Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 2009 displays of the F-22 and the Rafale
Bluewings12    6/24/2009 5:03:48 PM
Let 's watch them first :-) The F-22 h*tp://www.air-attack.com/videos/single/cAhL7lJCk4I The Rafale : h*tp://www.dailymotion.com/user/ministeredeladefense/video/x9ma8h_demonstration-du-rafale_news Both aircrafts are pulling nice stuff . Rafale only does it twice faster . Explaination and details to follow . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Herald12345    Low observable solution   8/3/2009 2:10:40 AM






Incidentally, the Fulcrum's chief defect is that it falls apart, not that it can't get the job done. One more thing: if you are a bomb truck, then you  are expected to enter any of the late model Russian radar and SAM IADS networks and exploit its seams. If your aircraft  can't do that, then you murder pilots. Guess what the Rafale can't do without expensive and scarce French standoff weapons and MASSIVE ASSISTANCE from allied aircraft like Typhoon and Gripen and yes the F-series jets from the US?










By the way, good luck with ASTER! You'll need it.



 



Herald 













Hmm... I think you're being a bit carried away there. First, what proof do you have that Rafale can't "thread its way into a latest model Russian IADS" ? Of course it didn't, but then who did ? The closest such experience was over Serbia, and even though they were arguably more competent than the Iraqi, Serbia was still a small and relatively impoverished country. And Rafale wasn't operational back then.

F22 and F35 are supposed to have that capability, although it hasn't been demonstrated in "real" operations (or did I miss the USA vs China war ?). Not that I don't believe the F22 couldn't, but it is in a class of its own. It has its limits as well. Dropping JDAMs is good, but can it launch cruise or anti-ship missiles ? No it can't. Rafale can... Does that make the latter superior to the former ? I suppose not, for a nation that can afford to have F22 and all the rest (thousands of Teen-series, a dozen carrier groups with SHs, etc).

And the F35 is not operational yet, AFAIK. It's not a paper plane like the PAK-FA, but it still has to prove itself... against the kind of IADS you're speaking about, otherwise it's all speculation, interpreted exercise results, and manufacturer's claims, don't you agree ? Is the F22 even battle-tested or did it achieve all its "kills" in simulated engagements ? I know, I'm being snarky here. 

As for "relying on expensive stand-off weapons"... isn't it what everyone's doing nowadays ? The "expensive" part is mostly from being French built and bought in small series compared to the American hardware, but then even a JDAM or Paveway costs a little mre than a dumb Mk 82... what are you trying to imply here ? That Rafales should somehow, in the hypothesis of a "big war" (in the NATO vs Warsaw Pact style) attack by overflying its target and dropping iron bombs on it ? Then why isn't it the advertised tactic for F22s and F35s, then ? Less macho ? http://www.strategypage.com/Images/face22.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />

Oh well, I guess, from the Red Flag-related article, that USAF operators were impressed by a "pedestrian bomb-truck".
means that  you can get CLOSER to the radars and kill them with glide weapons as opposed to rocket-boosted ones. Hence US JDAMS and GPS guided bombs with strongback wing glide kits are CHEAPER and far more plentiful than French rocket boosted lob munitions. Once the IADS Russian style rocket launchers are blinded, then the targets they defend, are easier to kill. (F-117 experience) I hope that answers your question, as to WHY the US adopts :LO strategies and why that solutiion is better than the ones the Dassault engineers adopted. We have seen this solution demonstrated in BATTLE and compared it to the French solution many times now, so we know that our approach works and that the French solution doesn't.   

Herald
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       8/3/2009 4:13:07 AM

means that  you can get CLOSER to the radars and kill them with glide weapons as opposed to rocket-boosted ones. Hence US JDAMS and GPS guided bombs with strongback wing glide kits are CHEAPER and far more plentiful than French rocket boosted lob munitions. Once the IADS Russian style rocket launchers are blinded, then the targets they defend, are easier to kill. (F-117 experience) I hope that answers your question, as to WHY the US adopts :LO strategies and why that solutiion is better than the ones the Dassault engineers adopted. We have seen this solution demonstrated in BATTLE and compared it to the French solution many times now, so we know that our approach works and that the French solution doesn't.   



Herald

 

Damn, this board really needs a better quote feature :-/ It's painful as it is now.
I understand what you say, and it boils down to "American tech, purchasing power and combat experience are (generally) greater". Which is true, but everyone knows that already... 
I think F22-launched JDAMs still qualify as "stand-off" weapons even though they're not rocket-boosted. Especially in view of the claim that high supercruising Raptors can lob those bombs at distances measured in 2-digit kilometers. 
Are those bombs stealthy, by the way ? Would be too bad if they were shot down during their long ballistic flight down, and a Raptor doesn't have the sheer carrying capacity as a B52 either. I could argue that a salvo of AASMs coming from behind a hill with a much shorter flight time are less interceptable. 
The "it's more expensive !" argument sounds pretty weak ("the F22 is too expensive !"). The important thing is "does it do the job and can we afford it". Turns up the F22 does but America can't afford more (concurrently with the costs of an onging war and all the other needed stuff and an economic crisis as a bonus).
Heh, it looks oddly symmetrical seen like this. Super-expensive F22 with relatively cheap JDAM/SDB vs relatively cheap (in comparison) Rafale with more expensive AASM.
Now which one is better... it would take a bigger war than Kosovo/Iraq to say (not to belittle anything but the USAF beating the crap out of Third-World (or very weak kinda-First-World) countries hardly passes as extraordinary).
In any case the whole "which has the bigger schlong" internet debate is ultimately irrelevant. France couldn't have afforded a plane like the F22. As much as everyone likes to wank about his country's hardware the important matter is "can it fulfill its requirements".
Replacing every F22, (future) F35 and teen-series by a Rafale F3+ (with all the goodies finally coming to it) would still yield the most powerful air force in the world.
Replace every French plane with F22s and F35s, and maybe the Armée de l'Air would gain even more of an edge than it currently has against any realistic opponent, but the added costs would hardly be worth it.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       8/3/2009 5:29:50 AM

means that  you can get CLOSER to the radars and kill them with glide weapons as opposed to rocket-boosted ones. Hence US JDAMS and GPS guided bombs with strongback wing glide kits are CHEAPER and far more plentiful than French rocket boosted lob munitions. Once the IADS Russian style rocket launchers are blinded, then the targets they defend, are easier to kill. (F-117 experience) I hope that answers your question, as to WHY the US adopts :LO strategies and why that solutiion is better than the ones the Dassault engineers adopted. We have seen this solution demonstrated in BATTLE and compared it to the French solution many times now, so we know that our approach works and that the French solution doesn't.   


Herald
Damn, this board really needs a better quote feature :-/ It's painful as it is now.

I understand what you say, and it boils down to "American tech, purchasing power and combat experience are (generally) greater". Which is true, but everyone knows that already... 
 
Which does not obviate that experience as being superior to French theory. That is the trouble with theory. You donb't know if it will work until you test it. We tested it.   

I think F22-launched JDAMs still qualify as "stand-off" weapons even though they're not rocket-boosted. Especially in view of the claim that high supercruising Raptors can lob those bombs at distances measured in 2-digit kilometers.
 
From altitude. You will see why I say this this shortly.

Are those bombs stealthy, by the way ? Would be too bad if they were shot down during their long ballistic flight down, and a Raptor doesn't have the sheer carrying capacity as a B52 either. I could argue that a salvo of AASMs coming from behind a hill with a much shorter flight time are less interceptable. 
 
I'll trade a $200,000 glide bomb for a couple  $2,000,000 missiles and their  $3,000,000 launcher. I can swamp a launch site with cheap bombs and run them out of rockets. Bombing downhill means that gravity works for me as well as economics, too.  

The "it's more expensive !" argument sounds pretty weak ("the F22 is too expensive !"). The important thing is "does it do the job and can we afford it". Turns up the F22 does but America can't afford more (concurrently with the costs of an onging war and all the other needed stuff and an economic crisis as a bonus).
 
The F-35 is the bomb truck. The F-22 is the air dominance fighter.  We must remember properly who does what in the American scheme of things

Heh, it looks oddly symmetrical seen like this. Super-expensive F22 with relatively cheap JDAM/SDB vs relatively cheap (in comparison) Rafale with more expensive AASM.
 
Cheaper than a Rafale Sparkie with its inexpensive glide munitions does the bomb work. The Raptor kills Sukhois and hots the occasional radar site and AWACs.
 
Now which one is better... it would take a bigger war than Kosovo/Iraq to say (not to belittle anything but the USAF beating the crap out of Third-World (or very weak kinda-First-World) countries hardly passes as extraordinary).
 
The IADS is the measure, not the country that happened to buy it. I'm satisfied that we have good combat validation data out of Iraq and SYRIA.
 
In any case the whole "which has the bigger schlong" internet debate is ultimately irrelevant. France couldn't have afforded a plane like the F22. As much as everyone likes to wank about his country's hardware the important matter is "can it fulfill its requirements"
 
I agree that the "schlong argument"  is stupid. That is why this discussion between us is refreshing. I don't have to engage in verbal fisticuffs with a pretender fanboy. Instead I can explain an American viewpoint. You don't have to agree with it or even accept it, but I can set the facts as I know them out before you, and let you make up your own mind as to why we do the things the way we.do. For example, its a lot easier for us to steer g
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       8/3/2009 6:50:28 AM





means that  you can get CLOSER to the radars and kill them with glide weapons as opposed to rocket-boosted ones. Hence US JDAMS and GPS guided bombs with strongback wing glide kits are CHEAPER and far more plentiful than French rocket boosted lob munitions. Once the IADS Russian style rocket launchers are blinded, then the targets they defend, are easier to kill. (F-117 experience) I hope that answers your question, as to WHY the US adopts :LO strategies and why that solutiion is better than the ones the Dassault engineers adopted. We have seen this solution demonstrated in BATTLE and compared it to the French solution many times now, so we know that our approach works and that the French solution doesn't.   





Herald



Damn, this board really needs a better quote feature :-/ It's painful as it is now.



I understand what you say, and it boils down to "American tech, purchasing power and combat experience are (generally) greater". Which is true, but everyone knows that already... 

 

Which does not obviate that experience as being superior to French theory. That is the trouble with theory. You donb't know if it will work until you test it. We tested it.   

Heh. True I suppose. Although the only "solution" would be France participating in more wars... not sure whether it's something to wish for ! 


I think F22-launched JDAMs still qualify as "stand-off" weapons even though they're not rocket-boosted. Especially in view of the claim that high supercruising Raptors can lob those bombs at distances measured in 2-digit kilometers.

 

From altitude. You will see why I say this this shortly.





Are those bombs stealthy, by the way ? Would be too bad if they were shot down during their long ballistic flight down, and a Raptor doesn't have the sheer carrying capacity as a B52 either. I could argue that a salvo of AASMs coming from behind a hill with a much shorter flight time are less interceptable. 

 

I'll trade a $200,000 glide bomb for a couple  $2,000,000 missiles and their  $3,000,000 launcher. I can swamp a launch site with cheap bombs and run them out of rockets. Bombing downhill means that gravity works for me as well as economics, too.  

Pretty much the counter-argument I was expecting. Works too. Hmm, wonder if future railguns/lasers might balance this equation, but in any case these are still far from widespread and practical tech. Being higher in the gravity well's always an advantage when trading blows.


The "it's more expensive !" argument sounds pretty weak ("the F22 is too expensive !"). The important thing is "does it do the job and can we afford it". Turns up the F22 does but America can't afford more (concurrently with the costs of an onging war and all the other needed stuff and an economic crisis as a bonus).

 

The F-35 is the bomb truck. The F-22 is the air dominance fighter.  We must remember properly who does what in the American scheme of things

But the F35 doesn't fly as far and fast as the F22... huh silly me, that's why it's the bomb truck and there's the F22 for when greater stand-off is needed. Yes, the US have the advantage of being able to develop and purchase specialized platforms. It makes sense for them.


Heh, it looks oddly symmetrical seen like this. Super-expensive F22 with relatively cheap JDAM/SDB vs relatively cheap (in comparison) Rafale with more expensive AASM.

 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Weird thread.   8/3/2009 2:23:23 PM
Guys, I think we can trust the French of making an accurate accelleration sensor within 5%. This is not ueber technological wizardry in my opinion.
http://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale/10G.jpg" width="512" height="320" /> 
So the plane pulls 11g so what? The US know how make a plane that does the same and better.
They choose not to.
http://www.cadetstuff.org/images/HiMAT%20Landing.JPG" width="400" height="300" /> 
 
As for all the "experts" on RCS and radar absorbent coating. I'm slightly amazed why none has mentioned some very obvious problems (for me at least) you would run into when coating the entire plane with RAM.
 
Problems which they seem to have solved with the F-35 and the F22 but not the F-117. (I have a vague hunch on how they solved it).
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Das Kardinal reply.   8/3/2009 5:08:48 PM
I doubt that you can make that statement either. How much does a Storm Shadow or an ASMP cost you? Compare it to a HARM or a JDAM.

That particular comparison is rather of the Apple vs Orange kind (a cruise missile and a supersonic nuclear missile vs an anti-radiation one and a guided bomb...). But by "costs" I was mainly thinking of the political and industrial ones.
 
Let's look at French rocket-boosted ordnance and standoff weapons.
 
 
 
 
 
BLU 107 : [positive proof that if theirs is better, then the US will use it.]
 

Type
General purpose or fragmentation bomb.

Development
This family of low-drag free-fall bombs was developed by the French company Société des Ateliers Mécaniques de Pont-sur-Sambre (SAMP) to meet a French Air Force requirement for a series of 250 kg bombs that were general purpose, anti-personnel/anti-light vehicle and penetration. The bombs had to be compatible with all standard 2 in nose and tail fuzes, aerodynamic or retarding tail assemblies, and with the GBU-12 Paveway II laser guidance system. The programme consisted of three bombs designated BL EU2, BL EU2FR (also known as the BL 74) and BL EU2P. The BL EU2 was a General Purpose (GP) bomb interchangeable with the US Mk 82, the BL EU2FR was an anti-light vehicle (ALV) fragmentation type, and the BL EU2P was a penetration (PE) type. Development included a new method of body construction. The technique involved forging a steel body with a specially computed distribution of thicknesses in order to give an optimum fragmentation pattern on detonation. The design of all three bombs complied with NATO standards and they could be fitted to NATO 356 mm (14 in) pylon/bomb racks. The bombs would have been cleared for carriage on the SEPECAT Jaguar, Dassault Super Etendard, Mirage F1, Mirage III and Mirage 5 aircraft. Further development resulted in the fitting of an inertial guidance system and rocket motor to the BL EU2 family of bombs (in a proposed developmental weapon known as Excalibur).In 1997, a BL EU2P penetration bomb was displayed fitted with a TDA/Northrop Grumman GPS Guided Munition (GGM) tail

=======================================================================
 
QED.
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/4/2009 2:11:38 AM
As for all the "experts" on RCS and radar absorbent coating. I'm slightly amazed why none has mentioned some very obvious problems (for me at least) you would run into when coating the entire plane with RAM.

 and thats the issue - you don't "coat" the entire plane - it's one element in a set of signature/emissions tuning and management capabilities.  those who talk about "coating" (and usually they say "painting") the entire plane are absolutely clueless about LO management ....
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       8/4/2009 2:38:26 AM
QED
 
And what would that demonstration be? That you can quote an article about a family of bombs no longer in service?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Rg    8/4/2009 4:11:54 AM

QED
 

And what would that demonstration be? That you can quote an article about a family of bombs no longer in service?



That I can quote that the French tried and failed.
 
Nice of you to walk into that one, too.
 
FJV reply.
 
Early RAM had three major drawbacks, weight, susceptibility to friction damage, poor heat conductivity, and oxidation, all defects, of course, which continue to plague many of the matrices tried by many of America's competitors down to the present. 
 
Herald
     

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       8/4/2009 5:14:17 AM
That I can quote that the French tried and failed.
 
Tried and failed at what?
 
Most of your posts look like modern "art", lots of fluff, seemingly random items and the "artist" expecting everyone to share a vision he never clearly communicated in the first case.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics