Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

As I said, you really have no idea.

I did the F-35 with 2x 2k and 2 tanks, it was .434.
But I already explain you it was impossible:
The maximum ordnance capacity is 18,000 lbs and the sum of the ordnance weights shown on this graph is 22,300 lbs, so we will have to remove 4,300 lbs from the description of what the F-35 can carry.
As the aim is to demonstrate that the F-35 has more range than the Rafale, we cannot remove fuel. You can't take out the air-to-air missiles either, because they are not profitable for the imagination and are too light to fulfill the contract. You can't take out the cannon either, because it's integrated into the structure, so you have to take out two bombs.
Sum of the ordnance weights on the graph
Bombs: 4 * 2500 = 10000
Missiles: 4 * 300 = 1200
Fuel: 2 * 5000 = 10000
Gun : 1000
TOTAL = 22200 Lbs
Maximum ordnance capacity is 18,000 lbs

At least the configuration I made for the Rafale did not exceed its total payload capacity. And you absolutely want me to calculate a configuration that has no operational interest, with 4 heavy bombs because it suits the F-35 better in your imagination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante
How much these exercises be taken as an efficient and sufficient scale to measure the tactics and performances? If I am correct no military in the world shows their actual tactics in such exercises.

Not a lot. What they do on their own, or we on our own, is much more complex than what we all do for interoperability. Similarly, they work at different levels with their allies. For example, they may go into greater complexity with other F-35 users than with France or other non-F-35 users. With India, the F-22 and F-35 will carry RCS enhancers and act as 4th gen jets.

But there's plenty you get to know about each others' capabilities with just 4th gen tech and tactics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: screambowl
Pic-oil, The chart is of the 3 varieties. A, B and C. You will note that when you add the weight of the B, you get 18,300. A smaller number than when you add the weight of the A and C. The A has an internal gun, I don't know if it also has the software for the gun pod. so it can have 2 guns.

it says OVER 18,000 lb. because B is in the chart. It doesn't say max 18,000 lb. The A has a 70k class, max take off weight

1636815274923.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Spitfire6 and BMD
This argument is meaningless.

Rafale's standard mission loadout includes tanks. The F-35 can't carry tanks without compromising stealth.

The F-35 has plenty of range as a tactical fighter without needing extra tanks anyway. For greater range, the US has bombers, the French don't.
I agree. It is just one of the pointless Rafale talking points. Normally they use 5 ferry tanks in their numbers. I'm trying to get it to at least, in a standard mission fit out. Some missiles and bombs.

The Israeli are looking at 2x 4k external fuel tanks. Everyone else is looking at tankers.

When we allow for drag, engine efficiency. It will come out that the F-35 without external tanks, but with 2x 2k bombs and missiles. Will have a better range than the Rafale with 3 tanks, with 2x 2k bombs and missiles. The Rafale will be 5g, or possible less and subsonic. The F-35 will be 9g and M1.6, with internal and 2x 2k bombs and missiles.
 
Last edited:
I agree. It is just one of the pointless Rafale talking points. Normally they use 5 ferry tanks in their numbers. I'm trying to get it to at least, in a standard mission fit out. Some missiles and bombs.

The Israeli are looking at 2x 4k external fuel tanks. Everyone else is looking at tankers.

When we allow for drag, engine efficiency. It will come out that the F-35 without external tanks and 2x 2k bombs. Will have a better range than the Rafale with 3 tanks, with 2x 2k bombs and missiles. The Rafale will be 5g and subsonic. The F-35 will be 9g and M1.6, with internal and 2x 2k bombs and missiles.

Rafale's one and only disadvantage is the lack of an IWB. The Soviets had planned for the Su-47 and Mig MFI to have IWBs, although they were not stealthy they were the SU version of the Rafale/Typhoon. But had they put the IWB into the Rafale, it would have become a lot bigger and heavier.

But then, had the SU existed, Europe would have been flying their stealth fighters already by now. After a 25-30-year Rafale/Typhoon production, we would have been seeing their successors taking shape today, ready for introduction in 2025-30, alongside NGAD, Su-57 etc. So Europe is making do with what they have right now.

However the Rafale has capabilities that can be taken forward into the 2040s even, like its large payload, electronic stealth and its ability to supercruise.

The issue with the F-35 is, once that level of stealth has been defeated in just a few more years using better signal processing techniques, multistatic radars etc, it's done. 9G performance is nice to read on paper, but it's meaningless without additional weapons payload, particularly IWBs for WVR missiles. What's the use of doing 9G in front of an enemy that's gonna kill you with a weapon you do not possess? And 9G is useless for a strike mission anyway. Your best performance is gonna be at 5-5.5G. It's why the navy and marines don't care about 9G. Mach 1.6 is also useless since it's with afterburners, that's just 2-3 mins of flight time, no different from 4th gen aircraft. So these paper capabilities won't really be useful in the real world.

Furthermore, an F-35 strike mission requires more jets than the Rafale's would. As already mentioned by US leadership, the F-35 is not an air superiority design, which is why it needs 8 F-35s to do the work of 2 F-22s. The reason is because the F-35s, with their small A2A loadout, cannot escort themselves. And their poor performance prevents them from running away from more capable aircraft. The 2 F-35s carrying bomb loads need 6 F-35s to protect them. The Rafale's ability to escort itself and supercruise, both capabilities also found in the F-22, ensure a greater effectiveness per jet than the F-35. What's the point in being 20% cheaper to buy than the Rafale, but need 2-4x the number to perform a single mission?

Lastly, while the F-35's stealth degrades over time, perhaps even defeated relatively quickly, the Rafale's stealth, which comes through electronic means, will only improve over time. As long as the Rafale's electronic stealth actually works, then all of the purported advantages of the F-35 will become meaningless overnight.

It's stuff like this that more serious air forces will consider. Even stuff like 20% less training time would mean 20% more operational time to some air forces like the IAF. If we fly more than the adversary we maintain a psychological edge over the adversary. What does it matter if the sortie is a training sortie or a mission sortie, the Pakistanis and Chinese won't know that. If we create presence, they have to counter, and that makes it more difficult for them because they have to spend more money and airframe life per sortie than we do.

Stuff like the above is important. Some other minor advantages of the F-35, like a little bit more external payload, a little bit more internal fuel range etc, are irrelevant in comparison.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil
Pic-oil, The chart is of the 3 varieties. A, B and C. You will note that when you add the weight of the B, you get 18,300. A smaller number than when you add the weight of the A and C. The A has an internal gun, I don't know if it also has the software for the gun pod. so it can have 2 guns.

it says OVER 18,000 lb. because B is in the chart. It doesn't say max 18,000 lb. The A has a 70k class, max take off weight
Hardpoints: 4 × internal stations, 6 × external stations on wings with a capacity of 5,700 pounds (2,600 kg) internal, 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg) external, 18,000 pounds (8,200 kg) total weapons payload
Air Force F-35A Lightning II
Payload: 18,000 pounds (8,160 kilograms)
 

In this video a journalist from Air et Cosmos, which is the weekly aeronautical reference newspaper in France, gives us news about the F4 and F5 standards of the Rafale.
From 1:51 he says about the new F4 standard weapons:
"Du coté des armements il y a également l'ajout d'un troisième point d'emport sous voilure pour mettre le missile Air-Air MICA NG avec son fameux propulseur à double impulsion ainsi que la bombe Air Sol modulaire de 1000 kg."
Translation:
On the weapons side, there is also the addition of a third under-wing hard point to put the MICA NG air-to-air missile with its famous dual impulse booster as well as the 1000 kg modular air-to-ground bomb
So my configuration describe here:
Rafale C
Empty weight 9850 Kg
Internal fuel 4700 Kg
External fuel: 4 tanks of 1250l => 4000 Kg + 320kg for the tanks and 1 ventral tank of 2000l => 1600 Kg + 100 kg for the tank i.e. a total of 6020Kg including 5600 kg of fuel
Bomb 2000Kg
Missile 500kg
Total External Load: 8520 Below the Maximum of 9500
is valid with F4 with a fuel fraction of 0.4465.
 
Last edited:
With the Norwegian budget figures having raised more questions than the Swiss decision answered for the F-35, and the US Navy trying to kill off the Super Hornet production line faster than you can get a hornets nest fully cleaned out from a redcurrant shrub (which for me is approximately two weeks of time based on empirical testing), the Finnish skies are perhaps looking ready to accept a non-US fighter again.
 

In this video a journalist from Air et Cosmos, which is the weekly aeronautical reference newspaper in France, gives us news about the F4 and F5 standards of the Rafale.
From 1:51 he says about the new F4 standard weapons:
"Du coté des armements il y a également l'ajout d'un troisième point d'emport sous voilure pour mettre le missile Air-Air MICA NG avec son fameux propulseur à double impulsion ainsi que la bombe Air Sol modulaire de 1000 kg."
Translation:

So my configuration describe here:

is valid with F4 with a fuel fraction of 0.4465.
Just keeps getting heavier with no engine/thrust upgrade. The F1, lighter version, in clean configuration top speed is mach 1.8 F3 is very likely less and the F4 will likely be much less, huh frenchy? ;)

It's a flying brick unlike the F-35.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spitfire6
German mechanical engineering design is superior and is much more expensive than a Tata car. It's like comparing the jf-17 to the f-35 and say the f-35 is superior. That's just basic common sense.
Duh.
F-15 on the other hand is dated airframe although reliable with aesa it's good but against a flanker equipped with aesa it loses its advantage.

Exactly how the hell do you know this? Would you like to go into details and explain instead of just giving us your delusional opinion?

How long has it been since the US put its first AESA on a fighter? How many different AESA since then have the US developed? How many Russian fighters, Mig-29s and their Flanker fleet have AESA radars? Get where I'm going, Bub?


There's a reason USAF isn't showing any real interest in the F-15EX even though it's superior to the f-35 in some avionics.

USAF isn't showing any interest because it has the F-35 and it wants more of them... DUH? And which avionics do you speak of? Why the hell can't you ever go into details instead of generalizing?
The airframe is just not made for modern air warfare, it will be taken down by a j-16. The J-11 and su30mkk's are the only planes the F-15 can reliably takeout.

This post is so retarded that it's retarding me a bit. I'm gonna give it my best to understand and respond to this dumb post.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about AIRFRAME, DESIGN or the avionics inside? Because there's a HUGE difference.

When you say airframe do you think the F-15EX is an upgrade of an old fighter that has been flying for decades? I got bad news for you it's not. F-15EX is a brand new fighter with new wiring and electronics.

Are you talking about the DESIGN of the fighter? If you're talking about design of the fighter I got bad news for you the F-15's first flight was 1972 and SU-27's first flight was 1977. F-15E's first flight was 1986 and SU-30 1989. If the F-15 is not made for modern warfare neither is the Flanker sweetheart.

You really want to compare the avionics of the F-15 to the chicoms? F-15E alone is more advanced than any of the chicom flankers how dumb are you?
It's just a bomb truck now.

F-15EX is a 9G fighter chump. If the F-15EX is a bomb truck thn so is all of the IAF's flanker fleet since the SU-30's role was as a bomber.
Picture10-lg-960-2.jpg

Bombtruck indeed.

IAF Flanker fleet is worthless against the chicoms. The chicoms know your flankers capability in and out and will get annihilated in an air war.

How dumb can a nation be buying the same fighter that your enemy flies? IAF should have stuck with Mirage 2000 because IAF flankers will be somewhat useless in a conflict with chicoms.
 
Just keeps getting heavier with no engine/thrust upgrade. The F1, lighter version, in clean configuration top speed is mach 1.8 F3 is very likely less and the F4 will likely be much less, huh frenchy? ;)

It's a flying brick unlike the F-35.
When you're done bullshitting, let me know.
 
Exactly how the hell do you know this? Would you like to go into details and explain instead of just giving us your delusional opinion?

How long has it been since the US put its first AESA on a fighter? How many different AESA since then have the US developed? How many Russian fighters, Mig-29s and their Flanker fleet have AESA radars? Get where I'm going, Bub?
It's a 1970's airframe. The flanker in the other hand has been constantly updated when it comes to airframe the su-35 has an RCS of 1 sqm while the f-15 EX has 20-25 sqm RCS not different to the original f-15C or E. The thing will be seen from miles away. Boeing put in the new mission computer,EPAWSS which they claim is superior to the f-35's equivalents. Problem is the fatass airframe still remains even though it's quite sturdy and has 20k hours of life. The thing will be seen by shitty pesa's on old J-11's.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about AIRFRAME, DESIGN or the avionics inside? Because there's a HUGE difference
American education in full display. I have clearly written airframe here.
F-15EX is a 9G fighter chump. If the F-15EX is a bomb truck thn so is all of the IAF's flanker fleet since the SU-30's role was as a bomber.
It's clearly meant to be used as a platform for deploying standoff weapons, that's what USAF seems to keep it for and airspace-patrolling. The mki's are also slowly being converted to bomb truck roles with brahmos integration but they are still more manoeuvrable,agile than the average teen fighter. Our MKI's still have lesser RCS than the f-15EX by a huge magnitude, something Boeing didn't fix even though they had plans for it.

Also stop seething
 
Last edited:
To know that the F-35 is much better than the Rafale you only have to look at the shear amount of time the French spend in this thread saying otherwise.

The F-18E/F looks like the F-18C/D except bigger, yet the RCS is smaller.
 
But I already explain you it was impossible:

Sum of the ordnance weights on the graph
Bombs: 4 * 2500 = 10000
Missiles: 4 * 300 = 1200
Fuel: 2 * 5000 = 10000
Gun : 1000
TOTAL = 22200 Lbs
Maximum ordnance capacity is 18,000 lbs

At least the configuration I made for the Rafale did not exceed its total payload capacity. And you absolutely want me to calculate a configuration that has no operational interest, with 4 heavy bombs because it suits the F-35 better in your imagination.


If Rafales are to be used for penetrating the enemy air space to conduct air raid , I don't think they will be fitted with more than:

2x 2500 ground attack payload
2x300 AAM.
1x5000 fuel
1000 gun
 
It's a 1970's airframe. The flanker in the other hand has been constantly updated when it comes to airframe the su-35 has an RCS of 1 sqm while the f-15 EX has 20-25 sqm RCS not different to the original f-15C or E. The thing will be seen from miles away. Boeing put in the new mission computer,EPAWSS which they claim is superior to the f-35's equivalents. Problem is the fatass airframe still remains even though it's quite sturdy and has 20k hours of life. The thing will be seen by shitty pesa's on old J-11's.
Lol. SU-35 rcs is MUUUCH smaller than SU-27 even though they haven't changed?

Take a guess which one is which...
4a3aa5453e5a162a7066a337a792dcee.jpg
Su27_engine_cant_2043165.jpg

Man they sure saw you coming from a far. I bet you're dumb enough to buy the Golden Gate Bridge if I sold it to you, huh buddy? The idiotic claims you actually believe is scary. Makes me think I'm dealing with some kid or something close. Nobody but you is dumb enough to believe the SU-35 RCS dramatically shrank from the SU-27 which is basically the same bloody design! SU-35 still has their engine blades exposed like their SU-27 predecessor. Su-35's still has two huge vertical stabilizers like its SU-27 predecessor which is considered to give a fighter a big RCS. SU-35 still has that unstealthy IRST like its SU-27 predecessor... you wanna tell me again how or who bewitched you into believing the SU-35's RCS is significantly smaller than the SU-27?
American education in full display. I have clearly written airframe here.

It's clearly meant to be used as a platform for deploying standoff weapons, that's what USAF seems to keep it for and airspace-patrolling. The mki's are also slowly being converted to bomb truck roles with brahmos integration but they are still more manoeuvrable,agile than the average teen fighter. Our MKI's still have lesser RCS than the f-15EX by a huge magnitude, something Boeing didn't fix even though they had plans for it.

Also stop seething

Oy vey. Are you sure you're not some Pakistani posing as Indian trying to make them look bad? Because that has actually happened at a forum I used to be a member of. Their debate battles were epic and funny.
 

Attachments

  • 48777141312_ac13378eeb_b.jpg
    48777141312_ac13378eeb_b.jpg
    151.3 KB · Views: 123
For example, they may go into greater complexity with other F-35 users than with France or other non-F-35 users. With India, the F-22 and F-35 will carry RCS enhancers and act as 4th gen jets.
Because RCS of F35 due to RAM is basically better at the front but now other areas of fuselage? And electronic stealth is required for this?
 
When you're done bullshitting, let me know.
Can't handle the truth, eh?
If Rafales are to be used for penetrating the enemy air space to conduct air raid , I don't think they will be fitted with more than:

2x 2500 ground attack payload
2x300 AAM.
1x5000 fuel
1000 gun
You're talking about Pakistani airspace right? Because no way a 4th gen french plane carrying pylons and weapons hanging off them is going to survive that long penetrating chicom air space.