amount of g , then lift must be equal weight * g-load ( mass9.819 )

        so to pull ( not even sustain ) 9g at 185 meter/second , 25k feet , the aircraft must generate amount of lift equal :
        (9,850 + 4,700 ) 9.819
        to generate that much lift , CL = { (9850 + 4700 ) 9.81 *9 }/ { 0.5 0.548* ( 185^2 )* 45.7 }
        CL= 3
        have you read that carefully ? CL= 3 , even transport aircraft with subsonic airfoil and full flap deploy at landing cannot achieve that value , what the heck does Rafale wing made of ? magic dust ? ( and dont even bother to take body lift as an argument because it already included in CL value )

        but that not all your claim isnt that Rafale can turn that much g at 25k feet but that Rafale can some how sustain it , to sustain a certain amount of turn rate , your engine must be able to generate enough thrust to counter the drag too , now because you turn at the same speed and air density is less than haft of sea level , you will have to make the turn at twice the AoA , so a significant part of your thrust will be wasted , you will have even less thrust to counter drag .

        To sum up , believe that any aircraft , either Rafale ,F-22 , jas-39 or typhoon can sustain 27 degrees/ seconds at 360 kts , 25k feet is simply wishfulthinking , almost a child dream , with any basic knowledge in aerodynamic you will realise how ridiculous it sound

        Like

      3. “Rafale can fly faster than F-35 but not that much faster”

        Mach 1,4 cruise and 2,0 dash vs Mach 0,95 cruise and 1,7 dash.

        “and the only ways for you to somehow circle behind something without it being able to react is if your angular speed is so fast that enemy cannot turn with it , which mean either you are at very close range like 1-2 km or enemy can only fly in straight line , in reality at distance of 100 km and higher , there isno way for Rafale to circle around F-35 fast enough that it cannot turn and face toward the new direction that Rafale coming from , even if the Rafale moving at mach 20 ( which it doesnt obviously )”

        Assuming that the F-35 is aware of Rafale.

        “and if you turn on your jamming , you will be detected so you wont be able to sneak behind the F35 either”

        Depends on the type of jamming.

        ” if you want to create a scenario that is completely biased in favor of Rafale then you can but then that doesnt mean you are comparing 2 platform anymore , for example : you can also make up scenario where Mig-21 with ground control guide can shot down Rafale ”

        You are one putting scenarios biased in favor of the F-35. In reality there is no guarantee of F-35 having AWACS coverage, enemy being within F-35s own radar coverage, or even in front of the F-35 when latter’s radar emissions are detected, of datalinks being avaliable – and even if they are, they are also a danger for the F-35, of IFF working… seeing how F-35s radar covers only front 120 degrees, getting jumped is always a danger.

        “no , it doesnt matter which kind of jamming you use , the jamming must be atleast be strong enough for enemy radar to detect it , hence there is no way you can use your jammer while still stay invisible to enemy , jamming is to break track , lock, not to stay undetected”

        Active cancellation doesn’t work that way, only question is wether it would work against AESA (highly doubtful). And even using normal DRFM jamming, F-35 wouldn’t know exact position of Rafale anymore, so everything else it did – missile track, guiding other fighters to it – would be based on incorrect data.

        “and because you will be detected by enemy RWR or radar when you use your jammer , the enemy will know there are something out there instantly and thus no longer keep a constant heading or speed or altitude as a result you wont be able to use it to aid your passive ranging or ” circling behind enemy ””

        First, jamming is not necessarily turned on as soon as radar signal is detected. Second, that does not prevent another fighter circling around, assuming that datalinks are not jammed (and if they are, then radar’s own effectiveness will be significantly reduced by noise).

        “and actually similar to a radar , the jammer will also send out a radio beam ( jamming signal in this case ) , depending on the aperture of the transmitter the beam could be wide ( low gain ) or thin ( high gain ) . The disadvantages of an internal jammer ( like Spectra ) compare to using radar jammer ( apg-81 ) is that , the transmitting aperture of internal jammer is much smaller hence they cant create beam as thin so not only it is easier to be detect by aircraft that you not targeted but your jamming also required more power for same effectiveness ”

        Rafale also has AESA radar, so it can easily use radar for jamming as well. But unlike F-35, SPECTRA has AESA jammers which cover 360* around the aircraft.

        “funny that you would say such thing now , because as we both know that before the discussion with me you think Spectra can somehow give fring solution again fighter from 200 km”

        SPECTRA has 1* accuracy at 200 km, so it can be used for targeting. But to utilize it properly Rafale would need Meteor, which is not avaliable yet. And as I have explained multiple times before, range is not strictly necessary for targeting. But with typical missiles, such as AIM-120 or MICA, SPECTRA will at best be used to cue other sensors. Even with Meteor it will likely be used to cue IRST due to latter’s superior angular accuracy.

        “the only way for active cancellation to work is if you can transmitting the wave from every where on your aircraft”

        Incorrect, as I said its purpose is to reduce RCS not eliminate it. Using radar for active cancellation, for example, would cover a fair portion of fighter’s frontal area.

        “radar can always change it’s waveform , PRF , frequency ..etc to filter out clutter signal”

        Which only leads to other type of clutter becoming a problem. And RWR analyzes signals over the time, which means that doing so might help both radar and RWR.

        “practically it will be limited by the number of waveform that engineer , programmer put in the software ”

        And also capabilities of both software and hardware.

        “often unlikely because missiles often come a few second apart , so your maneuver timing will often only work again the first missiles that come”

        Depends, if missiles in question are RF ones, then both missiles may well fall for a decoy that has been ejected to spoof the first missile.

        “any source to support this ?”

        Desert Storm, and all wars to date. If you take a look at BVR missile utilization in these conflicts, a fair portion of missiles malfunctioned. As Lt Col Patrick Higby pointed out (“Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Combat”), most Iraqi pilots did not take any evasive action once radar lock occured. Yet F-15s only achieved 34% BVR Pk; only explanation for such a low Pk in noted conditions can be high frequency of missile malfunctions. Highby also mentions that AIM-7 often failed to operate properly, as stated by Lt Col “Nigel” Doneski in 2005. Pierre Sprey in his 1982 study “Comparing the Effectiveness of Modern Fighters” notes that 46% of AIM-7 kill attempts resulted in a failure to launch or guide. Seeing how salvo would be three of four missiles, even only half of Desert Storm AIM-7 misses being due to malfunction means that one missile in a salvo will malfunction (and due to considerations already mentioned, I believe that far higher proportion of misses was due to missile malfunction – there was little else to cause a miss).

        “that based on your flaws speculation that F-35 DSI is the same as F-16 DSI while the 2 clearly have very different geometry , and the much thinner gap of F-16 DSI clearly show that it will have better pressure recovery at high speed ”

        Correct. But as I pointed out before, intake’s effectiveness is not “cut off” immediately. In fact it starts to fall immediately after going supersonic (intake in most if not all modern fighters is sized for subsonic cruise, even in fighters capable of supercruise).

        “f-15 and Mig-31 intake look the same , Mig-31 can fly at mach 3.2 while F-15 limited to mach 2.5 on standard day , so that mean F-15 must be very draggy and aerodynamic limited )”

        Actually, F-15 only flies at Mach 2,3 tops normally and I believe that it actually achieved Mach 2,8 maximum speed. And unlike F-35, both F-15 and especially MiG-31 intakes have extremely complex internal arrangement.

        “again , this is subjective , F-16 with CFT will look much fatter than F-16 with FLIR pod but F-16 with CFT actually has lower drag ”

        And unlike supersonic fighters, FLIR pod is not designed for supersonic flight. Compared to the F-35, F-16 is slimmer, has higher wing sweep, (slightly) higher nose-to-wingtip angle and LERX. Wingtip missile rails also improve lift/drag ratio compared to fighters that do not have them.

        “much smaller impact than you think , if wing sweep was the main factor then Mirage 2000 would have fly much faster than F-15 , Mig-25”

        It has neither intakes nor the engine for that, and even so it can achieve Mach 2,2 which is quite close to the F-15.

        “this is correct , however high bypass ratio also mean lower exhaust velocity which in turn result in less infrared radiation ”

        Correct. That is partly why M88-2 has additional cooling channel and dual nozzles, as cool air cools down the engine skin and thus outer engine skin and consequently aircraft skin is not as hot as it would be without the second channel. Further, outer nozzles themselves are cooler than nozzles of even engines with higher BPR due to not being in direct contact with engine exhaust, and they shield both inner nozzles and hottest part of the exhaust plume from view at most angles. So unlike all other fighter aircraft, hottest part of the exhaust is only visible from behind. But it is also hotter that it is for Typhoon or F-35.

        “and your problem is that you use static dry TSFC to measure aircraft fuel consumption in supercruise then calculate their range from fuel weight , however that is badly inaccurate because TSFC changed significantly with speed and altitude , TSFC of military thrust at mach 1.4-1.5 can be as high as static afterburner TSFC ), unless you fly a concorde or SR-71 then your time in supersonic fly are rather limited”

        But thrust also changes significantly, at high altitude it is far less than at sea level, plus at supersonic speeds a portion (sometimes significant) of thrust comes from the intake itself.

        “Rafale requirement was clearly a multirole fighter , F-16 requirement was to be a low cost aircraft that will do both A-G and AA
        , F-18 requirement cannot be fighter alone because as a fleet aircraft”

        Yes and no. Rafale had three out of five mission requirements as air-to-air (remaining two were range and weapons load in attack missions, only thing which these dictated were aircraft’s size and weapons load), F-16 and F-18 were designed for air-to-air combat only before being shoehorned into “multirole fighter aircraft” role (read up on LWF programme).

        Like

      4. “the person that said F-22 can sustain 28 degree/second at 20000 ft isnt a pilot but a general”

        I believe it was colonel Fornof.

        Like

      5. 1) ”Mach 1,4 cruise and 2,0 dash vs Mach 0,95 cruise and 1,7 dash”
        that not fast enough for you to circle behind enemy without them being able to react
        and honestly how far do you think Rafale on internal fuel can ”cruise” at mach 1.4? ( as explained before you cant use static TSFC to measure that )

        2) ”Assuming that the F-35 is aware of Rafale.”
        and how exactly can Rafale hide from F-35 with it’s massive beam- near beam RCS , huge Infrared radiation due to supersonic speed , shining like a christmas tree on the RWR due to jamming ?

        3) ”Depends on the type of jamming”
        No it doesnt ,irrelevance what kind of jamming you use , if you use a jammer then you have to transmit , if you want jamming to have to have effect on enemy radar then they will need to be able to receive it , which mean as soon as you turn on your jammer then you are detected , they wont be able to attack you yet because they cant get correct range or velocity information but you are no longer invisible .
        and dont even bother bring up active cancelation , it nothing more than a child dream , almost as ridiculous as Russian plasma stealth , read some book about basic electromagnetic and you will see how ridiculous it is

        4)”You are one putting scenarios biased in favor of the F-35. In reality there is no guarantee of F-35 having AWACS coverage, enemy being within F-35s own radar coverage, .”
        i never say F-35 has AWACs support , and if you consider enemy approach from F-35 frontal radar coverage is biased then how can you think of the scenario where Rafale just start approaching F-35 from behind ? how is that not biased ? how is it any better if Rafale or Typhoon or Gripen or F-22 ..etc were approached from behind ? you think they somehow always fly at mach 1.4 so they cant be approached from behind ?

        5) ”or even in front of the F-35 when latter’s radar emissions are detected,”
        again , how exactly you are gonna circle to behind it from front ? teleport ?

        6) ”seeing how F-35s radar covers only front 120 degrees, getting jumped is always a danger”
        F-35 has DAS which cover 360 degree around it with no blind spot , by contrast Rafale has nothing similar so what make you think Rafale cant be jumped if others aircraft equipped with IRST approach it from behind ??

        7 ) ”Active cancellation doesn’t work that way, only question is wether it would work against AESA (highly doubtful)”
        well your problem is using active cancellation isnt realistic ,Spectra isnt some magic jammer , active cancellation based on destructive interference so unless you can completely overlap your wave with enemy wave and keep a phase difference of π constantly , how exactly can you do that when your aircraft moving constantly , enemy moving constantly , you dont know waveform , PRF , duty circle of enemy radar , it will never ever work ,ask any proper physicist or engineer they will tell you the same

        8). ”And even using normal DRFM jamming,”
        which will hardly even work again AESA / PESA due to the fact that they change their frequency , waveform ,PRF constantly

        9)” F-35 wouldn’t know exact position of Rafale anymore, so everything else it did – missile track, guiding other fighters to it – would be based on incorrect data.”
        eventhough RWR cannot be used for targeting air target from BVR , i want to remind you that DRFM trick such as duplicate signal with false velocity , false range information doesnt work again RWR ( due to simple fact that RWR cant transmit radio pulse so it will treat the jamming signal just as any other airborne signal : a target at general direction , without velocity or range )

        10)”First, jamming is not necessarily turned on as soon as radar signal is detected.”
        yes , so ?, your original argument is that your jamming will reduce radar detection range , which i said ” that simply wrong because jamming only affect track and lock phase , but if you turn on your jammer then enemy will know you are there

        11) ”Second, that does not prevent another fighter circling around, assuming that datalinks are not jammed”
        so what if F-35 side also have several aircraft with only one of them has their radar on while other stay silent ?

        12)” (and if they are, then radar’s own effectiveness will be significantly reduced by noise).”
        depending on frequency of the datalink ,datalink to guide missiles like aim-120 , Mica are the same frequency as fire control radar , however radar between fighter such as Link 16 are very far from the frequency that radar like APG-81 use

        13) ”Rafale also has AESA radar, so it can easily use radar for jamming as well. ”
        having an AESA radar is very different from being able to use that radar for jamming , many official source state that F-35 can use APG-81 for jamming and it has been tested , by contrast , i never heard anything about RBE-2 able to jam , even the producer doesnt claim so

        14)” But unlike F-35, SPECTRA has AESA jammers which cover 360* around the aircraft.”
        Never heard about SPECTRA having AESA transmitter ( by AESA transmitter i mean atleast a group of T/R modules ) , as far as i know, Spectra use normal antenna , if you can post a source to support your argument that would be great

        15) ”SPECTRA has 1* accuracy at 200 km, so it can be used for targeting. ”
        As Spectra ( like any other RWR ) cant generate range or velocity information of airborne target ,it cant be used for airborne targeting especially from BVR , and you seem to believe that high angular accuracy is something very unique to Spectra , well it isnt , heck even the ancient system like Astac pod ( which can be fitted on F-4 ) has direction finding accuracy of 0.5-1 degree , let alone newer one like ASQ-239 or ALR-94
        www .thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/astac_5_juin_2013_v2_val_def_bat_ok_0.pdf

        16) ”. And as I have explained multiple times before, range is not strictly necessary for targeting”
        it is strictly required to attack anything from BVR , without lead intercept , at BVR your missiles have practically 0% chance of hitting anything that not fly directly at the missiles , without ballistic flight arcs , your missiles wont go much further than WVR either , not only it is much slower ( accelerate and fly in thick air ) , it wont have potential energy to trade for kinetic energy either

        17 )” Even with Meteor it will likely be used to cue IRST due to latter’s superior angular accuracy.”
        you wont detect a subsonic target from very far with IRST , then there are others factor such as cloud , weather , enemy LFR damaging sensor ..etc , and similar to RWR , IRST wont give velocity or range information without LRF or triangulation between multiple aircraft

        18) ”Incorrect, as I said its purpose is to reduce RCS not eliminate it.”
        and as i already explained , it wont work , the only reason you think it work is because you dont understand how electromagnetic wave interact with each others

        19) ”Using radar for active cancellation, for example, would cover a fair portion of fighter’s frontal area.”
        actually no , even if you somehow can predict the exact frequency , waveform , PRF , direction of enemy radar wave before they send it, and you can send your signal constantly out of phase with their signal with exact value , using radar as active cancellation only help you cover the nose only , because active cancellation required the wave to completely overlap , and with every pulse that you use to cancel enemy’s pulse , you wont be able to use to detect target
        and even in that case active cancellation wont work if your aircraft being illuminated at the same time by 2 radar ( for example 2 missiles )

        20 ) ”Which only leads to other type of clutter becoming a problem”
        how ? by using multiple form of waveform , PRF , frequency ,clutter can be filter out because they wont appear in all mode you use

        21) ”And RWR analyzes signals over the time, which means that doing so might help both radar and RWR.”
        the problem is radar know what it send out , RWR dont send anything , while both have to deal with clutter , so radar has an easier job in this case

        22) ” Desert Storm, and all wars to date. If you take a look at BVR missile utilization in these conflicts, a fair portion of missiles malfunctioned. As Lt Col Patrick Higby pointed out (“Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Combat”), most Iraqi pilots did not take any evasive action once radar lock occured”
        i really doubt that enemy didnt try to dodge the missiles , especially if missilesare launched from BVR , you wouldnt know if enemy try to evade it or not
        btw, Pk is a terrible measure of missile performance. As a historical example, the AIM-7 in Vietnam got a Pk of only 20 percent if memory serves correctly. Doubtless the missiles of this age had plenty of issues, but it did not take 5 missiles to down every plane. The extremely low Pk of the 60-70’s missiles is the result of how the results were tabulated and how the missiles were used. Due to some of the real issues with the missiles, pilots often fired 4 missiles right after another before even observing to see if the first one hit. This means that even if 3 of the 4 missiles hit the target, that is still only a Pk of .25! Missile problems were also exacerbated by pilots firing the missiles well outside the launch parameters of the missiles; ie; trying to things with the missiles they weren’t capable of doing even on paper.
        The modern AAM’s are the product of 40 years of missile and computer advancement. Nearly half a century. Do I really need to say more here?
        Also keep in mind that a weapons accuracy is a difficult thing to quantify. I doubt anyone would try to say that small arms are ineffective, but it you were to quantify their accuracy based on rounds fired/kills scored, you’d probably get the idea that either bullets are exceedingly inaccurate or people are incredibly tough! To use planes for example, late war gyro-gun sights allowed for very accurate shooting and planes carried enough ammo to easily make every pilot an ace, but you don’t see everyone coming back with 20 kills a sortie. Same goes with modern jets. 75% or 100% of all missiles fired hit their targets, you would have a very short air war. A squadron of 16 F-15C’s carries enough missiles to down half of Russia’s 250 Mig-29’s in a single engagement. You’d be hard pressed to find a single historical weapons system capable of actually getting results like that
        anyway , Aim-120 has PK of 0.59 in all conflict to date , you can argue that the aircraft that got shotdown are not modern but it not like Aim-120D , Meteor today is the same as Aim-7 or Aim-120B

        23 )”Depends, if missiles in question are RF ones, then both missiles may well fall for a decoy that has been ejected to spoof the first missile.” same can be said for IR guide missiles , anyway , aircraft can help missiles avoid decoys by datalink course correction , the seeker of new missiles are also being improved to be very resistance to jamming , for example Japan and MBDA are cooperating to make version of Meteor with AESA seeker for their fighter.

        24)”Correct. But as I pointed out before, intake’s effectiveness is not “cut off” immediately. In fact it starts to fall immediately after going supersonic ”
        but unless you do a aerodynamic simulation you wont know there exact reduction rate , ratio ..etc

        25)” intake in most if not all modern fighters is sized for subsonic cruise, even in fighters capable of supercruise”
        variable intake can be optimized in the whole envelope

        26) ”Actually, F-15 only flies at Mach 2,3 tops normally and I believe that it actually achieved Mach 2,8 maximum speed”.
        according to flight manual , F-15 barely reached mach 2.5 with V-max and cannot even do that on standard day , so no it wont reach mach 2.8

        27)” And unlike F-35, both F-15 and especially MiG-31 intakes have extremely complex internal arrangement.”
        correct, which is why i said intake is important factor for high speed along with engine design

        28) ”And unlike supersonic fighters, FLIR pod is not designed for supersonic flight.”
        neither is CFT , and F-16 with FLIR pod can still fly supersonic fine ,DI is only 36 , which is similar to 6 AIM-120 and rack

        29) ” Compared to the F-35, F-16 is slimmer, has higher wing sweep, (slightly) higher nose-to-wingtip angle and LERX. ”
        F-35 have higher thrust and LERX doesnt really have anything to do with supersonic performance

        30)” But thrust also changes significantly, at high altitude it is far less than at sea level,”
        the reduction in fuel consumption due to thin air isnot enough to offset the increase in fuel consumption due to moving at high speed , unless you cruise at 60-70k feet

        31) ”plus at supersonic speeds a portion (sometimes significant) of thrust comes from the intake itself.”
        when people ( engineer ) say the intake generate thrust , they mean the ram effect , when the intake do the compression job of the turbine blades , it doesnt mean the thrust just magically appear at the intake

        32) ”Yes and no. Rafale had three out of five mission requirements as air-to-air (remaining two were range and weapons load in attack missions, only thing which these dictated were aircraft’s size and weapons load),”
        Rafale has air policing , air defense , anti ship , long range strike , CAS , nuclear strike , pretty sure 4 of them are air to surface oriented

        33) ”That is partly why M88-2 has additional cooling channel and dual nozzles, as cool air cools down the engine skin and thus outer engine skin and consequently aircraft skin is not as hot as it would be without the second channel. Further, outer nozzles themselves are cooler than nozzles of even engines with higher BPR due to not being in direct contact with engine exhaust, and they shield both inner nozzles and hottest part of the exhaust plume from view at most angles”
        any source for this ?

        34) ”I believe it was colonel Fornof.” regardless of who said that , with some basic aerodynamic understanding and estimate from F-22 Kpp , you can see that it is clearly nonsense , just like the assumption that rafale will some how sustain 27 degree/s at 25k feet , 360 kts

        Like

  21. PEA Tragedac should lead to a passive detection and distance measurement firing solution (even at long distance). A network of tree Rafales would be needed.
    DEDIRA is a program that will (apparently it’s already working) increase the stealth of the rafale (active or by adding a kit ?).
    The M88-3D & M88-4 two programs to give the rafale thrust vector and a more powerful engine (but no news since a long time). Save with the production of a power jammer pod.
    The F35 should be ready by 2017-2021 (the software isn’t ready) by that time looks like the rafale will have catch up with the F35P (for paper version 😉 )

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks, but I’m afraid you’ll have to be patient for that one… I’ll probably rather lack free time for the foreseeable future. Not that I have much of it to begin with.

      Like

      Reply

  23. Greetings. After a few hours i managed to read all of your post (due to terminology and language skills). It sounds that some people posting are very well informed on this matter. I posting from Greece. Maybe is not the right webpage but wasn’t able to find more informed persons. Recently my goverment decided to ask the US goverment infos on buying some new aircraft (F-35’s) for replacing retired F-4’s and A-7’s that we used to have and slowly retire the F-16’s block 50-52 that we use now. All these as an defence answer to Turkey’s recent decision on buying and co-producing the same aircraft (rumored for purching more than 150 units). I wanted to know, based on recent financial dificulties of my country and knowing the geopolitical situation between two countries if the f-35 is the right aircraft to buy or seriously consider the French Rafale ot the Eurofighter. An exept that if really the F-35 will be able to perfome in my country’s geography on land and sea operations.Thank you all in advance for your time.

    Like

    Reply

    1. F-35 is inherently offensive design, so considering that in the case of war it will be Turkey invading, it is not a good choice for Greece. Especially once you include financial and logistics factors. Ideal fighter for Greece would be Gripen. Maybe Rafale, if you really want offensive capability. Both – especially Gripen – are much cheaper to operate than F-35, and have STOL capability to help with road operations. F-35 does have advantage in range and radar signature, but that is not really important for Greece.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Thank you in advance for your time. According latest news my country’s ministry of defence says that logistic and financial difficulties are overlaped due to an older project of upgrading all our fleet of F-16s to Block 50, 52+, 52+ advance (PXII, ΡΧ III, PX IV) at configuration V including new electronics, avionics and AESA radars of a total cost 2bil of euros including some new F-35s. My goverment according a newspaper article already send it’s LOR for Price and Availability and Information. Most of our aircraft were by NATO offers. I really do not know why stopped looking on European solutions specially for a new multirole aircraft that will reduce total expences by operating one type. My country for sure can not spent money on a project like this specially this very difficult period. Military experts force politicians for the upgrade due to Turkey’s general update of airforce. According to some other sources, Israel also wants to receive F-35s and most bloggers express their disbeleif on aircraft’s survivability and close dogfight ccapabilities.

        Like

      3. How does designing an aircraft for “offensive” and “defensive” manifest itself in the design?

        Like

      4. Offensive designs have to have relatively long range on internal fuel to make it to targets and back as well as high survivability against air defences such as radar SAMs. Defensive designs have to have high ground survivability (road basing, low maintenance requirements) and do not need the payload or range of offensive designs. F-22, F-35 and partly Rafale are the examples of offensive designs, while Gripen is a good defensive design.

        Of course, you also need to take in properties of a country in account – Russian design will have to have longer range than Swedish design made for the same purpose, simply because Russia is so much larger.

        Like

      5. And what about F16 Viper version ? Should we do the upgrade or not ? Is it helpfull or not ? Should we wait for NG’s SABR with GaN or prefer Selex Galileo system ?
        At the end of the day will an upgraded F16 viper do the job against F35 or not ?
        (If you had to chose btw F16 Viper and Gripen NG, which you will prefer and why ? Have F35 in mind when answering)

        Like

      6. F-16V is an upgrade of an old airframe, it is still limited capability. I would chose F-16V for ground attack and Gripen NG for air combat. For F-16V against F-35, it depends on which upgrades are used. IRST should definetly improve its chances.

        Like

  25. Pingback: different Viewpoint

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s