This is getting even sillier..The NGAD is to replace the f-22. Your delusions are your own.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
They are fooling no one.Can Fafale even carry 6 1000lb bombs and 4 air to air missiles and fly mach 1-plus?
Rafale in clean configuration in the A model its top speed is mach 1.8 the current model is soooo much heavier and hasn't had a thrust upgrade so logic dictates current Rafael can't reach mach 1.8 in clean config. Who are these cheese eaters trying to fool here, eh?
Once again, you show how you don't really understand how things actually work. Replacing a jet and role-replacing a jet are two different subjects.
The F-35 was designed for a purpose, and it was supposed to start fulfilling that purpose from 2016-17 onwards and keep that going until 2035, when its replacement for that purpose is ready. So that would give it a useful life of 18 years. Similarly the F-22 provided that capability from 2005 onwards until it was supposed to be replaced by the F-35 for that purpose from 2017 onwards. So you are basically bringing in new capability every 15 years.
But now that the F-35 has been delayed all the way to 2026-29, and its replacement is already flying, it's practically become useless for that purpose since it's gonna be taken over by NGAD in just a few years after Block 4 is ready. So instead of being the main character for 18 years, a full career, it's being downgraded to a support character. This is the reason why the Israelis asked for their own version, 'cause once the F-35 become a support character, they have to keep upgrading it as fast as possible to keep it relevant. Similarly, the USAF will have to modernize it, and that's the plan for the 300 F-35As that will support the NGAD.
The NGAD replacing the F-22 is a whole 'nother subject.
Yes he is. It's all he has when trying to make an argument. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WHAT ABOUT VIETNAM!
Here are some load indices calculated in the Rafale reference system:
AIM-9L = AIM-120 = 3 (+ 3.66 pylon)
And for the following loads the pylon has an index of 2
The mass of the AIM 120 is 161.5 kg and that of the MK-84 is 894 kg.
The empty weight of the F-35 is 13290 kg, with 2 AIM 120 it is 13613, with 4 AIM 120 it is 13936 and with 2 Mk 84 and 2 AIM 120 it is 15401 kg.
The index of the F-35 with its payload bay is 212.38 and it can fly 2820 km with 4 AIM 120, i.e. at an empty weight of 13936 kg, in these conditions its take-off weight will be 13936 + 8278 = 22214 kg.
We can calculate the range of the F-35 when empty:
We have a take-off weight of 13290 + 8278 = 21568 and therefore ln 21568 - ln 13290 = 0.566 and on the other hand we have ln 22214 - ln 13936 = 0.466 for the F-35 configured as Air Air. So the F-35's empty range will be 2820 *0.566/0.466 = 3425 km.
We can also calculate the range of the F-35 loaded with 2 MK 84 and 2 AIM 120:
we have a take-off weight of 15401 + 8278 = 23679 kg and ln 23679 - ln 15401 = 0.430 which gives a range of 2820 * 0.430/0.466 = 2602 km
Finally, we can calculate the range of the F-35 loaded with only 2 AIM 120, which will be the average between 2820 and 3425, i.e. 3122 km.
To calculate the combat range of a loaded F-35, we take the average of the outward and return flights and divide by 2. So for the F-35 with 2 Mk 84 and 2 AIM 120 this gives:
(2602 + 3122)/4 = 1431 Km
For the Rafale we have the following elements:
Rafale with 3 x 2000 l drop tank:
Rafale with 3 x 2000 l drop tank, 2 x MK-84 and 2 x MICA:
The Rafale will be able to travel 3700*220.5/246.18 =3314 km to take account of drag.
To take account of mass, we consider ln 20184.5 - ln 10580 and ln 22196.5 - ln 12592, i.e. 0.646 and 0.567.
The range with the drop tank and weapon will therefore be 3314*0.567/0.646 =2909, which is the performance on the outward journey for 9604.5 kg of fuel.
On the return journey, we saw that the smooth aircraft had a range of 2532.5 km for 4700 kg of fuel, but we have to take into account the weight and drag of the missiles.
For the drag we go from index 159 to 172.32 and therefore the range is reduced 2532.5*159/172.32 = 2339
For the weight, we go from 9850 kg to 10074 kg unladen and we add 4700 kg for the full fuel tank.
We therefore have ln 14550 - ln 9850 and ln 14774 - ln10074, i.e. 0.39 and 0.383, which further reduces the range to 2339*0.383/0.39 = 2297, still for 4700 kg of fuel.
Calculating the distance D
This is the distance covered during the first phase, when the aircraft is heavily loaded and will consume all the 6000 litres contained in the fuel drop tanks, i.e. a mass of 4904.5 kg
it will therefore fly in these conditions 2909*4904.5/9604.5 = 1485.5 km.
Then he will fly to the target with his weapons and without his drop tank over a distance X and finally he will fly back with the air-to-air missiles over a distance X + 1485.5 km.
With the weapons and without the drop tanks, the Rafale's index is 159 + 25.68 = 184.68, whereas with the air-to-air missiles and without the drop tanks, its index is 172.32, so it will have to fly the 2X distance at an average index of (184.68 +172.32)/2 = 178.5.
We can calculate how much fuel will be needed to cover the 1485.5 km on the return journey, to find out how much fuel is available to cover 2X.
At 4700 kg, we have a range of 2297 km, so to travel 1485.5 km we would need to consume 4700*1485.5/2297 = 3040 kg, so to do 2X we have 1660 kg of fuel, which would allow us to travel an extra 811.5 km if we had no bombs to carry, but which we will reduce by using the average index of 178.5 and the average weight of 10968 empty and 15668 with a full tank.
The reduction due to drag is therefore 811.5*172.32/178.5 = 783.
For the reduction due to the masses we consider ln15668 - ln 10968 and ln14774 - ln 10074 i.e. 0.357 and 0.383 which gives a distance of 783*0.357/0.383 =729.8 km which gives X = 364.9 km and the "combat range" of 1485.5 + 364.9 = 1850.4 km
AIM-9L = AIM-120 = 3 (+ 3.66 pylon)
And for the following loads the pylon has an index of 2
- AN-AAQ-28 Litening Targeting pod: 2.93
- ALQ-131: 6.28
- Mk-82: 1.67
- Mk-83: 2.09
- Mk-84: 4.18
- CBU-87: 9.79
- CBU-97: 9.79
- LUU-2: 3.77
- GBU-10: 5.94
- GBU-12: 4.27
- GBU-38: 1.67
- GBU-31: 4.18
- CBU-103: 9.79
- CBU-105: 9.79
- AGM-65 dual: 3.35
The mass of the AIM 120 is 161.5 kg and that of the MK-84 is 894 kg.
The empty weight of the F-35 is 13290 kg, with 2 AIM 120 it is 13613, with 4 AIM 120 it is 13936 and with 2 Mk 84 and 2 AIM 120 it is 15401 kg.
The index of the F-35 with its payload bay is 212.38 and it can fly 2820 km with 4 AIM 120, i.e. at an empty weight of 13936 kg, in these conditions its take-off weight will be 13936 + 8278 = 22214 kg.
We can calculate the range of the F-35 when empty:
We have a take-off weight of 13290 + 8278 = 21568 and therefore ln 21568 - ln 13290 = 0.566 and on the other hand we have ln 22214 - ln 13936 = 0.466 for the F-35 configured as Air Air. So the F-35's empty range will be 2820 *0.566/0.466 = 3425 km.
We can also calculate the range of the F-35 loaded with 2 MK 84 and 2 AIM 120:
we have a take-off weight of 15401 + 8278 = 23679 kg and ln 23679 - ln 15401 = 0.430 which gives a range of 2820 * 0.430/0.466 = 2602 km
Finally, we can calculate the range of the F-35 loaded with only 2 AIM 120, which will be the average between 2820 and 3425, i.e. 3122 km.
To calculate the combat range of a loaded F-35, we take the average of the outward and return flights and divide by 2. So for the F-35 with 2 Mk 84 and 2 AIM 120 this gives:
(2602 + 3122)/4 = 1431 Km
For the Rafale we have the following elements:
Rafale with 3 x 2000 l drop tank:
- Index: 220.5
- Range: 3700 Km
- Empty weight: 10580
- Take-off weight: 20184.5
- Index : 246.18
- Empty weight: 12592
- Take-off weight: 22196.5
- Index: 159
- Range: 2532.5 Km
- Empty weight: 9850
- Weight on take-off: 14550
- Index: 172.3
- Empty weight: 10074
- Take-off weight: 14774
- Heavily loaded flight during which it will consume all the 6000 litres contained in the Drop tanks, i.e. a mass of 4904.5 kg over a distance D that is easy to calculate.
- Flight with the weapons but without the drop tanks towards the target at a distance X to be determined.
- Return to base with only the air-to-air missiles.
Rafale with 3 x 2000 l drop tank, 2 x MK-84 and 2 x MICA:
The Rafale will be able to travel 3700*220.5/246.18 =3314 km to take account of drag.
To take account of mass, we consider ln 20184.5 - ln 10580 and ln 22196.5 - ln 12592, i.e. 0.646 and 0.567.
The range with the drop tank and weapon will therefore be 3314*0.567/0.646 =2909, which is the performance on the outward journey for 9604.5 kg of fuel.
On the return journey, we saw that the smooth aircraft had a range of 2532.5 km for 4700 kg of fuel, but we have to take into account the weight and drag of the missiles.
For the drag we go from index 159 to 172.32 and therefore the range is reduced 2532.5*159/172.32 = 2339
For the weight, we go from 9850 kg to 10074 kg unladen and we add 4700 kg for the full fuel tank.
We therefore have ln 14550 - ln 9850 and ln 14774 - ln10074, i.e. 0.39 and 0.383, which further reduces the range to 2339*0.383/0.39 = 2297, still for 4700 kg of fuel.
Calculating the distance D
This is the distance covered during the first phase, when the aircraft is heavily loaded and will consume all the 6000 litres contained in the fuel drop tanks, i.e. a mass of 4904.5 kg
it will therefore fly in these conditions 2909*4904.5/9604.5 = 1485.5 km.
Then he will fly to the target with his weapons and without his drop tank over a distance X and finally he will fly back with the air-to-air missiles over a distance X + 1485.5 km.
With the weapons and without the drop tanks, the Rafale's index is 159 + 25.68 = 184.68, whereas with the air-to-air missiles and without the drop tanks, its index is 172.32, so it will have to fly the 2X distance at an average index of (184.68 +172.32)/2 = 178.5.
We can calculate how much fuel will be needed to cover the 1485.5 km on the return journey, to find out how much fuel is available to cover 2X.
At 4700 kg, we have a range of 2297 km, so to travel 1485.5 km we would need to consume 4700*1485.5/2297 = 3040 kg, so to do 2X we have 1660 kg of fuel, which would allow us to travel an extra 811.5 km if we had no bombs to carry, but which we will reduce by using the average index of 178.5 and the average weight of 10968 empty and 15668 with a full tank.
The reduction due to drag is therefore 811.5*172.32/178.5 = 783.
For the reduction due to the masses we consider ln15668 - ln 10968 and ln14774 - ln 10074 i.e. 0.357 and 0.383 which gives a distance of 783*0.357/0.383 =729.8 km which gives X = 364.9 km and the "combat range" of 1485.5 + 364.9 = 1850.4 km
Last edited:
This always known though. The F-35A with internal fuel is no doubt soundly defeated by a Rafale with full external fuel.
It's a VCE engine that helps surpass the Rafale's numbers. With the AETP option gone, drop tanks are necessary. The difference to match the Rafale is just 419 km one way.
F135 Upgrades, Reengining Considered In New F-35 Propulsion Road Map | Aviation Week Network
Growing demands from airframe, mission systems drive Joint Program Office to plot a propulsion revamp.
aviationweek.com
So new calculations have to be done with 20% more fuel efficiency, and the usage of drop tanks. So 4000 liters of additional fuel at the minimum. More specifically, rather than drop tanks, they may decide to use CFTs of the same capacity. But you could always add 2 more drop tanks.
And while all this is going on, Dassault will be sitting on its hands.This always known though. The F-35A with internal fuel is no doubt soundly defeated by a Rafale with full external fuel.
It's a VCE engine that helps surpass the Rafale's numbers. With the AETP option gone, drop tanks are necessary. The difference to match the Rafale is just 419 km one way.
In anticipating these growing demands on the propulsion system, Pratt has since 2017 proposed a series of upgrades—known as Growth Options (GO) 1 and 2—to support Block 4 requirements, with GO-1 offering either a 6% fuel burn reduction or 10% thrust improvement. Pratt has previously said the GO-2 package reduced fuel consumption by as much as 20%, with a 15% overall thrust improvement.F135 Upgrades, Reengining Considered In New F-35 Propulsion Road Map | Aviation Week Network
Growing demands from airframe, mission systems drive Joint Program Office to plot a propulsion revamp.
So new calculations have to be done with 20% more fuel efficiency, and the usage of drop tanks. So 4000 liters of additional fuel at the minimum. More specifically, rather than drop tanks, they may decide to use CFTs of the same capacity. But you could always add 2 more drop tanks.
And while all this is going on, Dassault will be sitting on its hands.
If F5's getting a new engine with VCE and 20% efficiency, then we go back to our original discussion of how the F4s will be significantly outdated. Especially the fact that the performance hit will force older jets to conduct less capable missions in comparison. So 97 vs 225.
The F-35 has a lot more room as well, the Rafale doesn't. It's already at its max in the usage of external points.
Except we have done the numbers before and pic was shown to be a liar. Ask him for links.This always known though. The F-35A with internal fuel is no doubt soundly defeated by a Rafale with full external fuel.
It's a VCE engine that helps surpass the Rafale's numbers. With the AETP option gone, drop tanks are necessary. The difference to match the Rafale is just 419 km one way.
In anticipating these growing demands on the propulsion system, Pratt has since 2017 proposed a series of upgrades—known as Growth Options (GO) 1 and 2—to support Block 4 requirements, with GO-1 offering either a 6% fuel burn reduction or 10% thrust improvement. Pratt has previously said the GO-2 package reduced fuel consumption by as much as 20%, with a 15% overall thrust improvement.F135 Upgrades, Reengining Considered In New F-35 Propulsion Road Map | Aviation Week Network
Growing demands from airframe, mission systems drive Joint Program Office to plot a propulsion revamp.
So new calculations have to be done with 20% more fuel efficiency, and the usage of drop tanks. So 4000 liters of additional fuel at the minimum. More specifically, rather than drop tanks, they may decide to use CFTs of the same capacity. But you could always add 2 more drop tanks.
There are also 2 5000lb external wet points for tanks on the f-35
No, we can still fit compliant tanks to free up heavy wet spots and we can fit multi-missile pylons, we can also fit Meteors everywhere.
I think instead it's been proven that you're a moron.
That wasn't my point. It was just to point out that thinking stealth and BVR are 'be all, end all' could be detrimental just like what happened in Vietnam.
F-35 can pound old age fighters as much as it want, but all updated(like Flankers) or born(like Rafale) 4+ gen fighters are no easy kill. Air to air regime is highly competitive and unpredictable and thinking F-35 as 'invincible' is nothing but a fool's errand, IMO.
No, we can still fit compliant tanks to free up heavy wet spots and we can fit multi-missile pylons, we can also fit Meteors everywhere.
Sure, but we are only comparing what's realistic based on the actual goals of the modernization programs. The F-35 has far more options after all.
For example, in your range calculation, you need to take into account the Rafale requires 100 feet ingress and egress up to 200 km, while the F-35 can do it at 7 km. At that altitude, the F-35 can go supersonic with an internal load, increasing the range of the weapons, but even the longest range weapon on the Rafale at 100 feet will do only 10-50 km. And the F-35 will do 9G. Worst of all, when challenged the F-35 can retain its payload before disengaging, but the Rafale has to jettison its payload. For a standoff mission, the F-35 can carry 6 SCALPs or 8 JSMs or 8 1000 kg Hammer-equivalents. You need multiple Rafales for such a mission.
Maintenance is also the F-35's advantage. Its KPP was 9 hours maintenance for every flying hour, but they achieved 5 hours, almost half that of the Rafale. Single engine has its advantages too. It's an overall more modern design, and its upgrades are better funded than the Rafale.
No one is saying that F-35 is a bad plane. In fact, you've continously praised its air to ground ability. But the way these fanatics portray it as an invincible air to air fighter is downright idiotic.
Is this an advantage?
Can it open its hold doors at supersonic speed? There are going to be versions of the hammer with ranges of 250 km, at which point you can pop up to fire the weapon.
Would you like me to calculate its range with this load to see if I can't do better with the Rafale?
You're not also going to highlight the F-35's maintenance. That's one of the worst things about this aircraft. I very much doubt that it only needs 9 hours per flight hour because the US only counts short shutdowns, most of the F-35s in service have already had more than a year of cumulative shutdown and they can't manage to fly more than 160 hours a year, whereas the official target is 200 hours a year, as decided at the highest level.
Of course, the F-35 sees more, has better performance at higher altitude, can use weapons with significantly lower drag, fuel consumption is lower, supersonic release adds to survivability and range of the weapons fired.
I don't see why that will be a problem.
An F-35A Dropped An Inert B61-12 Nuclear Bomb During Supersonic Flight For The First Time
The test with the B61-12 is also the first F-35A Dual Capable Aircraft test to be shown in an unclassified video. Just a few months after the first photos
theaviationist.com
I know, which is why I gave the Rafale a 10-50 km range boost for pop up. The current Hammer with 60 km range does 11 km from low altitude. The F-35 can do the same from 200 km away at 7 km altitude. Or even 10 km altitude. While supersonic.
The Americans are developing a Powered JDAM.
Jet-Powered JDAM Aims To Turn Bombs Into Cruise Missiles
Powered JDAMs could attack targets on land and sea, deploy naval mines, or even act as decoys, over long ranges.
www.thedrive.com
The standoff calculations will be pointless, 'cause they will be launched outside the range of SAM rings and long range missions will be supported by refuelers. With JASSM-XR, the Americans can attack targets up to Xian and Chengdu from Taiwan, both 1800 km away. India too can attack up to the borders of Mongolia with LR-LACM and long range Brahmos, both 1500 km. We can even attack their nuclear silos.
Their maintainers only have good things to say about it though. The problem they are facing with is what India also faced with the MKI, lack of spare parts.
The argument made is the F-35 production is faster than the spares production. In some cases, aircraft needed repairs but the depots themselves were not built. The forces are also not able to repair all the parts that they are supposed to, lack of trained personnel and documentation. And then they are not yet prepared for unplanned maintenance, like their engine troubles.
This article highlights a lot of the problems.
GAO blasts contractor-led F-35 maintenance as costly, slow
Without key technical data from F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin, GAO said military maintainers can't fix some parts — or even learn how to fix them.
www.defensenews.com
So it's not an aircraft problem, it's a supply chain problem. Basically, if enough parts and maintenance staff are available, the jet needs only 5 hours downtime. Perhaps they can reduce it even further.
I believe that once TR3 delivers and FRP begins, a lot of such issues will be flushed out and resolved, and enough maintenance personnel will have gained the experience necessary to train new cohorts of airmen.
Just as @randomradio and myself have been saying, look how fvcked up F-35 program really is(from 1:15:00 onwards):
Maybe @Optimist & @Innominate should also watch and curtail their fanboyism cause Mike 'Pako' Benitez>> Both of 'em
Maybe @Optimist & @Innominate should also watch and curtail their fanboyism cause Mike 'Pako' Benitez>> Both of 'em
Just as @randomradio and myself have been saying, look how fvcked up F-35 program really is(from 1:15:00 onwards):
Maybe @Optimist & @Innominate should also watch and curtail their fanboyism cause Mike 'Pako' Benitez>> Both of 'em
He has no respect for the F-35.
