JSF vs. Rafale for a Royal Navy future aircraft carriers

[rousseau]

The F135 engine as planned for the F-35 will put out 40,000 lbs. of thrust, as opposed to 35,000 in the F-22. There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is in response to the F136 which was always starting out at 40,000 lbs.

Don't forget the EW of the F-35 is heavier than Rafale over 3 tons!!! This completely nullified the power advantage F135 or F136 will has

lockheed org

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

To be honest the Rafale sounds like a better choice -- it can operate off carriers and would be better for the USN which is currently stuck with just the Hornet...

KJ Lesnick
BTW: Does the Rafale have that optical cam system and DAS?

 

[F-14D]

Thanks F-14.

It would be nice to see ASRAAM, internal Meteor, Exocet, Brimstone etc. all integrated into the F-35 and I'm sure the sales people have said this is possible. Unfortunately, Flight published an article some time ago saying Brimstone integration had been canceled. As we all know, what is theoretically possible with enough funding and what actually happens are two very different things (like fire suppressant foam on RAF Herculeses). I would like to see something more concrete but I'm sure we all would. We can't even be sure yet, that Britain will even get her new carriers.

Also thanks Donnage99.

The Northrop Grumman video selling the DAS system is excellent. Full credit to them for finally doing what every amateur fighter designer would have done years ago. They do hedge their bets though, talking of "near 20/20 visual acuity" (whatever that means) and their diagram of the aperture locations doesn't include a rear facing sensor (as far as I can see), where Oswall Boelke tells us to always attack from. Now if the designers can do the same for radar as they have done for DAS, so radar tracking and locks can be maintained in maneuvering, they will have cracked it.

Though the F-35 should have good acceleration, I'm not sure how it plans to "simply exit the fight" when fighting much faster Flankers. Does it expect to get entirely out of their range, with tailpipe blazing, before the Flanker can turn (and then be able itself to turn back before the flanker catches up to it)? The modern Flanker has a pretty good IRST as well (which isn't impressed by radar stealth) so the F-35's first look, first shoot is also a bit of an assumption.

As anyone who's tried a combat flight simulator can tell you, even when you have complete 360 degree information (all the cheets switched on) it is often impossible to keep track and use this information, maybe the helmet mounted display will help. I hope they get it right. But all in all the Northrop Grumman DAS sounds great, if it is modular and upgradable with time, I'm just not sure though they've got it on the right plane.

Thanks again, Woody

As top what systems can be put on it, that's not a matter of sales people, it's a matter of design. The aircraft is designed to be very adaptable to foregin systems, it's a Master of money. Generally speaking, the US isn't going to pay for integration of weapons that it doesn't plan to use. It doesn't mean it can't be done, just that the country that wants to sue such a system would have to pay to have it integrated. If Brimstone is no longer on F-35, that probably means that the UK didn't want to pay to put it on. That's their call.

"Near 20/20 visual acuity simply means that the resolution is so good, it's almost equal to what you get with human eyes themselves.. IR images to this point are good, but nowhere near that good.

Regarding fighting, I think they're talking about the plan is not to engage in a turning fight, but to let the missiles do the work. Experience shows that while that my not get you good scenes in an action movie, that's the way you kill airplanes. If you're going through all kinds of exotic maneuvers to get in position for a shot and suddenly a missile from your target comes at you, you lose all interest in finishing getting ready for the shot , but instead start saying, "Wings, do your stuff"! If the strike aircraft keeps going, especially one that can accelerate as is estimated for the F-35, by the time you evade and turn back, he's already out of range and you aren't gonna catch 'em before you have to slow down for fuel reasons (remember, he's not turning back to fight you). There's a parallel with the MiG-27. If you went after it head on down low and it got past you, those guys could accelerate so fast that by the time you got turned around he was well gone. Even the F-14, which was faster than the MiG even down low, had a tough time hacking the turn and getting in position for another shot unless AIM-54 was available, and that was a special case (of course if you had AIM-54, why go down low?).

 

[F-14D]

As far as I know the AA-11 Archer (Russian - carried by the Flanker) and perhaps the Python 5 (Israeli) are the only missiles advertised to be able to fire at targets behind the launcher. Even the ASRAAM with lock on before launch would find if difficult and the AIM-9X, AMRAAM, Meteor - not a chance. (more information please) And even if the F-35 can see and fire backwards that doesn't equal being able to "exit the fight" with a faster opponent with many more and longer range missiles.



Cheers, Woody

If I remember right, the Russians advertised having a missile able to shoot to the rear on the Strike Flankers (there's so many different ever changing designations of the Flanker that calling them this is simpler) by actually coming off the rail to the rear, possibly initially cued by a rearward facing radar that apparently is now not going to be fitted. This solved the cueing problem. The concept was that it would accelerate so fast that it got through the zero speed phase quickly enough that it didn't impact operation. However, except for a couple of controlled demonstrations, I never saw that that mode ever became operational. The Python ASRAAM and AIM-9X all have the performance necessary for an "over the shoulder" shot, if the cueing issue is addressed, albeit with a penalty in range.

AMRAAM and Meteor, BTW, do have lock-on after launch capability but I don't know if over the shoulder was something even envisioned for them.

 

[F-14D]

To be honest the Rafale sounds like a better choice -- it can operate off carriers and would be better for the USN which is currently stuck with just the Hornet...

KJ Lesnick
BTW: Does the Rafale have that optical cam system and DAS?

Both the F-35 B & C are perfectly capable of carrier operation (the USN would be in a world of hurt if the C wasn't!), the former doesn't even need the catapults or arresting gear). The forward sector Optronics system (once they get it fully operational & deployed) is an impressive system, but it's nowhere near the capability of DAS. Not surprising, DAS is over a decade newer design.

 

[Woody]

Thanks F-14

If the strike aircraft keeps going, especially one that can accelerate as is estimated for the F-35, by the time you evade and turn back, he's already out of range and you aren't gonna catch 'em

Assuming this concept of fighting is workable, the only point in keeping going is if your opponent is still flying? And if the F-35 isn't intending firring anymore weapons, the tactic could be considered a sort of 'hit and run - and keep running - away'?

If this is indeed the only air combat option for the F-35 the 'over the shoulder' capability of its weapon systems becomes crucial. The F-22 has to present the AIM-9X's seeker head to the target to get a lock as the missile has no lock on after launch capability. This seams incongruous with over shoulder use. (more info please)

BTW: Does the Rafale have that optical cam system and DAS?

The Rafale has an OSF2 IRST to passively track and target radar stealthy aircraft at a claimed range of 50 km. It no DAS equivalent as far as I know.

Cheers, Woody XXXXXX

 

[F-14D]

Thanks F-14

If the strike aircraft keeps going, especially one that can accelerate as is estimated for the F-35, by the time you evade and turn back, he's already out of range and you aren't gonna catch 'em

Assuming this concept of fighting is workable, the only point in keeping going is if your opponent is still flying? And if the F-35 isn't intending firring anymore weapons, the tactic could be considered a sort of 'hit and run - and keep running - away'?

If this is indeed the only air combat option for the F-35 the 'over the shoulder' capability of its weapon systems becomes crucial. The F-22 has to present the AIM-9X's seeker head to the target to get a lock as the missile has no lock on after launch capability. This seams incongruous with over shoulder use. (more info please)

BTW: Does the Rafale have that optical cam system and DAS?

The Rafale has an OSF2 IRST to passively track and target radar stealthy aircraft at a claimed range of 50 km. It no DAS equivalent as far as I know.

Cheers, Woody XXXXXX

Actually, it's not the only air combat option for F-35. It will be a formidable fighter, but it won't necessarily be the most agile. However agility is not as important as 'flying the missile' instead of flying the fighter, and that's what they're talking about. Getting into a dogfight is wasteful, and not that effective. It's the slash and dash that gets most of the kills.

On a strike mission, both an F-35 or a Rafale are not going to hang around to fight another aircraft, they're going to evade and keep going. Shooting will take place if unavoidable, but the idea is to pull of the strike, not to kill the enemy fighter. Remember, if the other guy can get you to drop ordnance or burn so much fuel you don't make the target, he's won, even if he doesn't shoot you down.

As far as AIM-9X and lock-on after launch goes, I mentioned earlier that it didn't have it. I've since learned that the Mk II version presently under test will have that capability along with a one-way datalink. It should be available by the time F-35 gets here. I don't know if the French Mica has lock-on after launch, but since Optronics, while excellent, doesn't have the field of view of DAS, which is also more modern, the F-35 will have an advantage in that arena. Regarding IR tracking of stealth aircraft, that depends on how IR stealthy the plane in question is and how much it's radiating. The Tomcat's IRST could track non-stealth targets at least 190 km away, and it could track the B-2, though from not as great a distance.

 

[donnage99]

Hi Donnage99

I don't understand what you mean. Aren't they having 360 degree coverage like a ball surrounding the aircraft from all sides, including the rears?

In the excellent video you posted, I could not see on Northrop Grumman's own diagram, any DAS sensors facing backwards. The language of the advertising seamed to leave open several loop-holes. Can anyone else confirm whether the F-35 DAS can see directly backwards?

The 2 sensors located on top and bottom just behind the cockpit that would look backward. The foward sensor is located right under the nose. There are also 2 more sensors located on left and right below the wings to cover the sides.

They don't have to turn back toward the flanker. That's the whole point of the DAS, that the aircraft doesn't have to maneuver itself back to face the enemy target but still be able to get a lock on. That's why it simply "exit the fight."

As far as I know the AA-11 Archer (Russian - carried by the Flanker) and perhaps the Python 5 (Israeli) are the only missiles advertised to be able to fire at targets behind the launcher. Even the ASRAAM with lock on before launch would find if difficult and the AIM-9X, AMRAAM, Meteor - not a chance. (more information please) And even if the F-35 can see and fire backwards that doesn't equal being able to "exit the fight" with a faster opponent with many more and longer range missiles.
Cheers, Woody

Apart from what already been answered, that either the enemy aircaft has to try to break off or get the missile in their face (provides that the missile lives up to the DAS system, and I wonder if the DAS would continously gives input to the missile and guides it until it can face directly with the enemy to get a automatic lock-on?), the f-35 would be long gone. If they lucky to break off from the missile and chase after the plane again, then f-35 would use the same tactic, by shooting another one at their face. And in the case of the f-35 and flanker positions in this made up engagement, being shot from behind is always more advantageous then getting slammed with a missile in the face like the flanker. The chance of breaking off from a missile chasing you from behind is alot more possible then getting slammed in the face.

As for speed, both the USAF and Lockheed claims that in air to air combat stimulations, the f-35 beats all current aircrafts out there on the market in top end speed. Let's just wait and see if it's true. I'm very optimistic about it since if you compare its engine to the one engine mach 2 class f-16, you'll see that it's very well be possible.

 

[Archibald]

Isn't SPECTRA the equivalent of DAS for the Rafale ? Or am I totally wrong ?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

SPECTRA is electronic warfare self protection (EWSP) and detects threat radars and the like. Many EWSP systems also include optical sensors to detect missile launch and gunfire signatures. But they don't 'see' anything or track anything other than the very particular and high signature plumes of flame that are associated with rockets and guns.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

The Rafale is much cheaper right?

 

[Woody]

[On a strike mission, both an F-35 or a Rafale are not going to hang around to fight another aircraft, they're going to evade and keep going. Shooting will take place if unavoidable, but the idea is to pull of the strike, not to kill the enemy fighter. Remember, if the other guy can get you to drop ordnance or burn so much fuel you don't make the target, he's won, even if he doesn't shoot you down.

Which ever aircraft the UK Royal Navy eventually deploys it will be the only fleet defense fighter, as much as strike its only strike asset. So for the purpose of air combat, this is the area that concerns me, as it is essential for fleet survival (though some of your points, in this regard, still have merit).

I believe we may be discussing two different scenarios:
1 - where a lone fighter must engage the enemy in a 'do or die' situation ( F-35 no so good - bad dog fighter(?))
or 2 - where a group of aircraft can dip in and out of the combat, staying at range (much better for the F-35 - good stealth and networking).
The only uncertainty is whether the F-35 force would be able to dictate these factors, operating off a UK carrier along way from home.

Thought the Rafale is expected to have a larger radar signature (I would love to see some real figures but I guess these are secret) in ever other respect, in air combat, the Rafale appears equal or better than the f-35.

Apart from what already been answered, that either the enemy aircaft has to try to break off or get the missile in their face (provides that the missile lives up to the DAS system, and I wonder if the DAS would continously gives input to the missile and guides it until it can face directly with the enemy to get a automatic lock-on?), the f-35 would be long gone. If they lucky to break off from the missile and chase after the plane again, then f-35 would use the same tactic, by shooting another one at their face. And in the case of the f-35 and flanker positions in this made up engagement, being shot from behind is always more advantageous then getting slammed with a missile in the face like the flanker. The chance of breaking off from a missile chasing you from behind is alot more possible then getting slammed in the face.

In my limited experience, you couldn't be more wrong.
Most combat aircraft have a much lower radar signature from the front than behind (F-22 included).
The infrared signature of the front of an aircraft is tiny compared to the rear view with hot engine nozzles blazing.
Also in maneuvering, it much easier to evade an oncoming missile, as it easier to force the missile to make a sharp turn (and miss you) as you pass it, than when it is simply following you (as it can turn better than you).
If you don't believe me, buy a combat flight sim and try it (no, I don't have a military flight simulator at home - and military pilots, how often do you really practice this?).
The one area where you could be right, in my opinion, is in the deployment of chaff and flares, since if the missile is behind you, you are putting them between you and it.
The last aircraft that was designed to fight better flying away from the enemy instead of towards it was the Bolton Paul Defiant (look it up).

PS: What if the F-35 has to break off to avoid a missile in it's face? Oh, sorry it can't, as it can't maneuver (relatively).

The Rafale is much cheaper right?

Latest figures I have are: Rafale = US$55 million each (estimated), F-35 2013 buy US$104 million each (Flight). Though the F-35 buy is in the future, these are congress's 2008 dollars, so given inflation and the sort of growth we've come to expect, I'm doing the F-35 a big favor. If every expected customer buys as they say they would this should come down for later aircraft (I'll believe that when I see it). So you be the judge.

It has been suggested (Air Power Australia) that if the F-22 was bought, instead, in similar number to the F-35, if would be even cheaper. ???

Cheers, Woody

 

[donnage99]

Which ever aircraft the UK Royal Navy eventually deploys it will be the only fleet defense fighter, as much as strike its only strike asset. So for the purpose of air combat, this is the area that concerns me, as it is essential for fleet survival (though some of your points, in this regard, still have merit).

I believe we may be discussing two different scenarios:
1 - where a lone fighter must engage the enemy in a 'do or die' situation ( F-35 no so good - bad dog fighter(?))
or 2 - where a group of aircraft can dip in and out of the combat, staying at range (much better for the F-35 - good stealth and networking).
The only uncertainty is whether the F-35 force would be able to dictate these factors, operating off a UK carrier along way from home.

Thought the Rafale is expected to have a larger radar signature (I would love to see some real figures but I guess these are secret) in ever other respect, in air combat, the Rafale appears equal or better than the f-35.

uhmm, don't know where you come up with that Rafale appears equal or better than f-35. As far as I'm concerned, we know nothing of the f-35. The only thing we know is this: USAF and Lockheed says in all combat stimulations and Air Force analyse, f-35 is 400% more effective in air to air combat than the best aircraft out there currently on the international market. Also quote "in stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages." Well, of course, I'm not just gonna absorb any of this without some good old evidence, so I think all we can do now is wait and see.

In my limited experience, you couldn't be more wrong.
Most combat aircraft have a much lower radar signature from the front than behind (F-22 included).
The infrared signature of the front of an aircraft is tiny compared to the rear view with hot engine nozzles blazing.
Also in maneuvering, it much easier to evade an oncoming missile, as it easier to force the missile to make a sharp turn (and miss you) as you pass it, than when it is simply following you (as it can turn better than you).
If you don't believe me, buy a combat flight sim and try it (no, I don't have a military flight simulator at home - and military pilots, how often do you really practice this?).
The one area where you could be right, in my opinion, is in the deployment of chaff and flares, since if the missile is behind you, you are putting them between you and it.
The last aircraft that was designed to fight better flying away from the enemy instead of towards it was the Bolton Paul Defiant (look it up).

The only way for an aircraft to make a sharp turn and pass the incoming missile is to wait for the missile to be extremely close that it wouldn't respond quick enough to the aircraft's sudden turn. This only works in game, however. With the speed of the incoming missile in addition to the speed of the aircraft, such tactic of avoiding a missile is beyond the courage and ability of any pilot. The only way I know is you make a turn from relatively far distance as much as possible. However, the missile will also see your turn and maneuver itself toward the new direction with relative ease at such a distance. When it comes to avoiding missile, pilot's reflex is very crucial and aircraft ability to turn, and a speed of missile+aircraft is always more difficult for him and his aircraft than speed of aircraft minus missile. And of course, chaffs and flares and the like are really handy also.

PS: What if the F-35 has to break off to avoid a missile in it's face? Oh, sorry it can't, as it can't maneuver (relatively).

Again, we don't know how agile the aircraft is yet. All we know is that Lockheed says on it will have the agility of the f-16. And in combat mode (stealth), it would have higher thrust to weight ratio, therefore more agile then legacy aircrafts.
Of course, I'm not gonna just take their words for it, so let's just wait and see.

Latest figures I have are: Rafale = US$55 million each (estimated), F-35 2013 buy US$104 million each (Flight). Though the F-35 buy is in the future, these are congress's 2008 dollars, so given inflation and the sort of growth we've come to expect, I'm doing the F-35 a big favor. If every expected customer buys as they say they would this should come down for later aircraft (I'll believe that when I see it). So you be the judge.

It has been suggested (Air Power Australia) that if the F-22 was bought, instead, in similar number to the F-35, if would be even cheaper. ???

Cheers, Woody

With all due respect to Air Power Australia, since they give very good information, I completely disagree in this aspect. Their arguement is that if Australia is to buy f-22 now, they won't have to pay the total flyaway cost of it, which is 300 millions in comparison to 100 millions of the f-35, since the USAF already covered the development cost of the f-22 (I'm assuming you already know the difference between total flyway cost and cost per aircraft, right?). The cost per aircraft of f-35 is around 30 to 50 millions. However, Australia, if buying the f-35, has to cover the development cost, thus they have to pay the total flyaway cost of 100 millions per f-35. There are 2 major holes with this arguments:

1) Using the figure of total flyaway cost of 100 millions price tag for the f-35 in the case of Australia is inappropriate. Since the 100 million price tag also include the cost of the whole development phrase. However, Australia only invested a very small portion into the whole program, thus using the 100 millions price tag is irrelevant. The actual flyaway cost of the f-35 Australia has to pay is much much smaller than that. Using such comparison is totally devoid of logic.

2) If Australia is to buy f-22, Lockheed Martin would have to open a program to create a version of f-22 with low capabilities to protect sensitive technology, and also with greater air to ground capabilities (such as larger weapon bays, intergration of MIDS and other avionics). If this is the case, then Australia has to shoulder all the cost (instead of just a very small portion in the f-35 program) of this new program, which eliminates the possibility that if Australia is to buy f-22, it would only pay the cost per aircraft. In reality, it would have to pay a total flyaway cost (cost of the plane+cost of new program) that is extremely unreasonable for a crappier version of the f-22.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It has been suggested (Air Power Australia) that if the F-22 was bought, instead, in similar number to the F-35, if would be even cheaper. ???

The people who are Air Power Australia, all two of them, actually made a commercial submission to the Australian DoD back in 1999 during the request for information (RFI) phase of the F-111 and F/A-18 replacement to acquire 50 F-22s from the US while they (!) acquire another 20-30 boneyard F-111s and rebuild then all to a new standard with 21st century engines and systems. The APA people believe that this commercial RFI offer gives them the legal status that if Australia was ever to buy F-22s they would have to be paid for it as the providers of the initial commercial proposal. This is something they quite happily admit to but several pages down on their submissions after they claim at the head to be "an independent think tank". Apart from all the huge holes in their operational analysis and procurement analysis and the shaky status of their commercial rights it is an immense conflict of interest. Perhaps this is a motivating factor in their production of such factless and fanicful analysis? Why just about every professional defence person and entity, except for one or two guys in RAND's project air force eastern office, don't take them seriously.

But since this thread would appear to be a well thought out gambit by the Secret Project moderators to get all the knowledge-poor posts out of the main threads and localised here don't let this perspective change anything. Its actually a really good thing for potential F-35 operators to have all this crap out in the public domain about its supposed lack of capability. Maybe some future threat force is seriously paying attention to it and will present an air force to try and take on the F-35s rather than run and hide. Kills will abound...

 

[F-14D]

[On a strike mission, both an F-35 or a Rafale are not going to hang around to fight another aircraft, they're going to evade and keep going. Shooting will take place if unavoidable, but the idea is to pull of the strike, not to kill the enemy fighter. Remember, if the other guy can get you to drop ordnance or burn so much fuel you don't make the target, he's won, even if he doesn't shoot you down.

Which ever aircraft the UK Royal Navy eventually deploys it will be the only fleet defense fighter, as much as strike its only strike asset. So for the purpose of air combat, this is the area that concerns me, as it is essential for fleet survival (though some of your points, in this regard, still have merit).

I believe we may be discussing two different scenarios:
1 - where a lone fighter must engage the enemy in a 'do or die' situation ( F-35 no so good - bad dog fighter(?))
or 2 - where a group of aircraft can dip in and out of the combat, staying at range (much better for the F-35 - good stealth and networking).
The only uncertainty is whether the F-35 force would be able to dictate these factors, operating off a UK carrier along way from home.

Thought the Rafale is expected to have a larger radar signature (I would love to see some real figures but I guess these are secret) in ever other respect, in air combat, the Rafale appears equal or better than the f-35.

Apart from what already been answered, that either the enemy aircraft has to try to break off or get the missile in their face (provides that the missile lives up to the DAS system, and I wonder if the DAS would continuously gives input to the missile and guides it until it can face directly with the enemy to get a automatic lock-on?), the f-35 would be long gone. If they lucky to break off from the missile and chase after the plane again, then f-35 would use the same tactic, by shooting another one at their face. And in the case of the f-35 and flanker positions in this made up engagement, being shot from behind is always more advantageous then getting slammed with a missile in the face like the flanker. The chance of breaking off from a missile chasing you from behind is alot more possible then getting slammed in the face.

In my limited experience, you couldn't be more wrong.
Most combat aircraft have a much lower radar signature from the front than behind (F-22 included).
The infrared signature of the front of an aircraft is tiny compared to the rear view with hot engine nozzles blazing.
Also in maneuvering, it much easier to evade an oncoming missile, as it easier to force the missile to make a sharp turn (and miss you) as you pass it, than when it is simply following you (as it can turn better than you).
If you don't believe me, buy a combat flight sim and try it (no, I don't have a military flight simulator at home - and military pilots, how often do you really practice this?).
The one area where you could be right, in my opinion, is in the deployment of chaff and flares, since if the missile is behind you, you are putting them between you and it.
The last aircraft that was designed to fight better flying away from the enemy instead of towards it was the Bolton Paul Defiant (look it up).

PS: What if the F-35 has to break off to avoid a missile in it's face? Oh, sorry it can't, as it can't maneuver (relatively).

The Rafale is much cheaper right?

Latest figures I have are: Rafale = US$55 million each (estimated), F-35 2013 buy US$104 million each (Flight). Though the F-35 buy is in the future, these are congress's 2008 dollars, so given inflation and the sort of growth we've come to expect, I'm doing the F-35 a big favor. If every expected customer buys as they say they would this should come down for later aircraft (I'll believe that when I see it). So you be the judge.

It has been suggested (Air Power Australia) that if the F-22 was bought, instead, in similar number to the F-35, if would be even cheaper. ???

Cheers, Woody

Since I seem to be one of the folks sticking up for the F-35, let em comment on some of these things in no particular order...

Flight sims, while trying to be realistic are intended to be bought as games. As such, no matter how realistic, they make certain changes to make the game more entertaining. One of those areas is missiles. Their effectiveness is often understated in the PC sims so that the game is more exciting. Missiles have been very effective air-to-air weapons for over forty years, and quite frankly, you aren't going to dodge one of these anymore if you are in its "no-escape" zone (assuming no missile malfunction or sheer luck) , and those zones are pretty broad nowadays. Actually, you probably won't dodge it even out of that zone except at the extreme outer edge of its effective area. Let's take the two most maneuverable fighter in the West, Raptor and Typhoon (Rafale is more strike oriented while Typhoon is more air to air). The pilot spots and tracks an incoming AIM-9X, ASRAAM, Python, IRIS-T or what have you. At the last second (to force the biggest intercept geometry change), he throws the a/c into a 9-10g turn, also pitching at a high AoA. He/s expended a lot of energy, and gets to watch the missile make a 60g turn and hit him anyway. To actually defeat the missile he's got to either be able to get out of its engagement envelope or get it to lose lock through countermeasures. Maneuvering isn't going to do it anymore.

The IR signature to the rear is of course larger, but all-aspect IR missiles have been around for 25 years. That was the big game changer in the Falkland War, that with the AIM-9L, the RN's Harriers did not have to maneuver to get behind the Argentinian aircraft before they could shoot. There's plenty of the nonviable (and visible, that at matter) spectrum =available from the front for a missile to lock onto. And although not IR, AIM-120 and Meteor will certainly ruing your day from the front, and they can outmaneuver any manned aircraft as well.

The F-35 will be a very good dogfighter, although not as good as Raptor, probably Typhoon or Flanker (not sure about Rafale). However, dogfighting is not very productive on air-to-air missions, and is stupid on a strike mission (by dogfighting I'm not referring to just quick positioning for a shot). Again, the trick is to get into position to have the missile do the work. It's no that its a better fighter flying away than nose on, it';s that it can do it flying away. In other words, it shouldn't play to someone else's strength, but use its. There's an old cliche that using missiles in air combat is like taking a rifle into a knife fight in a phone booth. This begs the question: If you've got a rifle, why be stupid enough to climb into the phone booth? This would certainly apply operating off UK carriers. Remember too, the mission really isn't to blow up a bunch of fighters, but too get through and blow up lots of things on the ground.

One of the other things that affects unit price is production rate. Most people have forgotten that the F-35 was originall based on a USAF production rate of well over 100/yr, but got changed to 48. Recently, though USAF has announce its plan is to retire a lot more aircraft sooner to boost the rate back up to 110/yr, which will dramatically reduce the price. Not if we can only move it back up, the price would drop even more.

I'll bet that if we bought 130-150 F-22s a year, it would be cheaper than the F-035 at 48, because most of the F-22's R&D is paid for (future budgets do not have things in there for new software and capabilities any more). But, we can't build them at that rate, and you would still end up with an aircraft that is not as effective in strike, which is what Australia and the UK really need.. It's a moot point because Congress won't let us sell them even to our two closest allies.

Again, it comes down to the F-35 is not designed to go on big fighter sweeps looking for other fighters. It is designed to strike, self escort and defeat what enemy fighters it encounters, not necessarily through classic roundy-roundy air combat. If the fleet is attacked it'll probably be able to defend it as well as any of the alternatives. The F-22 is not an option, even if it was for sale because a) It can't operate from a carrier and b) if the RAF had them we have seen repeatedly that they're not in position to defend a deployed fleet.

As long as they can get them in the needed timeframe and are allowed to do the amount of maintenance themselves that they need to do, the RN made the right choice.

 

[Woody]

I attempted to start this discussion in response to recent conjecture, that the Typhoon could be made into a carrier aircraft for the UK, as the F-35's future looked uncertain. I attempted to initiate consideration of the Rafale for the job since it was designed with broadly similar requirements as the Typhoon but with a carrier ability from the start. I simply asked whether the UK's request to France for Rafales, in the event of the F-35's failure, had proceeded any further.

At the time potential F-35 partners were reconsidering their participation putting the whole viability of the program in jeopardy. The Americans themselves seamed to be reconsidering their participation. The situation has now changed as the US congress has decided pump billions of extra dollars into the program to restore confidence (possibly eroded by discussions such as these), in much the same way as they pumped money into the inept banking system.

Though some interesting information has come to light I've largely had to find it myself. And one thing that is a certainty is that not many of us know much about the Rafale. Its is becoming difficult to continue this as an objective analysis due to the obvious emotional involvement many seam to have in the F-35 - which is sweet (taxes many be wasted, people may die - but it's sweet).

I have used the limited sources and limited tools I have to make some sort of comparison and had these criticized with nothing much offered in reply except Lockheed Martin PR - a company that recently lost the US Navy's BAMS contact because of the US GAO's lack of confidence.

But the USN's choice of a more expensive aircraft was justified, the GAO found. The Global Hawk's higher performance score and the navy's legitimate doubts about the Lockheed/GA-ASI team's ability to avoid cost overruns and deliver the aircraft on time justified paying the higher price, it says.

Flight Global

Unless anyone has some actual technical information, I think we've done our dash and all I can say is, we shall see.

No hard feelings, eh? Woody

 

[F-14D]

Never said that Rafale wasn't a good dogfighter, just said I don't know how good it is. Raptor and Typhoon are no doubt better dogfighters than F-35 (although, once again, dogfighting is not the most effective way of killing other aircraft, hasn't been for many decades). Rafale is not as good as they are (although it's better at strike), wasn't designed to be. Keep in mind, with the glacial way we do development and bounce around funding levels nowadays, we really don't know much about how well F-35 dogfights if it makes the mistake of getting involved in one, so I don't have a valid opinion regarding its capability relative to Rafale in a pure ACM mode.

Don't forget, I'm someone who thinks the Rafale is a better aircraft than our own Super Hornet.

 

[donnage99]

Unless anyone has some actual technical information, I think we've done our dash and all I can say is, we shall see.

No hard feelings, eh? Woody

I don't have technical information, only logic. Anyway, you got down my point exactly: Let's just wait and see, because that's all we can do. If we don't know much about Rafale, we know even less of f-35. We know some of its characteristics, but how well do those characteristics fare in actual operations, we don't know. The only thing we know is that the Air Force said its analysts' studies show that it's 4 times more effective then every available aircraft on the market in air to air engagement. The proof for that? It's classified. And this is probably one of the biggest challenge for the JSF. It's an unproven aircraft with its capabilities shrouded in mystery, and the only thing the US military and Lockheed do is "let's just have our words for it." It's really hard to have partners committing into such a program, especially when the makers don't even want to release its technology to the countries that are investing in it.

 

[F-14D]

Unless anyone has some actual technical information, I think we've done our dash and all I can say is, we shall see.

No hard feelings, eh? Woody

I don't have technical information, only logic. Anyway, you got down my point exactly: Let's just wait and see, because that's all we can do. If we don't know much about Rafale, we know even less of f-35. We know some of its characteristics, but how well do those characteristics fare in actual operations, we don't know. The only thing we know is that the Air Force said its analysts' studies show that it's 4 times more effective then every available aircraft on the market in air to air engagement. The proof for that? It's classified. And this is probably one of the biggest challenge for the JSF. It's an unproven aircraft with its capabilities shrouded in mystery, and the only thing the US military and Lockheed do is "let's just have our words for it." It's really hard to have partners committing into such a program, especially when the makers don't even want to release its technology to the countries that are investing in it.

Again, note the phrasing; They said it was the most effective, not necessarily the best at "dogfighting", which it arguably isn't.

 

[donnage99]

Unless anyone has some actual technical information, I think we've done our dash and all I can say is, we shall see.

No hard feelings, eh? Woody

I don't have technical information, only logic. Anyway, you got down my point exactly: Let's just wait and see, because that's all we can do. If we don't know much about Rafale, we know even less of f-35. We know some of its characteristics, but how well do those characteristics fare in actual operations, we don't know. The only thing we know is that the Air Force said its analysts' studies show that it's 4 times more effective then every available aircraft on the market in air to air engagement. The proof for that? It's classified. And this is probably one of the biggest challenge for the JSF. It's an unproven aircraft with its capabilities shrouded in mystery, and the only thing the US military and Lockheed do is "let's just have our words for it." It's really hard to have partners committing into such a program, especially when the makers don't even want to release its technology to the countries that are investing in it.

Again, note the phrasing; They said it was the most effective, not necessarily the best at "dogfighting", which it arguably isn't.

In the military areospace industry, they never use the word "better" or "worse," only "less" or "more effective," It's a more correct word since better is too vague and unprofessional of a term (can't go to the detail here, since it's not the point of this post, heh?). If you read the whole quotation, you see that they also mean dogfighting capabilities as they compare thrust to weight, top end speed, climb rate, etc. But again, you are absolutely right, the phrase is no garantee of its dogfighting capabilities, but the overall theme is certain, it's "better" in air to air engagement. I would rather choose an aircraft that is said to be more effective in air to air engagement then an aircraft that is said to be more effective dogfighting. Since dogfighting is just a very small part of air to air engagement.

 

[F-14D]

News coming out is that Rafale is to be slowed again in upcoming French budgets. Wonder what that will do to the price... Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson!

 

[r16]

now while ı have placed their conception in a similar period of time , some amount of time seperates Rafale and JSF in their current incarnations . Still they suffer similarly from the parent companies' desire to maintain their other programmes . Just like F-22 had to be protected for its business value , the 2litre Mirage ( as Mike Spick used to call it ) has delayed the squall . If Snecma or Dassault itself could be convinced of it a '404 equipped naval force couldhave ensured total domination of today's world fighter markets by France ; which would have meant the F-35 would have to be better and cheaper plus faster in production .

 

[Woody]

Sorry, not technical but anyway...

I appreciate the strategic elegance of BVR air combat. In a theoretical all out war, I wouldn't argue that sensors, stealth and missiles are what count, but does anybody remember what happened to the brilliant F-4 phantom in Vietnam?
The tactical situation of the day meant that the Phantom's electronic sophistication was mostly neutralized by the Mig-21's agility.
This is what started the whole American 'teen series fighter revolution.
It is amazing that forty years later, with the F-35 (and F-22), we seam to be back where we started.

I know things are different now - they always are (sic).
But just how are they different?
At least the Phantom was fast and todays opponents have missiles and sensors (if not stealth and computers) that maybe as good or better that the F-35's.

Just a thought, Woody

 

[F-14D]

now while ı have placed their conception in a similar period of time , some amount of time seperates Rafale and JSF in their current incarnations . Still they suffer similarly from the parent companies' desire to maintain their other programmes . Just like F-22 had to be protected for its business value , the 2litre Mirage ( as Mike Spick used to call it ) has delayed the squall . If Snecma or Dassault itself could be convinced of it a '404 equipped naval force couldhave ensured total domination of today's world fighter markets by France ; which would have meant the F-35 would have to be better and cheaper plus faster in production .

I don't think you could really say Rafale and JSF were conceived that closely. The technology demonstrator Rafale A rolled out in 1985, and the first production representative model, Rafale C, flew in 1991. This was 10 years before Lockheed was even selected to build F-35,

While Lockheed certainly wants to keep building the F-22, there's no indication they want to do so to the detriment of the F-35, they'll make a lot more money on the latter. Besides, it's not really their call. Since the Gov't controls the program and the purse strings, the Gov't decides what gets built when (no way Lockheed would stretch the program out like this if they had the choice). The F-22 was being "protected" by USAF, though. When JSF was being conceived, the implicit guidance from USAF was to make it good, but not so good that it threatened the F-22. Some possible capabilities were deliberately removed from initial planning, such as "smart skin". JSF also does not meet the Navy's criteria for A/FX, but since it was JSF or nothing, Navy accepted what was coming, putting in as much of what it needed that it could get away with.

Dassault is much in the same boat. They would have loved to produce Rafale faster, but they are at the mercy of the French Gov't on military programs, like BAe is in the UK and our various companions are here in the US. They could have had an IOC for Rafale in the mid '90s, and imagine what the market would have been like if that happened, but the various French Gov'ts, not Dassault, dithered on that.

 

[F-14D]

Sorry, not technical but anyway...

I appreciate the strategic elegance of BVR air combat. In a theoretical all out war, I wouldn't argue that sensors, stealth and missiles are what count, but does anybody remember what happened to the brilliant F-4 phantom in Vietnam?
The tactical situation of the day meant that the Phantom's electronic sophistication was mostly neutralized by the Mig-21's agility.
This is what started the whole American 'teen series fighter revolution.
It is amazing that forty years later, with the F-35 (and F-22), we seam to be back where we started.

I know things are different now - they always are (sic).
But just how are they different?
At least the Phantom was fast and todays opponents have missiles and sensors (if not stealth and computers) that maybe as good or better that the F-35's.

Just a thought, Woody

Ever the contrarian, let me offer another perspective. Although the US had gone too far away from insuring maneuverability in their designs (actually USAF started doing that once they left the Sabre), one of the big problems with the F-4 in Vietnam was, of course, the restrictions under which it operated prior to the end of the long bombing pause (i.e. could not attack a MiG unless it first attacked, couldn't attack one on the roll but had to be gear up, etc.), some missile design issues, but a lot of the problem was how the plane was used, especially by USAF, but to a lesser extent by USN, initially.

Particularly,, the F-4 was being flown as if t was an F-86, not an F-4. As a result, it played to the MiG's advantages, not its own. Instead of engaging in a sustained turning contest, F-4s should have been maneuvering in the vertical more (as they eventually started doing), and using the F-4's superior speed and endurance. Also, the crews needed to fly for the missile, not the gun that they didn't have and which didn't do all that much once they got it. A shot outside the missile's envelope was usually a wasted shot. Interestingly, USAF F-4 drivers coming out of ADC did better than those from TAC, possibly because they were more familiar with considering the missile in an engagement. We also learned that although the MiG-21 had a fantastic (for the time) initial rate of turn, because of power limitations it couldn't sustain it and its turn rate would degrade if the turn was sustained. USN learned these lessons well, but during the war USAF never really did, as results showed when operations up North resumed. Naturally, I am talking about F-4s on fighter missions, not loaded down with bombs.

As to how things are different now, the three biggest changes I'd say are much better senors, systems and cockpit design, the use of reliable all-aspect (BVR and WVR) missiles that within their envelope will outmaneuver any manned craft, and excellent training designed to exploit advantages to actually kill other airplanes rather than engage in duels. This applies to Rafale, Typhoon, Raptor and Gripen as well as F-35.

Assuming we are not going to have to fight the UK or Europe anytime soon, potential adversaries missiles look impressive in sales presentations, but how much has actually been demonstrated in the real world? They would be formidable if they can do what hey say when they say they can do it, but have they repeatedly shown they can do it? Now that was a confusing sentence!

BTW, which opponents have demonstrated better sensors than the F-35?

 

[Archibald]

f-35 is 400% more effective in air to air combat than the best aircraft out there currently on the international market

Love this sentence... why not 397 or 450 % ? ;D

 

[r16]

ever getting myself on the edge , ı would like to point out that my personal claim is that a VTOL fighter aircraft was conceived at a similar timeframe to when everybody on this planet saw an opportunity in the early 1980s which claimed the new Soviet fighters were super and would be outperforming the F-15/16 combination . It doesn't mean that there were blueprints or money but it was an intention. Rafale had a huge opening , it would be a scramble to buy new fighters .As there were many in Britain calling for an emergency development of EAP , the business was rosy , even bigger than the "5000 trainers case" ,which gave the Hawk and Alpha Jet among others.Even if the Soviet threat had melted down as it did in real life , a ready to sell/produce Rafale would help Germany to get out of Eurofighter and buy maybe 300 copies of its European partner . Half the American sales in the Nineties to Middle East could be French as well . It is Dassault to blame as they hadn't enough from Mirage 2000 , and the French Goverment would pay for Rafales anyhow . The French Air Force has never got what it actually wanted from Dassault .

 

[Woody]

Hi F-14,

one of the big problems with the F-4 in Vietnam was, of course, the restrictions under which it operated

That's exactly my point - you don't get to pick the battle you want, especially when guarding a vulnerable RN carrier against sneak attacks (Remember you're not going to have much AWACS).

BTW, which opponents have demonstrated better sensors than the F-35?

The Russian NIIP Bars on the Su-35 is supposed "To detect “stealthy” targets RCS 0.01sq m station can at the distances to 90 km". Can The F-35 beat that? (or the Rafale - figures anyone?)

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,622.0/highlight,bars+radar.html

The flankers IRST looks pretty good too, with a rear hemisphere sensor for those over the shoulder AA-11s.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2630.msg21458.html#msg21458

So given the above - how's your modern day Missileer looking now? ;D

Cheers, Woody

 

[donnage99]

f-35 is 400% more effective in air to air combat than the best aircraft out there currently on the international market

Love this sentence... why not 397 or 450 % ? ;D

They calculated through kill ratio in combat stimulations. I read another pdf from teamjsf.com that claimed that it clearly superior than even typhoon and make all 4th gernerations obsolete. And these claims without proof continues....

 

[r16]

time to dig up the past once more .

ı hate Adobe software trying to connect to its website whenever ı open a pdf file , software ı downloaded to convert pdfs to jpeg files are on a miss and hit basis . So ı won't be able to support my post with some references . This will be as usual , what ı remember and think .

to explain American failure in Vietnam with restrictions placed on warfighters , in the current lingo as far as ı know it, is unjustified . There were very few restrictions in 1972 and the result is hardly a victory . No , politicians didn't give it away ; if the US Military had not wasted itself in the Sixties , NVN would be bombed to hell in 1975 .

the much reviled ROEs meant many Americans had a fighting chance of surviving their brothers in Phantoms ; especially for the F-105s the Sparrow was a much bigger threat than Migs at times . Clausewitz is very well known for saying war is the continuation of politics by force and during Rolling Thunder the US Admistration was trying to convey it to Hanoi that there was no need of fighting , a face saving deal could be reached and keeping the Migs safe on their airfields was just one clear ,easily understandable message . But asking for visual confirmation helped preventing fratricide . As Phantoms were firing far too much . It was maybe the epithet of being an ace , maybe the one single kill would give an advantage in getting promotions . If they hit something , OK .If not , the damned misssile would have "failed" to guide or perform . In maybe the most famous fight of the war , we see Cunningham , veteran of 150 mockfights in Top Gun , killer of 4(?) Migs up to that moment forgetting the Frescos had guns and the direct nose-on approach gave an opening to Tomb or Toon . Duke would go on to repeat this once more and you are telling r16 that they were not firing the two Sparrows they took off with from USS Consellation . Or at least trying to . The missiles were not that good , ı agree . They took lots up time to be ready to be used , not perfectly reliable once fired , but they still knocked down many Migs .American fighter planes did well in the war ; it was simply worse than expected . Even the Thunderchief had a positive kill ratio and it is hard to see how the politicos lost the air to air section of the war . They should have lost it because it is reminded everytime that the rules were restrictive . Well , if they were not , maybe US would have 100 Missile Age aces as China would be in the war too . And 10 000 American aircraft that would have been shot down would be somewhat hard to replace as the Red Hordes began swimming the Pasific to invade CONUS. or maybe they would be on rafts , who knows ?

the lack of guns on Phantoms was a factor but as F-14D has already mentioned it didn't do much for USAF , while the gunless USN was improving upon the early period , even bettering the 6 to 1 record of the Crusader in the process . ı think the USN experience shows an opposite to USAF ; first time ı saw it as F-14D has written here that ADC pilots were better in combat than TAC personnel . ı have read it in an Osprey book that F-4 crews coming from Demons would have a very limited range of movements in aircombat in order not to spoil weapon aiming while ex F-8u pilots would be more fluent . They dogfighted better and got into Migs' rear to use their Sidewinders in optimum range and position . The guns might have knocked out only 2 or 3 Migs in Crusaders but being trained to use them gave the last of the gunfighters a better understanding of how things were in those days . And it benefitted the Topgun training and the crews in 1972 greatly . They had better tactics not only as pilots but as formations as well .That most famous one on one dogfight actually had Schumacher making supersonic runs to break Vietnamese formations that might arrive to intervene , one wingman to Cunningham that saved an A-7 by downing a Mig and was in the area to offer assistance if need be and that particular A-7 pilot who just wanted to see a Mig . He obviously couldn't make it to where "the fight" was ; if he had he could easily give a dose of 20mm fire to Tomb as the Mig was turning with Cunningham at 200 mph or so . And as some American websources say Tomb's wingman had a nervous breakdown when he saw the explosion that killed the colourful pilot , the one on one was , let's see , at least four to two . And ı have seen only a few sources but don't remember if they actually mentioned Cunnigham claiming that he had killed the Mig .It is always a 45 degree controlled dive to ground , but Showtime 100 left the field intact . It is simply misdirected training priorities that caused American suffering air to air and while better Sidewinders , better support , eased restrictions etc etc all played a part in the advance of kill ratio by USN it was simple sweating in training that did it .USAF had the same advantages of technology and the now mythical gun , yet it didn't do as good in 1972.

 

[donnage99]

Anyone remember the f-18. Back then, there was alot of criticism and skeptism about its horrible thrust to weight ratio. However, they did not understand that time was changing, and new technology and tactics were developed to answer to it. Due to the tremendous advance in missile lethality, that no longer missiles had to catch the tail to have a lock-on, but from any side on an aircraft, sustaining turning performance started to become irrelevant. And instead of high thrust to weight ratio for sustained turning performance, the f-18 takes use of the relaxed stability that helps it to have instantaneous turning and point nose shooting made it a lethal aircraft despite its poor thrust to weight ratio. And history proved it.

I think time is changing once again with the continuous advancement of missiles, mass production of stealth, HMD, avionics, combat aircrafts are entering a new generation, and either you get stuck with the old mindset and become obsolete/irrelevant, or you move on and take use of new technology that will transform air to air combat. Remember that it's not like some old tart 5 stars generals sit there and came up with new directions for air combat, but they were a result of intensive study and analyses done by professionals. I think the f-35 program had a clearer vision than the f-22, since its capabilites are envisioned not from scratch like ATF, but with the experience gained from already flying a 5th generation aircraft. In the end, it is not to create an aircraft with impressive specs to look at like some kinda trophy, but the most effective aircrafts.

 

[donnage99]

This article is funny:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/notag/f+35-lightning-iis-speech-recognition-controls-to-open-all-kinds-of-fucked+up-possibilities-312298.php

Here's the original article from the airforce. It's about speech system, a new capability that would give tremendous advantage in dogfight as it would leave the pilot to focus solely on his job: killing the enemy.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123071861

The F-35 will be the first U.S. fighter aircraft with a speech recognition system able to "hear" a pilot's spoken commands to manage various aircraft subsystems, such as communications and navigation.

The article also addresses some of the technical challenges of such a system that developers are trying to overcome and perfect the sytem, such as external noise in the cockpit that would degrade the quality of the pilot's voice, etc.

And as for the earlier discussion about the f-35 ability to take image (as I remember), I think it does, since it is designed to send these tactical images that it gather to the ground troops instantaneously on the battle field.

 

[r16]

most of the people will just remind how the missile revolution didn't take place after '57 and the people who came up with that idea in that period were professionals too . I take any 5star with some professionality over the "we are matchless , we are smartest " crowd .

 

[F-14D]

time to dig up the past once more .

ı hate Adobe software trying to connect to its website whenever ı open a pdf file , software ı downloaded to convert pdfs to jpeg files are on a miss and hit basis . So ı won't be able to support my post with some references . This will be as usual , what ı remember and think .

to explain American failure in Vietnam with restrictions placed on warfighters , in the current lingo as far as ı know it, is unjustified . There were very few restrictions in 1972 and the result is hardly a victory . No , politicians didn't give it away ; if the US Military had not wasted itself in the Sixties , NVN would be bombed to hell in 1975 .

the much reviled ROEs meant many Americans had a fighting chance of surviving their brothers in Phantoms ; especially for the F-105s the Sparrow was a much bigger threat than Migs at times . Clausewitz is very well known for saying war is the continuation of politics by force and during Rolling Thunder the US Admistration was trying to convey it to Hanoi that there was no need of fighting , a face saving deal could be reached and keeping the Migs safe on their airfields was just one clear ,easily understandable message . But asking for visual confirmation helped preventing fratricide . As Phantoms were firing far too much . It was maybe the epithet of being an ace , maybe the one single kill would give an advantage in getting promotions . If they hit something , OK .If not , the damned misssile would have "failed" to guide or perform . In maybe the most famous fight of the war , we see Cunningham , veteran of 150 mockfights in Top Gun , killer of 4(?) Migs up to that moment forgetting the Frescos had guns and the direct nose-on approach gave an opening to Tomb or Toon . Duke would go on to repeat this once more and you are telling r16 that they were not firing the two Sparrows they took off with from USS Consellation . Or at least trying to . The missiles were not that good , ı agree . They took lots up time to be ready to be used , not perfectly reliable once fired , but they still knocked down many Migs .American fighter planes did well in the war ; it was simply worse than expected . Even the Thunderchief had a positive kill ratio and it is hard to see how the politicos lost the air to air section of the war . They should have lost it because it is reminded everytime that the rules were restrictive . Well , if they were not , maybe US would have 100 Missile Age aces as China would be in the war too . And 10 000 American aircraft that would have been shot down would be somewhat hard to replace as the Red Hordes began swimming the Pasific to invade CONUS. or maybe they would be on rafts , who knows ?

the lack of guns on Phantoms was a factor but as F-14D has already mentioned it didn't do much for USAF , while the gunless USN was improving upon the early period , even bettering the 6 to 1 record of the Crusader in the process . ı think the USN experience shows an opposite to USAF ; first time ı saw it as F-14D has written here that ADC pilots were better in combat than TAC personnel . ı have read it in an Osprey book that F-4 crews coming from Demons would have a very limited range of movements in aircombat in order not to spoil weapon aiming while ex F-8u pilots would be more fluent . They dogfighted better and got into Migs' rear to use their Sidewinders in optimum range and position . The guns might have knocked out only 2 or 3 Migs in Crusaders but being trained to use them gave the last of the gunfighters a better understanding of how things were in those days . And it benefitted the Topgun training and the crews in 1972 greatly . They had better tactics not only as pilots but as formations as well .That most famous one on one dogfight actually had Schumacher making supersonic runs to break Vietnamese formations that might arrive to intervene , one wingman to Cunningham that saved an A-7 by downing a Mig and was in the area to offer assistance if need be and that particular A-7 pilot who just wanted to see a Mig . He obviously couldn't make it to where "the fight" was ; if he had he could easily give a dose of 20mm fire to Tomb as the Mig was turning with Cunningham at 200 mph or so . And as some American websources say Tomb's wingman had a nervous breakdown when he saw the explosion that killed the colourful pilot , the one on one was , let's see , at least four to two . And ı have seen only a few sources but don't remember if they actually mentioned Cunnigham claiming that he had killed the Mig .It is always a 45 degree controlled dive to ground , but Showtime 100 left the field intact . It is simply misdirected training priorities that caused American suffering air to air and while better Sidewinders , better support , eased restrictions etc etc all played a part in the advance of kill ratio by USN it was simple sweating in training that did it .USAF had the same advantages of technology and the now mythical gun , yet it didn't do as good in 1972.

This is actually getting rather far afield of this topic, except as it relates to the use of weapons and why you can't just compare the F-35' and Rafale's pure dogfighting capabilities when assessing them as air-to-air platforms (which, remember, for both of them is a secondary mission).

Regarding restrictions in the air war Vietnam, it is hard for people looking back from today to even believe, let alone understand the penalties they enacted and how that affected the War. Without taking this topic off on an unrelated tangent, let me just ask you to think about the implications in a shooting war of being required to wait until an attack against you has begun, or not attacking a SAM site under construction, or always being required to fly the same routes at the same altitudes at almost the sames times (the latter philosophy years latere contributed to the loss of the F-117 in the Bosnian adventure).

Rolling Thunder was a flop because it was a very stupid idea developed by people more concerned with their own egos than with getting the job done or saving lives on both sides (Why in a rational would the Secretary of Defense and the President be personally selecting targets and deciding what assets to use?).

Restrictions were drastically reduced, though not eliminated, in 1972 (their reasons for which are too far off topic to go into here) and the tactics and strategies used then did result in American success (for that part of the conflict). However, once the US got back in the first part of 1973 the POWs that Hanoi acknowledged it had, the Congress lost interest and basically to our everlasting shame, Vietnam was abandoned. By 1975 the inevitable happened.

Regarding the F-8 (and what happened with missiles and it parallel the discussion of Rafale vs JSF tactics), although it was "the Gunfighter", I believe it only had one pure gun kill (in the 2nd case often cited, guns were used to finish off a MiG that was already hit by a missile where it was not considered worth while to use another missile. It is correct, though, that the F-8 drivers knew how to sue their missiles better than anyone else at the time, because air-to-air was all they were responsible for and so got to concentrate exclusively on training for it. In fact, that was one of the problems with TAC trained USAF pilots firing too many missiles in the first part of the War. They'd fire multiple Sparrows, to get rid of them so they could get in close and go mano a mano. This was counterproductive for number of reasons. one of which was the way AIM-7 worked. Only the last one launched was the one guided. If you shot a 2nd missile before the first one impacted, you wasted that first one because it was then ballistic. ADC crews had a feeling for this, early TAC crews didn't.

Missiles were not that effective, the only thing they were better than was guns. In most cases, wherein a missile shot could be tried, they never got in position for a gun shot, so that wasn't counted in comparing relative effectiveness of the two weapons. This relates to the present day in that the tactic for the F-35 will be to exploit its strengths and the strengths of its weapons, not to engage in Macho duking it out.

Nguyen Toon, also known as "Colonel Toon", or "Colonel Tomb", probably never existed, and was either a callsign or a mythical figure invented for propaganda purposes. Yes, Duke Cunningham did shoot down his very skilled opponent with an AIM-9. A "45 degree controlled dive to the ground sound like someone shot down (or committing suicide).

Point of all this as it relates to F-35 and Rafale for UK is that an aircraft, has to be assumed to be used to its strengths (as was not done in most of Vietnam), air to air and air to ground, not to what someone else does. Otherwise there's no basis to make a comparison. Based on what we know about both aircraft, I would have to give the edge to F-35 (assuming it meets its promises). It's got the benefits of a much broader based design, a much larger and divers production run, and at least 15 years newer technology. Remember, the UK does not need the plane today. If it did, the choice might well be the other way.

 

[F-14D]

Hi F-14,

one of the big problems with the F-4 in Vietnam was, of course, the restrictions under which it operated

That's exactly my point - you don't get to pick the battle you want, especially when guarding a vulnerable RN carrier against sneak attacks (Remember you're not going to have much AWACS).

BTW, which opponents have demonstrated better sensors than the F-35?

The Russian NIIP Bars on the Su-35 is supposed "To detect stealthy targets RCS 0.01sq m station can at the distances to 90 km". Can The F-35 beat that? (or the Rafale - figures anyone?)

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,622.0/highlight,bars+radar.html

The flankers IRST looks pretty good too, with a rear hemisphere sensor for those over the shoulder AA-11s.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2630.msg21458.html#msg21458

So given the above - how's your modern day Missileer looking now? ;D

Cheers, Woody

Not sure if I completely follow this post. Arbitrary restrictions imposed by one's own politicians and bureaucrats do not constitute not being able , "...to pick the battle you want". There's no way you can design any aircraft to overcome the lunacy of your own side.

Regarding your links, one of them is advertising, and it may be hard to believe, but advertising sometimes tend to overstate what a system can actually do. Remember our discussion earlier of the rearward firing missile. The other link refers to hoped and announced goals, but no indication if this will actually be achieved. There is in there a mention of Russia being the world leader in a technology that the West doesn't use. This is true, but is it meaningful. Three are technologies in which the Russians do lead the world, but electronics is not one of them. There have been many promises over the years, but the reality has not yet lived up to the hope. The Indians, with their SU-30MKI have achieved the West's nightmare threat: The Flanker, with Western avionics.

Given its design role, I still don't see sensors better than the F-35's (assuming it performs as advertised).

The Missileer is not an apt analogy. The F6D was designed to loiter for really long times and throw long range missiles at incoming bombers. It was never intended that it would have to engage opposing aircraft, there would be other fighers for that. The F-35 (and Rafale) are designed to take care of themselves.

 

[Woody]

Hi F-14,

Not sure if I completely follow this post. Arbitrary restrictions imposed by one's own politicians and bureaucrats do not constitute not being able , "...to pick the battle you want". There's no way you can design any aircraft to overcome the lunacy of your own side.

That's exactly what it constitutes. Also having to visually confirm the identity of an enemy is not unusual (or unethical) in which case radar stealth becomes irrelevant and speed and agility become super-relevant (together with really excellent countermeasures).

Regarding your links, one of them is advertising, and it may be hard to believe, but advertising sometimes tend to overstate what a system can actually do.

And what exactly are the Lockheed Martin claims?

The Indians, with their SU-30MKI have achieved the West's nightmare threat: The Flanker, with Western avionics.

Expect to see more of these.

The Missileer is not an apt analogy. The F6D was designed to loiter for really long times and throw long range missiles at incoming bombers. It was never intended that it would have to engage opposing aircraft, there would be other fighers for that. The F-35 (and Rafale) are designed to take care of themselves.

Well there you have it. The last fleet defense aircraft the US designed that sacrificed dynamic performance and relied solely on it's missiles' doing the fighting, had longer range missiles and other fighters to protect it. Make your mind up.

Oh and by the way, air defense will be the F-35's or Rafale's primary mission for the RN: no carrier - no mission.

But broadly I don't disagree with you. I'm just concerned about the appropriateness of each aircraft, given their eventual cost and the missions they will be required to fly - two things we do not know.

Cheers, Woody

 

[r16]

ı had this reply but ı lost it somewhere so ı hope to write it sometime this week . ı think Woody's post "ate" it . Is it possible for simultenous postings to cause one post to disappear ?

 

[Woody]

The internet is a mystery to me too sometimes ;D Looking forward to your post r-16.

Cheers, Woody

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

The F8U/F-8's guns accounted for a total of 9 kills in Vietnam. The rest were accomplished using Zuni Rockets and AIM-9 Sidewinders...


KJ Lesnick

 

[F-14D]

Hi F-14,

Not sure if I completely follow this post. Arbitrary restrictions imposed by one's own politicians and bureaucrats do not constitute not being able , "...to pick the battle you want". There's no way you can design any aircraft to overcome the lunacy of your own side.

That's exactly what it constitutes. Also having to visually confirm the identity of an enemy is not unusual (or unethical) in which case radar stealth becomes irrelevant and speed and agility become super-relevant (together with really excellent countermeasures).

Regarding your links, one of them is advertising, and it may be hard to believe, but advertising sometimes tend to overstate what a system can actually do.

And what exactly are the Lockheed Martin claims?

The Indians, with their SU-30MKI have achieved the West's nightmare threat: The Flanker, with Western avionics.

Expect to see more of these.

The Missileer is not an apt analogy. The F6D was designed to loiter for really long times and throw long range missiles at incoming bombers. It was never intended that it would have to engage opposing aircraft, there would be other fighers for that. The F-35 (and Rafale) are designed to take care of themselves.

Well there you have it. The last fleet defense aircraft the US designed that sacrificed dynamic performance and relied solely on it's missiles' doing the fighting, had longer range missiles and other fighters to protect it. Make your mind up.

Oh and by the way, air defense will be the F-35's or Rafale's primary mission for the RN: no carrier - no mission.

But broadly I don't disagree with you. I'm just concerned about the appropriateness of each aircraft, given their eventual cost and the missions they will be required to fly - two things we do not know.

Cheers, Woody

Are we getting testy?

The restrictions I was referring to were not so much visual ID which frankly has been over-imposed and probably more does more harm than good to your side. For example, in the air an F-4 and MiG-21 are virtually indistinguishable at a quick look. Is that an F-14 or an SU-27 or an MiG-29 or an F-15? What if the other guy is relying on his radar, IR or (F-14) TV to positively identify you while you're trying to get close enough to check the recognition manual? I was referring to tactical restrictions, some of which I mentioned in a previous post. For a more detailed discussion, I recommend "Going Downtown", by COL. Jack Broughton. In any case, in an era of helmet mounted sights, high off-boresight capability and extreme agility in missiles, aircraft maneuverability, while important, is not the deciding factor it once was, especially if the other guy gets off the first shot.

Regarding advertising, whatever else one may want to say about Lockheed's aircraft regarding costs, they tend to do what they claim, whereas this has been a problem with Russian aircraft and systems in the past.

Again, regarding F6D, it is not an apt comparison to JSF, Rafale and the like. No one would build such an aircraft today and neither Rafale or F-35 operate that way. BTW, virtually every modern fighter of the last 40+ years has relied on its missiles to do the fighting. The aircraft's role has been to get them to the place where they can go to work (hopefully while staying alive, of course).

I'm afraid that I must disagree with you particularly on the primary role of the fixed wings on the RN's decks. The primary reason for any carrier's existence is strike And the weapon it uses for that strike is its aircraft. Air defense of the carrier (which can also be handled by supporting ships) exists in order to permit more strikes. If the primary reason for embarked aircraft is air defense, well then just sail out of range of any opponent and you accomplish the same goal, with a lot less hassle. of course, your enemy forces are left intact... Air defense is important, but if the carrier doesn't exist to strike, then why does it exist?

F-35 and Rafale should both be as capable as anything we're likely to get in their respective timeframes for defense, but strike is why they exist. Assessments of Rafale indicate that it has its priority is more on strike than on air-to-air (Typhoon is the reverse). Those are the same priorities as F-35.