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: 6*F-22 vs 6*Typhoon vs 6*Rafale in the UAE?!
giblets    11/16/2009 4:48:58 AM
According to both Flight Global, and Defence News, other than attending the Dubai airshow, the USAF, RAF, and FAF each sent 6 of their finest fighter aircraft to the desert Kingdom to take part in multinational exercises. Other than adding much fuel to the fire for forum members here! It raises many questions (such as why the USAF was unable to send 1 F-22 to Paris, and can now send 6 to the UAE, despite no drop in operational tempo). And will the F22 and Typhoon not be in the air at the same time again?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
MK       2/9/2010 5:20:15 PM

I wouldn't want to go up against a Rafale with a good pilot.  But I also realize that the Rafale was designed to blow up things, not necessarily mix it up with dedicated air-superiority fighters.  I thought that's what the Mirage 2000 was for.  If Dassault is trying to convince people that the Rafale is an air superiority fighter, then it's no wonder the Rafale isn't selling.

Certainly not less air superiority than the F-35 ;).
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       2/9/2010 6:16:12 PM
In the British DERA JOUST evaluation to promote Eurofighter (against Rafale), even there, Rafale is said better than SU35, F18E or F15 in air combat.
Of course Rafale/mica performance were properly and grossly underestimated has all exercises has proven it, including in UAE.
When Rafale will have the 9 tons engine, it will excess flight performance of Eurofighter while being a true fighter bomber.And a much better electronic especially on ECM and air to ground (plus AESA now).
Rafale was designed to replace also the M2000
 
Dassault has recently declared that they think Rafale as the P51 of our time.Nothing less.
 
 
From wiki

Britain?s Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an evaluation in 1994 (simulation based on the available data) comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35.[34]

The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft supposed data were put in simulated combat against the Su-35.Remember this is the Su-27M/Su-35 not the Su-35bm The results were:

Aircraft Losses, Su-35:Aircraft
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Sukhoi Su-30MKI "Flanker-H" 2.0:1
Dassault Rafale C 1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1

These results were that in simulated combat, 4.5 Su-35s were shot down for every Typhoon lost, and 10.1 Su-35s were downed for every F-22 lost.

All the NATO aircraft in the simulation were using an older version of the AMRAAM missile, except the Rafale which was using the MICA missile.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       2/9/2010 6:47:19 PM




And no, nothing has changed on the Squalls in service  from 2007 to 2008 to 2010 where we can track their repeated system failures against  foreign gear in exercise after exercise after exercise as well as technical evaluation after evaluation after evaluation.



 



You  can't make excuses when the expert collective, including the French  pilots who fly it, give it the thumb.



 



Do you understand this? Dassault robbed you. They LIED to France about the plane. How much clearer can it be said?  










LockMart does it too. Don't feel alone. 







Oh, I don't know. Failing against the Raptor isn't exactly catastrophic since everyone else gets the same treatment :-) 

Dassault would have robbed the AdA if the Rafale's stated mission was to fight Raptors. It's not the case. Of course, the Rafale's mission isn't to fight Typhoons either ;-) but I think it's closer to the likely operational challenges it's going to face in its career.

Now the appearance of the PAK-FA as something other than internet buzz could become worrying, but then it's not an immediate threat, either. It will be years before it enters operational service, and it needs to fulfill all the hype around it as well. We'll have to wait and see. 
The Russians have mastered hot core kernels and solved two stage variable bypass. The AL41-F may still be a low hour fuel guzzler, but mated to the RIGHT airframe, the result will be super-cruise (Mach 1.5 with internal war-load without reheat). They may soon have the energy fighter that uses the Sukhoi's frightening turn ability matched to the sustained thrust over time, that can climb and match the acceleration of an Eagle or a Typhoon.  

This Pak Fa we saw was a flying demo. I'm sure that Sukhoi now plans to plumb the next one for those Lyulka AL41-Fs. Even without two-d thrust deflector paddles, and the ability to breath high in those engines, that will make the resultant plane that those engines push, a killer at medium altitudes.
 
There is the American way, and the Russian way. The Squall fails kinetically against both. 
 
Let's see what the next one's intakes look like. 
 
It all starts with the engines and ends with EW.
 
Oh one more thing, failing miserably against the Super Hornet IS catastrophic.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Electronic warfare.   2/9/2010 7:04:39 PM



I wouldn't want to go up against a Rafale with a good pilot.  But I also realize that the Rafale was designed to blow up things, not necessarily mix it up with dedicated air-superiority fighters.  I thought that's what the Mirage 2000 was for.  If Dassault is trying to convince people that the Rafale is an air superiority fighter, then it's no wonder the Rafale isn't selling.





Certainly not less air superiority than the F-35 ;).

Americans don't FIGHT air to air the way you think that air warfare works. See first, track first, shoot first, AMRAAM, then disengage by distance.  
 
The F-35 can and will tear enemy aircraft apart-especially the poor Squall types. Eagles and Typhoons would find the F-35 very tough to detect and track soon enough to win the mid-phase merge when the first missiles are exchanged (around 35-50 kilometers in a head on pass setup; a lot closer in a tail chase). 
 
You don't have to out-turn the other guy to win, just dodge his missiles at mid-range and out accelerate them, when they fall below Mach 1.5.  The AMRAAM will take care of the kill going the other way. Unlike MICA, it WORKS.  
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Don't make me laugh.   2/9/2010 7:19:14 PM

In the British DERA JOUST evaluation to promote Eurofighter (against Rafale), even there, Rafale is said better than SU35, F18E or F15 in air combat.

Of course Rafale/mica performance were properly and grossly underestimated has all exercises has proven it, including in UAE.

When Rafale will have the 9 tons engine, it will excess flight performance of Eurofighter while being a true fighter bomber.And a much better electronic especially on ECM and air to ground (plus AESA now).

Rafale was designed to replace also the M2000

 

Dassault has recently declared that they think Rafale as the P51 of our time.Nothing less.

 

 

From wiki


Britain?s Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an evaluation in 1994 (simulation based on the available data) comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35.[34]


The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft supposed data were put in simulated combat against the Su-35.Remember this is the Su-27M/Su-35 not the Su-35bm The results were:









































Aircraft Losses, Su-35:Aircraft
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Sukhoi Su-30MKI "Flanker-H" 2.0:1
Dassault Rafale C 1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1

These results were that in simulated combat, 4.5 Su-35s were sho
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Don't make me laugh.   2/9/2010 7:35:26 PM







You asked "when the Squall exercised with the Super Hornet?". I was very amused by it.   In simply fashion, the question answers itself when you think about it, and you therefore never needed to ask it.  Its not my fault when the obvious answer you get, is an embarrassment.








congratulations, I award you with the moron of the year award.


Where is the fact of negation? Otherwise you just post meaningless noise. Unless you can prove the lie, don't assert it.
 
Here I have your own words as further proof of your galloping ignorance. Couldn't handle the point so replied with a supposed "comeback". Now that you showed that ignorance of subject, incompetence, a lack of even the most basic rhetoric skills, and proper manners, I am satisfied with your self immolation.
 
Wear your betise (look it up) with pride.
 
It was you who made it, Captain Drake (Iook that up, too.).   
 
   
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Nope.   2/9/2010 7:41:19 PM

Halmicar traduced mainly correctly the text:

SPECTRA est un capteur différent par son intégration très poussée, sa capacité d?évaluation du danger, ses propositions de mesures de protection (32 leurres EM + IR), sa capacité multi-menaces et sa capacité d?enregistrement «bases de données» (récupération des données en vol), la programmation Menaces. A cela il faut ajouter les actions qui contribuent à l?enrichissement de la bibliothèque, la détection à 360°, la fusion capteur EM/IR/EO qui donne une meilleure connaissance de l?état de la menace, la visualisation Equipage, la coopération leurrage/brouillage parfois avec des options automatiques, le brouillage sur 360° et enfin la programmation des bibliothèques.

La pertinence de l?information a été présentée par l?intermédiaire d?un film démontrant la place de SPECTRA dans le SNA du Rafale et l?effi cacité de la fusion de données fournissant une situation tactique claire à l?équipage (air-sol, mais aussi air-air). Si les avions antérieurs au Rafale présentaient des informations, le Rafale présente une situation, a précisé le colonel Moussez qui ajoute que l?excellence des résultats a été confirmée au Tiger Meet d?Albacete (Espagne) en 2006.

 

He traduced correctly except on an ambiguous point (for my English) which matters

 

SPECTRA is a different sensor by its very thorough integration, its capacity to evaluate the danger, its recommendations for protection measures (32 lures; EM + IR), its multi-threat capacity and its capacity of recording ?databases? (recovery of the data in flight), the menaces present programmed into a threat library. For that, it is necessary to add the actions which contribute to the enrichment of the library, 360 degree detection, the fusion of EM/IR/EO sensors, which makes better known the nature of the threat, the display of same, the co-operative signal deception/jamming, sometimes with automatic options, jamming on 360 degrees, and finally the programming of the libraries. The relevance of this information was presented to those present via a film showing the place of SPECTRA in SNA of the Rafale and the efficacy of the data providing a clear single tactical situation to the crew (air-to-ground, but also air-to-air). Unlike the way previous past (French) aircraft to the Rafale presented information, the Rafale presents that situation, unified, specified Colonel Moussez who adds that the excellence of the results was confirmed in Tiger Meet d' Albacete (Spain) in 2006.
 

Indeed traduction of

A cela il faut ajouter les actions qui contribuent à l?enrichissement de la bibliothèque

 For that, it is necessary to add the actions which contribute to the enrichment of the library

 

 

"il faut ajouter"  is present and means "It is [already] added", and not suggesting actions has not been already added which would be translated by "il faudrait ajouter" (conditionnel).It means we must add in the way we must mention / we must speak about...or It is necessary to mention,

 

Moreover we must add that this interview is done when Rafale F2 was operational but not F3 a year later.

26 Novembre 2007

 



"Needs to be' is the exact meaning.  Don't misrepresent and ADD words not even implied to the printed French text, FS.
 
THAT is just dishonest.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Brad Piff       6/21/2010 4:50:36 AM
Rafale lock-on the F-22 only using it's tv-channel+lrf during guns only fight.
 
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=185638&d=1276782258" width="293" height="273" /> 
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=185639&d=1276782258" /> 

I guess it is possible to get a weapons lock on the F-22 after all....
 
Quote    Reply

MK       6/21/2010 6:46:00 AM
It's certainly not impossible to kill the Raptor, but it's very hard and the probability of being killed by the Raptor is much higher. In a real world engagement the Raptor would likely kill its enemy/ies BVR, long before said enemies would be able to get a firing solution. 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       6/21/2010 9:22:19 AM

It's certainly not impossible to kill the Raptor, but it's very hard and the probability of being killed by the Raptor is much higher. In a real world engagement the Raptor would likely kill its enemy/ies BVR, long before said enemies would be able to get a firing solution. 
Did you notice the cloudline and the terrain line MK in the photos? Angels 20-27?  They were snowballing here.

See if BP can figure that one out.
 
H.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics