Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
It is Uncle Joe Biden Sam that made the difference.
I think we will laugh a maximum after induction of these F35 in Switzerland....
Just some meters/minute max in climb rate. Max speed : it's not clear. Ceiling : only because french pilots are not fitted with high altitude suit.
Agility : Rafale > EF 2000 in subsonic. EF > Rafale in supersonic
While none of the current FAs in the USAF inventory except the Raptors have the capabilities to fly above 60,000 ft including your beloved wonderjet the Lightnings, here's a yesteryear's star which could easily perform that role.
Absolute sh!tshow by the USAF, sweetie. You guys ought to ashamed of yourselves for the pathetic way you handled the entire episode, first by scratching your unwashed culos - hairy or otherwise for a full 2-3 days before you decide to shoot it down & then choose a 5th Gen FA to record it's first kill in the 20 yrs since it's made it's debut, closer to it's retirement which is imminent by the end of the decade.
Why? because none of your other FAs possess the capabilities to scale such heights & finally when you do manage to target the balloon you do so by targeting it's payload so that you lose all evidence of the data it gathered & if thats not enough you shoot it over water.
At the end of the day, all said & done, I understand a mick is running the WH but are we to understand there are Micks running the USAF too or was this done deliberately to avoid a scandal had you recovered the payload & it revealed a lot of classified information it wasn't supposed to snoop on but managed to anyway ? @Innominate
Tell me why shouldn't this be considered another manifestation of the Paddyfication pf the West Paddy? @BMD
Last edited:
Yes, during 2009 tests in F2 configuration. Since then, Rafale have introduced F3 version with AESA radar.
By the way... If you have real details about indian MMRCA tests, I'll take it. At best we have some rumors that came, almost all of the time, from opponent sides.
nope. They still need interceptor or air superiority fighter. Russian still have bombers than can treat the Carrier group. And against China it is even worse, because they have to manage long range fighters like J20, and carrier groups with J-15.
Generation for generation means nothing. It is pure marketing to simplify complexes things, in order to let the people say "oh, look, a 5th gen fighter ! And here ! A 4th gen. Obviously the 5th Gen is better. In two months I will share to you an article I have written for a specialized magazine, but not published yet (So I cannot share for now)
Weight is the worse ennemy for airplane performance. If you don't understand that a huge payload have an impact on the energy loss, IWB or not, I supposed you don't want to believe in basics physics s just because it doesn't support your arguments.
nope. Rafale will have better thruth to weight ratio, better aerodynamics. And it can go up to 12 Gs in emergency situation, what you F35 will never do.
I don't know why you don't want to listen. A fighter never strike alone. It is so complex to organise strike missions with a lot of tankers, support airplane such AWACS and so one... One the suprise passed, is too late ! The only one advantage will be maybe the plane will come back to home with its bombs ! So NICE ! But it will never retry to reintry into ennemy territory. NEVER !
Many fighter can carry long range stand off weapon. The point to have VLO caracteristics is to be detected later as possible. But fighters can also penetrate ennemy territories at low altitude, and launch missiles from a long distance to avoid to be detected.
Yes indeed, you can use bombers too. Like russians, Chinese and USAF by the way. But they are verry expensive and only BIG countries can afford them. On carrier groups, you cannot have bombers. Too heavy. That's why a US Navy admiral said that :
We tested the F3 with AESA radar. And with the current engine.
No, we are pretty sure the Rafale lost to the Typhoon in MMRCA because the IAF favoured performance over other metrics. Only in 2019 the IAF said MRFA will have evaluations that will concentrate lesser on performance and more on other tactical capabilities. Exotic capabilities are not compared.
Are you referring to the USN? Their jet is not expected to be as impressive as people think. US experts call the USAF program NGAD (pronounced N-gad) with a capital G and USN's program as NgAD (pronounced N-jad) with small G. It's not expected to be as capable.
Navy jets will naturally have A2A capabilities, but they are not interested in high performance.
So you're saying the features of ATEP are competetive with M88-4E?
I'd argue SAFRAN will be lucky to meet AETP specs by 2040 for FCAS.
And I won't be surprised if the F-35A's range on internal fuel will be greater than the Rafale's with full external full.
It's relative to engine thrust. In this case, when we are comparing these two jets, the weight is irrelevant.
Not when carrying 2 fuel tanks and a few Hammers.
The entire point of the F-35 is it can go in with minimum support, including lack of AWACS support. All it needs is top cover and either escorts or a protection group, given its crappy A2A capabilities.
Current gen enemy air (even Flanker) cannot sustain the endurance necessary to keep the F-35 at bay once the new engine come online. If they takeoff to challenge the F-35, they will eventually have to land. In the meantime, the F-22 gets a lot of targets to kill.
The F-35 can plan its mission while flying. So the pilots can retreat, create a new plan and re-enter in the same sortie. While the Rafale can do the same in theory, it can only do so if it's still carrying bombs. But it won't have the endurance necessary without either mid-air refuelling or the distance involved is short enough.
Sure, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.
I'm being specific to the F-35's penetrating strike capabilities inside enemy territory. The F-35 can do things the Rafale cannot simply because the Rafale lacks IWBs. And with the new engine, the F-35A's endurance will be twice as much on internal fuel.
You wanna fire away standoff missiles, go right ahead, even the LCA Mk1 can compete with the Rafale then. I'd argue the LCA will end up carrying better standoff missiles in just a few more years. The F-35A should be able to carry more standoff missiles than the Rafale as well, it has the hardpoints for it.
thumbs up for bubzy from Picdelamirand-oil
You know he is full of BS, yet you still give a thumbs up. Frogs are deceitful.
You know he is full of BS, yet you still give a thumbs up. Frogs are deceitful.
Attachments
Yo pops ! Whatever attachment you linked there , is much like the Aussie automotive industry .
That's right .
A big blank.
You might want to edit your post & relink whatever you tried to link the first time .
And I will. Obviously it is not the case. F35 is much more heavier rather than the Rafale, and have very poor aerodynamic performance (bad cx compared to rafale) even if it have an impressive internal fuel capacity (same as F15). We can only compare something like ferry range, because combat range are not calculated the same way everywhere. The ferry range of rafale is almost 70% more great compared to F-35. On all international (NATO) exercises, it take off first and land last. I have multiple testimonies of that. With only one fuel tank in A2A mission, Rafale can flight longer than Typhoon, F18 and F15, something like 1h30 in combat mission.
You. May be right. After sending my message I had doubts. I remember that a prototype of aesa was sent in a development version of F3.
I don't have any information about technical evaluation results for mmrca. If you have, please share, I'm really interested.
I was talking about generation for the overall plane itself, not only the engine or any component in it.
Thats why I said. Trust to weight ratio
Absolutely not.
One of the plane will loose energy more quicker than the other. And then, one of the plane is capable of maneuvers the other just can't. There is a world of agility between the Rafale and F35. F35 can (or cannot) win against an F16 in BVR, but Rafale agility is far more evolved, compared to a Raptor, even without TVC. We know it now, specialy when we discovered the full video of BFM between Rafale and Raptor. (I was the journalist who published it)
Which can be dropped- that is the point
No, it cannot. You tell it yourself.
This situation is not realistic at all. A mission preparation takes literally hours, on the ground, whith many people involved, and the help of all the intelligence. If you run away, forget it and don't try to re-enter. Too dangerous now. You are awaited.
2 planes doesn't have the same philosophy. One of them will have to get closer to its target because lack of stand off weapon. And it can thanks to vlo characteristics. The other, with better range for itself and for its weapons choose to get around and fire from longer distance.
Not at all
"Tweedie said GE’s XA100 engine is able to offer 25% more fuel efficiency than the current F135, which would increase the range of an F-35 by 30%. He also said it could provide 10-20% more thrust, which would lead to 25-40% greater acceleration and twice the thermal management."
The point is. If you have better fuel efficiency OR better power. You have the efficiency only if you keep the same level of trust. If the pilot engage itself in a 9G maneuver, you will have more power, but more fuel consumption too. Even with more efficiency.
the adaptative thing in the Xa100 allow you to increase the dilution rate when flying at cruise speed.
BUt by increasing trust of the engine, at maximum power, you increase the fuel consumption in this phase.
also. Dont forget that the engine itself is more efficient, but the plane need more electrical power too. So it is not evident of the plane will have better range at all at the end.
lCA can have. But it is also lighter. It cannot carry as much as weapon and fuel than the rafale. Also, don't have data fusion of sensors which allow it to give to its pilot a good situation awareness. But it is not an issue. LCA is not made for that.
Don't mind @Optimist . He's a regular red neck larrikin Aussie for whom there's no difference between the great outback or the city , hence no difference between how one conducts oneself outdoors or indoors , off line or online.
Nobody takes him seriously , hell , he doesn't take himself seriously. He's in the evening of his life though he still thinks he's 25 , posting online while enjoying unlimited quantities of beer & pizzas & the burps & farts that go with it manifesting itself in what you just read & quoted.
Nothing wrong with what bubzy's said, the problem is he's debating with someone else, not with me.
I'm referring to the new engine.
GE Aviation’s revolutionary Adaptive Cycle Engine (ACE) is designed to increase combat aircraft thrust by up to 20%, improve fuel consumption by 25% to extend range by more than 30%, and provide significantly more aircraft heat dissipation capacity.
Assuming the F-35A's unrefuelled range on internal fuel is 3000Km. 30% increase in range = 3000+900 = 3900Km. The Rafale's range is 2500Km. That's a 56% difference. Today it's 20%.
56% is too much, even 30% difference is a lot. 30% is the difference between MKI and Rafale, and we know that matters.
The F-35's range with the new engine can be equal to the Su-57 with its current engine, which is also estimated to be 3900Km based on a leak from HAL, ie, more than the Su-35.
Only Rafale, SH and F-16 AESAs were properly tested. Mig-35 and Gripen radars were just early prototypes. Typhoon's radar was tested on a helicopter. The AESA performance requirement was quite modest, similar to the APG-80, so it was easy to surpass.
I am referring to the specifc advantages of the F-35 in ground strike due to IWB and the new engine. I'm not referring to stealth or avionics.
Peak TWR is not that important in this case. You are on dry thrust. It's a strike mission, so the entire mission is subsonic, the regime where the F-35 has been designed to excel in.
You know, I'm comparing this...
with this...
Are you seriously trying to tell me the Rafale with payload can compete with a clean F-35 in terms of performance?
What I'm actually saying is by 2030, the F-35 will match the Rafale's exact configuration above and will still look like the F-35 in the pic above. You think that's not impressive?
So the F-35A will literally have the same range as a Rafale with 3 full fuel tanks and 2 large bombs and 2 AAMs. And still have all the other advantages that a clean aircraft already has.
Plus, if it wants to give up on stealth and agility, it will be able to carry 2 more AAMs, and 2 external tanks with 2 more bombs with at least 600-700Km more range. To match this configuration, 2 Rafales are necessary, and the jets still won't have that extra range that 1 F-35 can provide.
Are you seriously telling me that's not impressive? As far as I'm concerned, there's really no comparison. In fact, the payload difference between M2000 and Rafale is less than the difference between Rafale and F-35A.
USAF F-35 pilots say they don't need to do as much as what was necessary for 4th gen. They can plan strike missions while in flight because very few jets are necessary to support its mission.
Also, it doesn't need support from AWACS, J-STARS, Rivet Joint, Compass Call etc. The Americans are creating a massive space-based ISR to replace all existing theatre ISR. The F-35 will feed off of that, alongside penetration drones like RQ-180. So it will get intelligence on demand during flight. One of the main reasons why it takes very long to plan strikes is because intelligence collection is currently limited and fighters didn't have modern MMI necessary to plan in-flight, like large displays, touchscreen, HMDS, large FoV night vision, augmented reality etc.
By 2030, mission planning could take just a few dozen minutes.
The F-35 can also carry long range ALCMs like JASSM-ER and LRASM.
You forget that the Rafale has to fly lower than the F-35, so the F-35 has more fuel to burn from its already larger stock and more efficient engines. And if you are doing 9G manoeuvre, that means you are in a dogfight, so even the Rafale has to do 9G.
I'm comparing the exact same situations for both jets.
If a Rafale is challenged, then it has to drop its bombs and get into a fight or run away.
If an F-35 is challenged, then it can keep its bombs and get into a fight or run away.
If both decide to fight, the difference is, for the Rafale to do 9G, it has to be clean, whereas the F-35 can still carry 2 bombs internally and remain clean.
If both decide to run away, the F-35 can go supersonic with both bombs, whereas the Rafale has to drop its bombs and run away if it needs to go supersonic.
I really can't get any clearer than this.
Actually LCA has excellent avionics and data fusion, at least the upcoming versions, Mk1A and Mk2. Mk2 will have as much or more range than the Rafale. Mk1A can almost match Rafale's standoff payload, it can carry 2 Brahmos Ms or 2 SCALP-class missiles. It will also be able to carry the 1500Km+ LR-LACM, so range won't be a problem. Mk2 can fully match the Rafale's standoff payload with a heavier centerline that can carry 1 SCALP-class missile.
When it comes to avionics, Mk2 will have pretty much the same hardware as the Rafale F4.2. A similarly capable radar, a digital EW suite with internal jammers (perhaps GaN), 360 deg LWS, CITS, Mode 5 IFF etc. IR sensors will actually be superior, dual channel IRST, dual channel 360 deg MAWS. It will also have AI. And, being a more recent design, the LCA Mk2 will most definitely have a superior cockpit.
Without IWB, both Rafale and LCA have almost the same limitations in ground strike. Two engines make the Rafale more survivable, so it can operate much deeper, so that's probably the only difference. In comparison, the F-35A will be a generation ahead because of the IWBs.
So these are the numbers I told you. The range is not double.
Nope. You melt multiple things. There is Radius Range and Ferry range, but also combat range.
The only thing we can compare between fighter jets is ferry range. Why ? Because in combat, because plane, payload and mission profile are different, it is impossible to compare.
Ferry range for Rafale is 3700km, not 3000 (with external tanks)
F-35 with internal fuel is 2300 km. (source is USAF website here)
Here, by trying to get right, you minimise the number of the Rafale and maximise the one of the F-35. Both the number you gave are wrong.
Let's see when the XA100 will be operational. If this engine reach the expectation at 100%, it will be the first time in the full programm we have a promise kept
I remember now. We laugh a lot In France with the story of Radar on helicopter (Still 10 years later, no AESA Radar operationnal yet on european typhoon
The advantage of IWB is less drag and more VLO. The advantage you told us (can run away with its bombs and go back later) are, from my point of view, make no sense at all when you know how the things are going in the real life.
You are confusing between power and speed. Look at any aerial demonstration (F35, Rafale, F22, Typhoon or wathever) The planes will almost alway use the full afterburner and never go supersonic.
If, during a strike mission, you are catched by an ennemy, you have to defend yoursellf. F-35 have only 2 Amraam Missiles to do it, and not even close range missile. If a plane is approaching it, basically... It will be dead.
Absolutely.You know, I'm comparing this...
View attachment 26357
with this...
Are you seriously trying to tell me the Rafale with payload can compete with a clean F-35 in terms of performance?
Because you can have this :
transformed in few second by jetisson the heavy load. But it will remain with 6 deadly A2A missiles and an agility the the F35 will NEVER reach.
Also, even without the advantage of the IWB, the Rafale can be transformed from a deadly bomber to a pure fighter.
The F35 in both case will have the payload of a poor strike aircraft (2 bombs and 2 missiles) and a poor fighter (2 missiles)
So if the Rafale is able to jetisson its huge payload, maybe it will loose some amunition, but it will have much more better chances to survive by itself.
I never said the F35 is not impressive. but compare them the way you are doing it remind me endless discussions with fanboys. F35 have its own advantages, but the ones your are trying to argues with here are really not relevants and no realistics at all.
Nope.
Still nope.
The F-35 by using its IWB only, have a really poor payload. But it is normal, it is done to enter in a verry dangerous area during the first phases of a conflict. Then, it will use hardpoint under wings, and here also, the payload is better, it is not impressive anyway. (I don't like to use the word "impressive" by the way)
LOL. Do you have at least a source to this comic joke ? Or are you trying to convince some simple minds with this lie just to not recognised that you told a fool ?
Do you have aldeary, once in your life, saw from your eyes a strike mission preparation ? It takes hours ! You need to thing with a map, to rely on intelligence. Once the first shot is done, the cards have changes. You have to restart the intelligence collect from the begining. So, please...
You mix everything.
Awacs are used during combat mission, (I will speak about COMAO because we are talking about strike missions). If the Awacs will not be useful at all, tell me why the USAF is replacing them by the E7 ?
Rivet Joint have been almost abandonned because operational expectation have never been met. RC135 collect EM Intelligence and Compass call deceive the ennemy communication, two roles have nothing to do with F-35 roles.
Yes, F-35 will have intra patrol communications, and share a lot of information to other planes, like a kind of communication nodes. But AWACS will be needed anyway.
Nothing to do with that. If you work at DRDO, please ask one time to speak with pilot and ask them the huge workload they have to properly prepare a strike mission. It is not possible to do that in flight, even if you have a really comfortable seat, huge sreen, chips and frech coke.
This is come from your mind ? Or do you have a source for that too ?
yes, but not on IWB.
lower, from a longer distance, with better A2A missiles to defend itself.
You dream about that, but no. I already told you why it will be stupid to keep bombs internally.
Yeah, I understood your point. And I think it is really irrelevant like I said earlier.
But it will have way better chances of survive. That's the point. In death danger, the most important is to survive. Not to keep bombs with you.
Me neither
You won. I can't compete with that level of bad faith.
Will have, will have... But when ?!! You have a lot of expectations with the LCA, the truth is that this program is made to help the India to build a full defense industrie through a real fighter programm. But don't have too much expectations if no you will be really desapointed.
LCA is maybe a good aircraft (I don't know it very well) MK1 is very limited, and MK2 is not here. And when it come to discuss about HAL, the only thing you can be sure off, is the delay.
F35 is "ON PAPER" a generation ahead. But for me it is not due to the IWB. It helps, but that's it.
I will stop the discussion here, because you talk with a lot of confidence in some topic that obviously you don't understand. False numbers, lies, false argument or invented ones, just to be right. You can think I'm arrogant, but for me it is enough. It was a festival of fanboy attitude I never saw from a long time.
F-35's only advantage against Rafale is stealth. Nothing more, nothing less. In a hands of a capable pilot Rafale kills F-35 7 out of 10 times. Stealth isn't the be all end all of air combat.
Sidekick allows the F-35 to carry 6 A2A missiles internally.
But that's based on current technology and weapons. USA is developing long range missile same size as AIM-120 with 200km + range. As well as developing a new missile that fires the same range as the AIM120 with the kicker being half the size. 4 + 4 would be quite the show.
Well that's a pretty big advantage. I could reverse it and say the only advantage Rafale has over F-35 is the supposed Spectra. Let's just say Spectra is really all that. Great, but adding Spectra onto the F-35 one day is very possible and doable. Adding stealth to the Rafale is impossible.
It's not the be all end all in air combat, but it's similar to the advantage Jordan has by jumping higher than everyone. It's a big deal.
But that's based on current technology and weapons. USA is developing long range missile same size as AIM-120 with 200km + range. As well as developing a new missile that fires the same range as the AIM120 with the kicker being half the size. 4 + 4 would be quite the show.
Well that's a pretty big advantage. I could reverse it and say the only advantage Rafale has over F-35 is the supposed Spectra. Let's just say Spectra is really all that. Great, but adding Spectra onto the F-35 one day is very possible and doable. Adding stealth to the Rafale is impossible.
It's not the be all end all in air combat, but it's similar to the advantage Jordan has by jumping higher than everyone. It's a big deal.
They are just trolling the F-35. They know in their hearts, the Rafale is inferior. It's too silly for me even to post a rebuttle. Two minutes on google would show how desperate they are. What is worse, is that they know they are lying.
Rafale with Mica-NG and Meteor will swat F-35 more often than otherwise. F-35 may remain hidden from RBE2-AA upto 20-30kms, but OSF(now with much more powerful IRST in Rafale-I), will catch F-35 from 70-80 kms away. In a contested air zone, that matters a lot.
Now, if F-35 emits and tries to catch Rafale with its more powerful and superior APG-81, that's where SPECTRA comes in and lobs Meteor towards F-35 passively.
Rafale is an excellent plane. Only reason USAF dominates is because they go the whole shebang. 1 vs 1, Rafale will swat every single US fighter sans F-22.