it's not useless, there are limitations. For example in Iraq, the bombing sent clouds of dust into the atmosphere. which stayed and limited IR function. Normally it's another sensor the cues the IR. Even IRST is done in conjunction with other sensors, 'sensor fusing'. The F-22 and f-35 both have good IR protection. Currently it's like radar. Whatever senario you come up with. The 4,5 gen will be seen first. Nothing under 5 miles counts. So forget the pictures you see at a few hundred yards.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Modern IRST employ multiple bands. LWIR, MWIR and some even SWIR in one same package. All different IR wavelengths have different properties.
Of course VLO has its advantages, only an idiot would deny it. But modern IRST gives 4+ gen fighters a fighting chance against VLO. Trying to fight VLO using radar is simply suicidal.
I was leaving RCS aside and just talking IR. The french carry on, is like a drowning man grasping a straw. The US has better IR reduction tech than 4.5gen. They also have good sensors. I don't know anyone with better, least of all the French. You may find that their new TALIOS has the US sniper sensor, as is used in the EO-DAS. The IRST of the F-35, Im not sure of. However both are getting an update.
The Indians are using an Israeli pod, probably litening FLIR. Your Rafale may not have IRST
If your first sighting is a heat source at 5 miles...It's not an aircraft, it's a missile.
Last edited:
Our Rafale-I has "supposedly" QWIP based IRST(the ISE configured models). Those pods that you have mentioned are not for air to air war, but are basically targetting pods for surface strike.
Only thing I would say is, you're severly underestimating modern QWIP based IRST. Rest whatever floats your boat, mate
RAAF’s F-35 is flawed, not meeting Australia’s defense needs
By Boyko Nikolov On Dec 6, 2022
RAAF's F-35 is flawed, not meeting Australia's defense needs
However, in Australia, with the euphoria of acquiring the first fighters long gone and their history with the RAAF, operational problems are already emerging.
bulgarianmilitary.com
CANBERRA ($1=1.49 Australian Dollars) — Australia is about to build a fourth squadron of US Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighters. Thus, the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] is expected to have a total of 96 fighters.
- Australia is trying to curb the corrosion risk for its fleet of F-35
- Australia equips its Boeing EA-18Gs with AGM-88E2 guided missiles
- Not just British, China may have recruited Australian pilots too
Australia is not only a buyer but an industrial partner of Lockheed Martin in the F-35 program. Australia’s history with the F-35 began twenty years ago – in 2002. As a Tier 3 partner in the F-35 program, Canberra has committed to spending more than $16 billion to acquire at least 76 fighters. To date, 54 fighters have already been delivered by Lockheed Martin to the RAAF. 2023 is the deadline set by the Australian government to bring all 54 fighters into operational readiness.
However, in Australia, with the euphoria of acquiring the first fighters long gone and their history with the RAAF, operational problems are already emerging.
The government program to build a fourth squadron [96 F-35s in total] by the government in the country was the first to fall under the experts’ radar. Australia’s most respected military expert and the country’s defense analyst since the 1970s, Mr. Brian Toohey disagrees with the government’s intentions. Toohey argued that Australia should demand a refund of the amount given to date for the F-35 purchase.
There are several reasons. First of all – the cost of maintenance. It turns out that each Australian F-35 spent 23% less time in the air than planned. In the next three years, this trend will continue. This means more downtime on the ground than anticipated and increased maintenance and storage costs. BulgarianMilitary.com recalls that Australia must spend $11 billion to maintain its Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fleet until 2053.
This immediately begs the question: if the reason for the fewer flight hours is maintenance issues, how many more billions will the Australian taxpayer have to pay to ensure the aircraft are operational until 2053?
They describe the F-35 in Australia as a complete disaster. One example is that the first two fighter jets purchased in 2013 for $280 million are so old that they cannot be upgraded, according to Lockheed Martin’s current configuration.
Mr. Anthony Galloway, an Australian defense journalist painted an even bleaker picture. According to him, the Australian F-35 does not burden Australia’s needs at all. An example is China. An Australian F-35 cannot reach the South China Sea unless it refuels in flight. I.e. with an operational combat radius of 1,000 km, to reach a maximum of 1,500 km you need to refuel. This means placing tankers in the air, which are easy targets if a conflict with China arises.
Galloway even goes further in his analysis, claiming that the aircraft’s actual range is 500 km during combat, as it would need to throttle, accelerate or decelerate. When forcing and accelerating during combat, much more fuel is spent, which automatically reduces the operational range in km.
Other local military experts say that the advertised “supersonic” option does not correspond to reality, since at such a speed [Mach 1.6] the plane can only travel for 90 seconds. After these 90 seconds, the F-35 pilot must slow down. And all this if there is no military conflict.
There are more problems. For example, Australian analysts write, the Australian F-35 uses Block 3F software. It is a digital electronic system designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin. The maintenance and updating of this operating system are much more extensive and expensive than its competing systems around the world. This opinion is not just the comment of an Australian analyst, but also the comment of a senior American officer.
Last year, Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the USAF’s deputy chief of staff, expressed serious concerns about the Block 3F software, saying, “the block that is coming off the line right now is not a block that I feel good about going up against China and Russia. “ It becomes even more frightening after it became clear that even US fighter jets did not use Block 3F software during the 2018 and 2019 war game
Even from up close the Rafale doesn't look like the Rafale on an IR camera, it just looks like a small ball of flame. Otoh, you can see the silhouette of the F-22. That's the difference.
True. But the problem is the F-35 can still see more.
While the Rafale is a bit unique, traditional 4th gen with large RCS do not stand a chance against the F-35.
15:1/20:1 vs Raptor's 144:0/144:1 says otherwise. Even traditional 4th gen seem to have more chance of defeating F-35 than they have of defeating F-22(looking at Red Flag kill ratio of both).
I see you still haven't googled the proper number, for the 'more than ' 20:1 Or the planes it was flying against.
Chinese are not russians. They seem to observe and to learn more. I don't think they will use their fighters alone but mixed having then many more available tactics to defeet f-35.
Taïwan is not very far from the Chinese coast. Then it enable chinese to use their own radar to give some more chances to their fighters.
F-35 will have to play with a very short playtime against chineses fighters.
And with a very limited fleet able to fly at any time F-35 will only obtain a very limited superiority in air.
These are the main default of F-35 even with a very good RCS.
Taking this into account make a fourth gen fighter like the taiwanese M2000 a better asset that a F-35.
Even a 3:1 kill ratio is a deadend position for the inferior jet. 6:1 is a next generation jet. 20:1 is unmatchable.
The F-22 being leagues above the F-35 was a given. Even though the F-35 has better stealth and avionics, it lacks performance. The F-35 has been designed to be 400% superior to low end Teens (non-AESA F-16, Hornet). The F-22 has been designed to be 1500% superior to the non-AESA F-15C. So no comparison.
But we can say for sure the F-35 is significantly superior in air combat compared to the Flanker due to the massive RCS and IR signature differences. It's unclear when other advanced sensors will come into play in the future to bridge the gap, if it can be bridged, but currently configured Flankers will do quite badly against the F-35 today, including the J-16. So the 20:1 ratio has some merit to it.
Are you referring to endurance? The F-35 has excellent endurance and it should get even better with the new engine. I'd say the F-35's endurance is only bettered by the J-20 and Su-57.
Furthermore, the F-35A can go supersonic and then sustain mach 1.2 for 150 miles. Most older jets cannot do that, they quickly drop to subsonic speeds. Even the Flanker needs minimum burner for mach 1.3-1.4, and the F-35 should be able to operate at that speed with minimum burner as well, even if it's only for 150 miles. It probably has far lower drag than the Flanker. And once you add weapons, the performance of the Flanker can degrade somewhat to a lot depending on the payload. For example, the Americans claim the F-35A with internal weapons has greater acceleration compared to an MKI carrying 8 AAMs in the subsonic regime.
The M2000 has its use, like interception, but it will demonstrate significant amounts of inferiority against the F-35 in a lot of areas. These two jets are not comparable. With that said, Taiwan needs America for air superiority. Their goal is air denial.
Thing is, all this superlative kill ratio is achieved against US' own fighters. Until F-35 achieves something like 20:1 against Rafale in a BVR LFE, I ain't buying their superiority.
MKI UPG. is going to defeat VLO. I know you don't believe me because of MKI's barn door RCS. But still it would. Rafale, as our respected @vstol Jockey sir has previously said, is still good enough to deal with J-20.
No I am refering to playtime. How long can an f-35 play between Taïwan and Chinese coast compare to the chinese fighter.
All depend from where the f-35s can come from.
That's the first point
The second point all the last exercices with f-35 playing with Rafale, all show that rafale has a much greater playtime than F-35.
In fact look at the last article I have posted. Australian Air Force are not happy at all with the F-35 combat Range.
Don't forget that a part of the f-35 fuel can't be used for propulsion and is needed to refresh the plane. And that taken into account make the f-35 fuel volume under question.
Don't forget also that fighter combat under the sea is not the same that under earth. If you want to stay uncapture you have to fly under the horizon as most as possible.
Last edited: