Flight International test pilot -- and former Red Arrows team leader -- Peter Collins (above right) gives the Dassault Rafale a ringing endorsement in this week's magazine. "If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale," Collins concludes in his six-page flight test report published in our Dubai Air Show preview issue.
Read the full article here.
Collins' report is timely because the Rafale appears to be nearing the end of a two-decade-old search for an export customer. If all goes perfectly well for Dassault, Brazil, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates could all be signed up as customers by the end of November (although that's still a big 'if'.)
If you want to cut to the chase, here's is the text from the last page of the excellent report.
It is worth remembering that stealth-optimised, or fifth-generation fighters such as the Lockheed F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are not only likely to be hugely expensive, but they can only preserve their stealth characteristics by carrying a very limited weapons load in their internal weapon bays.
Therefore, in the current and predicted financial defence climate, it could well be that so-called fourth-generation fighters will remain the aircraft of choice for most nations - perhaps even including the UK.
Moreover, the fact that the Rafale is the only European fighter in production that is carrier-capable gives it, in my opinion, a distinct advantage in any future export "fly-off" competition as a single combat type that can equip a country's air force and naval air arm.
In answer to my own evaluation objectives, it was obvious the Rafale has earned its omnirole definition, even though I barely scratched the surface of its sensor and weapon capabilities. The aircraft has an incredible level of performance befitting a fourth-generation type, and despite flying a highly complex and demanding evaluation sortie, I felt completely at home in the aircraft and retained full situational awareness. If it could keep me safe, it would also do the same for young first-tourist pilots coping with tactical operations.
The classic definitions of aircraft combat roles really do not do justice to this aircraft; the Rafale is Europe's force-multiplying "war-fighter" par excellence. It is simply the best and most complete combat aircraft that I have ever flown. Its operational deployments speak for themselves. If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.
on November 9, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply
Forget the F-22 and F-35...what does he have to say about the Typhoon vs. the Rafale. Once again when you get right down to it all we have is another European taking an opportunity to bash an American product. I'm not impressed and only slightly disappointed.
on November 9, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply
Think twice; might this story be related to the "only half as many F-35 for the new carriers" problem?
on November 9, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply
Not terribly surprising that Collins likes the Rafale. It's a beautiful, highly aerobatic plane -- light and nimble -- and he's a former Red Arrow who is presumably used to flying Hawks. Note that every hint of praise is qualified with "of all the planes I've flown," and that the runner-up is a Mirage 2000. But combat pilots need to get over this notion that a thrill ride experience is of most interest during operations. Even an F-35 can watch you playfully execute a sustained 5g climbing turn, unnoticed, as it sends simulated AMRAAMs up a Rafale's tailpipe.
The Rafale is an excellent, cheap, and versatile complement to a 5th generation fighter and will do very well in low-tech conflicts like Afghanistan, but let's be honest here: it's apples to oranges when air-to-air enters the argument.
on November 9, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply
I'm left wondering what is an operational air-to-air warload for the Rafale? More than eight AAMs? The F-22 carries six AMRAAMs and two AIM-9s plus gun...that's hardly limited. The F-35 doesn't have as much internal carriage but it can also carry external missile loads and jettison the pylons if desired after firing the missiles. I'm sure the Rafale is a great jet, but on those points, the comparison seems rather specious.
on November 9, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply
This article is a good article but I want to hear that he has flown the competition. Only a handful of pilots have flown the F-35. So I take that argument lightly. To think this plane is better than an F-22A because it can land on a carrier is suspect.
So when Mr. Collins writes an article stating he has just flown the Rafale, F-35, F-22A, F/A-18E/F, F-15E/SE, Gripen, SU-27/3X and Typhoon AND now he thinks the Rafale is the best aircraft, his justification will hold more weight. If I drove a Honda Accord for a living and got to drive a McLaren once, hell yea that Mclaren would be the best car I had ever driven.
on November 9, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply
It sounds like he's on their payroll or something- is he? More of an advertisement for Dassault than a actual hard objective review frankly- add to which he seems to take their company line with regard to taking shots at other airframes- particularly US-built machines (standard operating procedure for the French). Interestingly, not that he doesn't throw at the much more expensive but conceptually similar Typhoon despite that fact it a direct competitor... So perhaps he's not pimping for Dassualt per se, but rather just European manufacturers in general.
I'd like to know what his operational background is other than flying airshow displays with the Red Arrows- which counts for very little in terms useful experience. That would include which combat aircraft he's flown operationally and if he has any actual combat experience i.e. CAS or strike missions over the Iraq or Afghanistan. Also I'd like to know if he worked for Dassault prior to this gig at Flight.
Also the F-15E carries 24000lbs of weapons i.e. 11 tons, not 9.5 tons- so not exactly equivalent. So he either got that directly from Dassualt's brochure or he's being intentionally disingenuous. Either way is problematic.
on November 9, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply
A SA20 will put a quick end to his ringing endorsement. This guy is obviously a bit punchy in the head to make such an asinine comment. In a one V one scenario with either the F22 or the F35 at the hands of a average pilot, the Rafale will not last 10 minutes.
on November 9, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply
Why SA20 Take SA21 and it will put a quick end to F35 too. F22 may survive. Very low rcs is on it´s way to loose it´s advantedge. Missiles have to be handled offensive in the future.
on November 9, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply
It's seems a little hasity to write off the F-35 and F-22 when Mr. Collins hasn't flown ethier of those aircraft.
on November 9, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply
I read some of Collins' other flight tests for the magazines, and he generally closes with something positive about the aircraft he's flying. I don't think his word is conclusive, particularly if he doesn't have substantial operational experience in competing types.
on November 9, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply
He has something positive to say about an European aircraft. Wauw. Unheard of. So obviously he must be in pay of Dassault or otherwise be biased. Of course this is never the case with people singing the praise of an aircraft that has not shown serious performance yet outside the powerpoint regime.
If the Rafale is really as good in comparison with the JSF remains to be seen. But I would not be surprised if performances (F4+ version) would turn out to be a close match. French aircraft tend to be quite underestimated in general (as the same BTW for the Swedisch aircraft). If there is no significant difference in combat effectiveness -my 2 cents based on what I have seen so far is that the JSF will probabily be somewhat better in the bombing penetration role (of heavily defended area's) but considerably worse in the a2a role- there is no justification for the JSF price tag.
Have no fear Solomon. Even if the Rafale outperforms the JSF (and turns out to be cheaper) most airforces in western Europe (let alone Autralia) will still opt for the JSF. They are too freaking afraid that they won't be seen as a 'primary and loyal' partner of the USAF. Because of this political and mental dependency they will swallow costs and (possibly) the mediocre performance and in the end need to hurdle under the USAF wings because they will not be able to operate by themselves anymore.
Would be funny (not really) if the USAF buys considerably less JSF's and closes the gap with updated legacy aircraft (new build, updated F15's and F16's) as a more cost effective solution to maintain combat effectiveness. It would prove the French and the Swedes have a point. But of course that is too outrageous to even suggest.
on November 9, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply
Hold your horses man! The F-35 still got all to prove. And even ahead of this massive testing the F-35 is designed to be just as agile as a F-16, not worse/not better. Thats it's agility performance for starters. It's got aces in its sleeve with the LO, but even that will be challanged in 10-20 years time when finally in action. I do think the SAAB Gripen NG has every chance to show its dogfighting skill against any of the afore mentioned opponents. Geopolotical alliances and blocking of transfer of technology might bully it out of Brazil & India, but who knows. The dude abaides as Mr Lebowski puts it...
on November 9, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply
Yeah, but what else has he flown to provide a valid comparison against? He doesn't say...
on November 9, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply
Peter Collins is said to have 6,600 flying hours to his credit and flown 68 different types of aircraft including Lightning, Harrier and Hawk and remember he's evaluating the Rafale against set criteria. He is Flight Internationals test pilot and obviously enjoyed the ride.
on November 10, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply
I do think that if blue was a european or french tint, you would deny it's color, wouldn't you? Check Luke AFB pilots comments about Rafale, very, very, very interesting...
on November 10, 2009 4:31 AM | Reply
C'mon guys, lighten up and have some fun!
I'm certain Mr. Collins' views are sincere. As a full-fledged Golden Arm his expert opinion must carry some weight. Of course, I'm also certain that we can find any number of 'equal and opposite' test pilots whose opinions would involve favoring other aircraft.
I believe when it comes to fighters, one size does not fit all. The Rafale has to be a contender for any nation with a driving need to protect it's own territory and has a significant IADS and C3I capability into which they can integrate a relatively large number of chosen fighter aircraft.
The Rafale has to be a serious contender if that same nation is not expected to fight against a well-trained fifth generation foe. In that case, the Rafale would be what the French call a "target".
on November 10, 2009 4:56 AM | Reply
Be fair play guys!
Collins is not a sunday pilot.
on November 10, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply
Already one RN carrier sunk by the JSF... Now wait: the "special relationship" is still on the move. When will the second carrier be sunk?
We know... "Better dead than blue!"
Only a distinguish gentleman like Peter Collins can ignore those militant arguments.
ChG
on November 10, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply
"Also I'd like to know if he worked for Dassault prior to this gig at Flight."
Dave, and you, for who do you work ? Don't be jealous, the Rafale is simply the best. Either way, it's not difficult, since the F-22 hasn't proved anything and that the F-35 doesn't yet exist (and perhaps will never exist).
on November 10, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply
Did Mr. Collins fly on Eurofighter , F22 or F35?
I'm not surprised that Rafale pleased him but to know exactly performance level including taking in account RCS or ECM features (which are secret data) needs more than simple opinion of a test pilot.
It is clear that Rafale may have chance to compete with F35 if its roadmap is quickly funded and its LO+ECM combo give it right stealth performance (Rafale ECM seems without any equivalent for a fighter).
I would like to know if Mr.Collins flew on Eurofighter.
on November 10, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply
"Either way, it's not difficult, since the F-22 hasn't proved anything and that the F-35 doesn't yet exist (and perhaps will never exist)."
How exactly has the Squall “proven” itself more than the F-22? Dropped a couple bombs on the Taliban? He might have an argument in the context of the current wars in southwest Asia but when talking about executing an integrated air campaign against denied airspace the Squall is not an F-22 or F-35 equivalent; not even close. Period. Dot. Further his reasoning, i.e. limit carriage //in a stealth configuration\\ ignores the fact that the Squall can’t carry much more on any realistic mission set. He also is ignoring the problems they’ve had with some of the avionics (radar, OSF). Specious indeed. It’s a good jet, but F-22 or F-35 it is not; or a Typhoon for that matter
on November 10, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply
I think M. Collins did a very good description of the Rafale. And i'm not surprised by his conclusion because Dassault always developed good airplanes.
For fans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol74hOJtWOA&feature=related
(Its not a Rafale)
on November 10, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply
Ben dit donc ça cause pas mal sur notre joujou.
Quand je lis que le F35 est superieur au rafale ,il faut redescendre sur terre ,cet avion n'a rien prouvé pour le moment a part le fait d'avoir pris les budgets de recherche et developpement europeens.
Le Typhoon a l'air d'etre un superbe avion de defense aerienne mais quid du bonbardement?
on November 10, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply
Peter, to our knowledge, has not flown the EF2000, F-22 or F-35.
on November 10, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply
So ultimately, it just comes down to these statements:
"It is simply the best and most complete combat aircraft that I have ever flown. Its operational deployments speak for themselves. If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale."
Does this mean the Rafale beats the 5th gens in any measurable sense other than cost? I don't believe that it does. It just means that of the jets he has flown (which I think we've determined does not include any 5th gens), he'd fly the Rafale, and some believe that that's a questionable judgement call. I'm willing to accept that.
And Trimble, in proper journalistic fashion, managed to cull an inflammatory headline from it. :) I'm willing to accept that too.
on November 10, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply
Thanks, Jeb, but I think I should be offended! ;)
The headline I believe is justified by his statement that he would choose the Rafale, bar none, over any aircraft, for any combat situation. He clearly prefers the Rafale over the F-22/F-35-class, whether he's enjoyed the opportunity to fly them or not.
on November 10, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply
The Rafale has several advantages over both F-35 and F-22. It's unreasonable to be certain about the superiority of either F-22/35 or Rafale, but it's not unreasonable to think that the Rafale might be superior.
The concepts are very different and the USAF fans tend to look only at the talking points they were supplied with by the Anglo-American world's sources.
on November 10, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply
Perhaps, but still...we're always conditioned to prefer the known over the unknown, and I think it's worth noting that nowhere does Collins actually say the Rafale is better than the F-22/35, just that he'd choose the Rafale as it's the best *he's ever flown*. That's a key distinction, wouldn't you agree.
on November 10, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply
Nope: "If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale."
on November 10, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply
Yep. And if I had to go on a road trip to Vegas this weekend, I'd prefer to go in a 2011 Corvette Grand Sport, even though a Mercedes-Benz E-class diesel would be more comfortable and get better mileage while matching the time I'd take in transit. But I like the way the Corvette looks and drives and it's comfortable enough for me.
Does that make you question my judgement? Maybe it should. Does it make me wrong? No, not at all.
on November 10, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply
f-22 was closed
f-35 have big very big prob but USA say no ,for not lose partner .USA have reduced by 2 the number of plane for all us force and usaf have commanded only 267 for the the first 4 model of this plane (usaf have preview 2378 for thir 4).all partner was suspicious for the future of the program.USM will reduced the number of their carier (nimitz class), british will envisaged alternative , netherland to.
eurofighter: every partner of this plane say the advantage of this plane compared of the rafale.the price of prod is the first argument but today the rafale make small cost . GB don't have deployed this plane in afghanistan but they have deployed it in falkland for the replacement of tornados (these tornado who was remplaced go to afgh). eurofighter is one aircraft for dogfight not for bombing.the 3rd tranch of that plane who was commanded recently is just one luck because GB have take it (if they say no , the production of typhoon was lose or take seriously damage.
rafale: USA make all of possible for blocked export market for the rafale (morocco for example). some people say rafale is one old plane but this is not really . the development was long but today he was ready . USA don't will make one dogfight with it for what? USA say every of possible for sell his planes. make fake rumors against the rafale and after that some guys say the rafale was compared of x fighter and was similar of one old f-16 (but who have making this test?) every say the f-22 was better than all aircraft but where people take information ? USA or the result of one war in the sky? paper? USA media?
don't know all of the USA say in defense that was one part of they power
on November 10, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply
"Dave, and you, for who do you work ? Don't be jealous, the Rafale is simply the best. Either way, it's not difficult, since the F-22 hasn't proved anything and that the F-35 doesn't yet exist (and perhaps will never exist)."
Myself. 'Simply the best'- what do you base that on? French nationality? European pride? Thus far your track record for winning real shooting wars has proven to be highly dubious. And really what has the Rafale proven? So very little, it can show up in the AOR an then burn a lot of Kerosene- so very useful... The very fact that you guys need to throw stones at other aircraft exposes just how weak your position really is. Inferiority complex much?
And to address 'jealous'- I don't have a dog in the hunt, so could give a damn personally- but I expect a certain level of objectivity from a reviewer. If the same reviewer had made the same sweeping flowery BS statements about the Raptor, JSF, Typhoon, F/A-18E/F et al without providing any operational background or real hard objective justications I'd have call him out for that too. It's pity you're too limited to overcome your petty insecurities that you'd never understand that. How pathetic...
on November 10, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply
Ah some Americans are so arrogant, nothing can be any good if it's made outside America. Rafale and Typhoon just don't compare with the mighty US products, the F-22 and the as yet unfinished, unproven F-35 whose development program is years behind in testing, rapidly increasing in cost and sinking into the quicksand whilst LM try and find a way to keep on selling it.
The US Navy in an article in Air Forces Monthly last year refused to lets it's F-18s go 1 on 1 against Rafale, now that is saying something. So called 4.5 generation fighters (Rafale/Typhoon) walk all over F-15/F-18/F-16 in air combat-no contest as has been remarked upon in various articles.
In air dominance the F-22 is king, no contest, and as for the F-35, it does not stand comparison, it's a bomber, a limited payload, short range LO bomber, or strike aircraft if you will.
Rafale carries out all the roles demanded of diverse air warfare, but it's main domain is air to air.
Peter Collins is a very experienced pilot, but I believe I am right in saying, that the last pure fighter he flew operationally was the English Electric Lightning, blessed with great performance and hampered with short range, poor radar and IR missiles only. It was a fighter pilots aircraft, all who flew it loved it so I believe the article reflected his fighter pilots enthusiasm for a very good fighter aircraft.
He has flown the F-35 simulator which you can find in this magazines archive.
So all you Euro canard critics should not laugh too soon, across the pond we make very fine fine aircraft. At least we can afford to buy them.
on November 10, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply
Well if the F22 and F35 where so impressive and above rafale and typhon why then speaking so much about that...
on November 10, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply
"How exactly has the Squall “proven” itself more than the F-22? Dropped a couple bombs on the Taliban?"
Well, he also performed very well in Red Flag 08, according even to USAF. Not to mention quite a lot of other european/world exercises, including against italian eurofighters.
Second, "dropping a couple of bombs on the taliban" still requires an unprecedented level of integration just to be able to operate with NATO standards. And it's out of question to drop a bomb more than 10m away from the scheduled impact point, in this war. Also it requires to be able to operate far from your bases and preferably from the sea (the Rafale used to operate from a french carrier, in the indian ocean) : apart from Super Hornet and Rafale, no western 4th gen jet can do that. Finally, you have to fly a long time over very high mountainous terrain, which is a definite drawback for any single engined jet (such as Gripen).
The JSF certainly performed nowhere, since it hasn't flown yet. As for the F-22, the staggering difference of price with the rafale leaves it out of any competition the Rafale will ever enter, not to mention it's banned from export by the US. Anyway, I think the only cases a F-22 ever would better a Rafale is air-to-air combat against another high tech opponent, or stealthy reconnaissance flights. And even that, only if the nation operating the F-22s has almost unlimited funds : flying them is also extremely costly.
on November 10, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply
Les Français, si vous ne maîtrisez pas l'anglais, postez en Français. Au moins les francophones (à défaut de francophiles) comprendront.
It is useless to argue about the F22 superiority since this thing will most certainly never be used in combat. The US focus on stealth has gone to far, since due to passive radar technology, stealth advantage is limited in high density EM environments. It is nowadays quite easy to detect and track a B2 flying over any country equiped with a cell phone network. Since nearly all countries have a cell phone network.... But stealth is still an advantage : the detection equipment is still ground based, will not be airborne before long, and not afordable by anyone.
This US ideological focus on stealth has had an advantage: make Dassault, the french air force, and "DGA" think a lot about the right stealth balance for the Rafale. At the end of the 80's, during some Le Bourget flight demo, they discovered that some US planes RCS were at least 10 times smaller than M 2000 RCS. This gave way to the Rafale D project (D = discret) which induced some delay in the overall Rafale program but not much, since french intel services were quite good at getting hold of US coating technology (this is why no US stealth plane has been parked in Le Bourget since ther 80's , to avoid that another french minister give a pat to a plane before washing is hands with the proper solvents :-)).
Rafale gained a good enough stealth capability, on another hand, the Rafale :
- was to cover all french and navy air force combat needs with one platform
- was launched on a french basis only to avoid all the infernal compromises which have lead to the Typhoon II
- was designed to keep the unit cost afordable
the Rafale is clearly one of very best solution for realistic air warfare today.
A pity it is french, but perfection is not of this world.
on November 10, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply
The Rafale is a beautiful looking aircraft, like most French aircraft. However, history shows that the last world-beating French aircraft was probably the Nieuport 17. Dassault's reputation has been based on the performance of the Mirage III in Israeli hands in 1967 - clear air performance in short-range desert operations isn't a good indicator of how an aircraft will perform against a modern air defense network and a well-trained opponent. An interesting experiment would be to set a force of Rafales against a force of F-22s and F-35s supported by modern air defense systems, then let both sides play their game the way they want to play it. Barring an American war with France though, it isn't going to happen.
on November 10, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply
I did read up some comments of USAF pilots (Luke AFB). Based on their remarks it seems that the Rafale scored about 3 to 1 kill ratio against the block 52 F16. And this while both parties did not employ the full scale of available ECM's. Assuming similar effectiveness of the ECM it may bring down the effectiveness of the Rafale a little (for all that matters it may boost it as well).
Advertised is that the F16 block 52 has roughly a 1 to 1 kill ratio against modern Sukhoi aircraft. The JSF (on powerpoint) was boosted from a 4 to 1 to a 6 to 1 kill ratio. If I even buy the first number of the JSF (quite disputable at this point) it would mean that at best the JSF is twice as effective as the rafale in A2A combat. Having a price tag more than twice as big as the Rafale makes the JSF quite unimpressive. If the Rafale actually performs better than the shown numbers it means that they have a better a2a platform than the JSF is.
As for the 6 to 1 kill ratio for the JSF as advertised. would that have been true it would mean the JSF is about as effective as the F22. It would have meant the F22 would have been killed from the onset. USAF however vigourly fought for the F22, meaning the F35 does not perform even close. Conclusion: the claim of a 6 to 1 kill ratio against modern oponents is just bull, even the USAF does not believe that.
This means that the JSF has everything riding on a combination of Stealth and 'situational awareness'. The first one may be considerably less effective in actual combat than advertised , especially if it comes at the expense of agility, the second assumption is not only purely theoretical. It is also questionable if the JSF will be better in this respect than oponents. Updating sensors and software is considerably easier and cheaper than modifying the airframe. Additionally these are the areas in which we will see Russians and Chines pick up quickly. Even if their equipement is 'only' 80% effective against modern western aircraft it does not bode well. If these aircraft manage to bring the (advertised) kill ratio of the JSF down to 2 against 1 it means that western airforces will not be able to sustain attrition losses against organised oponents. Combined with the fact that the Russians have superb AAM's the thought of the implications do scare me.
As to Atomic Walrus: If the F22 is part of the equation the Rafale will probably loose most if not all engagements. There is no question that in this role the F22 is the best we are going to see for a long time to come. But the F22 is build in few numbers. A more honest comparison is F35 against Rafale. Nobody has convinced me yet the JSF is going to have the upper hand in that confrontation. I expect the numbers getting worse for the JSF when more aircraft (numbers) enter a a2a engagement. A 1 to 1 engagement is considerably different from a 4 to 4 engagement. With aircraft covering your back agility is going to play a bigger role.
We will not known till actual tests are performed (not powerpoint tests that is). But we are juggling all our eggs in just one flimsy basket.
on November 10, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply
Wahooo,
On discute sacrément et passionnément chez nos amis britanniques ! Je suis heureux de voir que notre Rafale fait des émules outre-Manche.
Personnellement, je pense que nous avons l'UN des meilleurs avions du monde. LE meilleur n'existe pas ! Un jour ce sera un F35 qui sera abattu, le lendemain ce sera un Rafale... espérons que ça n'arrive pas ou peu. N'oublions pas la qualité des tactiques employées et celles des pilotes qui font une grande différence. Et bravo à nos amis brit' pour leur blog.
-------------------------------------------
Very surprised to see such a huge and passionned discuss about our dear Rafale !
I think that we have ONE among the best fighters in the world. But THE best doesn't exist. Today a F35 is shot, tomorrow a Rafale will be shot. I hope it will never happen... Don't forget that tactic and pilot's quality is too important.
And bravo zulu to our Brit' friends for their blog.
on November 10, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply
f-22: mort
f-35: grave problemes de CONCEPTION d'argent et j'en passe
eurofighter: en fin de vie et probleme chez eads
gripen: un avion de conception americaine qui laisse penser logiquement qu'il est inferieur (il s'est vendu a l'export grace a des pots de vin..)
f-18: bel avion mais si il est aux USA, mais a l'export il y aura tjrs moins chez les americains
rafale: avion qui commence sa vie , qui a un grand potentiel mais fustiger et devaloriser par les anglos-saxons qui ont des prejuges bien etablis car croyant tout ce que l'on leur raconte , notamment que si l'avion n'est pas made in usa ben il est inferieur. aucune guerre n'a prouver que les USA possedent les meilleurs avions car a par bombarder des cibles qui ne possedent aucun moyen anti aerien
les americains ont inventer le capitalisme d'aujourd'hui mais etrangement en matiere d'armement ils ne veulent pas voir de concurrents sinon ils lanceront une offre que l'acheteur potentiel ne pourra refuser mais en fin de compte l'acheteur sera perdant car chaque armement chaque equipement devra etre obligatoirement acheter aux usa et donc en cas de tensions ...
on November 10, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply
Mia92, well said, I only wish that the Typhoon was just British, too many partners lead to too many disagreements and slow upgrade of capability.
France has done well with it's Air Force and Navy and has adopted the sensible way of having one fighter for all roles.
on November 10, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply
This article is hugely technical with a phenomenal amount of new informations.
Is Rafale the best combat aircraft?
In an Air show point of view as Riat 2009
it looks to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md39xIKyO7c&feature=player_embedded
For sure, it is Flight International that is the
best aeronautical international magazine.
on November 10, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply
Le defaut du Rafale est d'etre Français pour Mister Mia92,je ne sais de quelle origine vous etes mais je suis fier d'etre Français et de voir le Rafale commencé a arriver a maturité m'enchante au plus haut point,ne serait ce que des gens comme vous ,qui ont la critique facile de voir(je l'espere un jour) qu'ils se trompent.
Dites vous juste une chose Mister Mia 92 ,
si le budget de developpement du Rafale etait egale a celui du F22 ,les Français auraient pu aussi bien faire croyez moi.....
Tout les avions de chasse moderne possedent des + et des - ,le Rafale n'est surement pas le meilleur mais il se defends carrement bien dans chaque domaine a la difference d'autres qui font ce qui peuvent ...........
on November 10, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply
Mia92, I think you're wrong. I'm French and my English isn't perfect but, I think it's more respectful to speak in the langage of the website.
So, for me, it's impossible to compare Rafale and F22. They don't play in the same world and with the same wallet.
About the F35, it isn't operationel for the moment.
The Rafale isn't bad in Air to Air. He carries 6 MICA (4 EM - 2 IR) which is very similar to the AMRAAM. He has L16 and front sector optronics. For the moement, his main weak point is the lack of helmet mounted display.
If a test pilot from the great Royal Air Force says that the Rafale is a good one, I think we can believe him. English and French people doesn't compliment each other easily...
on November 10, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply
French navy experience : Rafale F1 vs F18-E/F after 4 min F18 is dead.
it is simple
on November 10, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply
It's funny to see how much frustration has entered your mind after reading this particularly relevant and accurate report.
I shall say nothing but "you probably are not a pilot, and you've just read a report written by a extremely experienced and trustful source, that one could definitely rely on, about how outstanding the Rafale is, and you're so pissed off".
You throw no argument in your post, which is a pity. But what can you say anyway, if not "oops..."? Too bad.
on November 10, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply
"French navy experience : Rafale F1 vs F18-E/F after 4 min F18 is dead.
it is simple"
4 minutes? That's a pretty long dogfight. The F-18E/F is also not a particularly new airframe. F-22 vs. Mirage 2000 wouldn't be especially pretty either.
on November 11, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply
I think we tend to be a bit brainwashed by the powerful US marketing regarding F22 /F35 capabilities hence our bias. Let's try to be a bit more open in our judgements and reckon that if Rafale has been successful during the tests, it may have some value i.e. it doesn't come out of the blue. Most tests show Rafale has superior capabilities unless you introduce political/economical biases. Let's just admit Rafale is the best if specialists/tests say so.
An impressive show at RIAT 09:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBHoZ_mtv20&feature=related
And as Robert says: 'For sure, it is Flight International that is the best aeronautical international magazine.'
on November 11, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply
Rafale it's surely the better compromise between hight capability and price/Implementation.
on November 11, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply
I'm sorry, but that's laughable. You cannot rely on an assessment of "best in the world" if you haven't tested all contenders, and that includes F-22. Maybe Rafale should be considered "best of the rest", but I imagine there are some Typhoon and maybe even Gripen NG pilots who'd contest that.
As far as the F-35 goes, I'm hoping that it (a) survives its next few years of development and (b) doesn't turn out to be a dog in the end. I think it was a tremendous error to end F-22 production in favor of the F-35 and the day it happened, I started waiting for the Sword of Damocles to appear over the F-35 program, which I think has happened recently.
on November 11, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply
The basic point of the Rafale is not well understood even P Collins (who participated to JSF) almost mentionned it.
In the nineties after the Rafale A aerodynamic demonstrator, Dassault had to made a choice:
-Either go to passive stealth level of USA which imply having internal bay (and to accept price)
-Or to carry external loads with a LO RCS and rely on active systems to achieve right level of survivability.
Rough calculation show that having 0,001m² RCS of stealth need an internal bay but it increases by 50% empty mass of plane and so its engine and accordingly its airframe cost (and fuel consumption and so its life owning cost) .
Alternative was to achieve saying a 0,1m² RCS ( illustrative) then improving to 0,01 m² maybe a decade later while taking opportunity of increased super computing power for RCS calculation and design, and compensate by state of the art and outstanding ECM active systems to get proper level of survivability.
Moore law show that increase of the performance of computers per unit cost doubles every 24 months (and so improve active signature management systems).
While a passive stealth relying airframe have fewer margin of improvement.
What makes more sense?
Adding 20 millions $ per airframe to achieve 0,001 m² RCS or invest in a 10 millions $ outstanding ECM system combined to a LO 0,1 m² RCS then less in the futur by incremental improvement?
Plus some special ammunitions like AASM to extend survivability against state of the art air defense, or Mica IR for BVR passive intercept.
For the systems, captors and datafusion Rafale follow 5th generation roadmap and approach.
I consider that Rafale F4 will be probably a 5th generation aircraft since it is survivability which matters and not the way you achieve it.
Maybe USA have done a system engineering mistake with F35 approach.Does F35 compromise still make sense since less than 200 F22 would support them instead of 700+?
I think a problem of USA programs are the way they manage contractual relations between DoD and aircrafts manufacturers with rigid internal rules.
In France Dassault define and proposed largely by itself what should be the design of Rafale and invested 25% of program cost itself.
on November 11, 2009 5:37 AM | Reply
What a bunch of nonsense. If you're out to design an airshow airplane then the Rafale might be the cats meow...but when the F-22 and F-35 were designed it wasn't with the thought of making an aviation writer smile or to wow a crowd at an airshow.
The F-35 is clearly superior to the Rafale and only nationalistic hubris would cause someone to say anything different.
on November 11, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply
Guys,
Have any of you seen the article about the F-16 pilot who trains against the F22?
The summary is: He flies and dies... again and again.
The F22 is in a class all by itself. An amazing plane.
All other existing plains are simply "targets". The soviets are very good at making targers. Either planes or tanks.
on November 11, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply
Who have nationalistic hubris M.Solomon ?
Peter Collins ?
The Luke Air Force Base' pilots ?
Or you ?
Veritas odium parit
on November 11, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply
"The F-35 is clearly superior to the Rafale"
Why do you say that ? F35 is design to be protected by F22. Rafale is design to be alone.
on November 11, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply
it was not dog fight, but long range fight.
on November 11, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply
Since a long time, analysts said that the advanced evolution of the Rafale will be better and cheaper then the F-35.
The Rafale is not stealth but it has a very big evolution potential, and it begins at a very high technologic level.
on November 11, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply
"The F-35 is clearly superior to the Rafale and only nationalistic hubris would cause someone to say anything different."
LoL - what a tool!
Talk about shooting oneself in both feet.
on November 11, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply
Bonjour,
En ce 11 novembre, fête des héros francais,
Il est bon de lire ce compte rendu d'un britanique sur notre bébé !
Vive la France !
Hello,
in this 11 november, day for french heroes,
its nice to read this brit'comment about our flying baby !!
Long life for France !
on November 11, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply
"The F-35 is clearly superior to the Rafale and only nationalistic hubris would cause someone to say anything different."
I'm sure this argumentless assertion about a plane that does not even exist is why the JET inspections were soooo optimistic...
The F35 has not even passed more than 3% of his flight tests today, and is supposed to have only 15% finished when 1st production plane will be delivered. I wouldn't like to be the one that has to discover the 85 % that stays undiscovered in real combat situation... the BS about this plane is real only to anglo-saxons now, as israelis and dutches (and others like Japan) are seriouly asking themselves questions about a plane so tremendously costly, so not adaptable with their technologies, so full of BS-communication....
And remember : the US defense exportation limitations are huge, wether it be for Gripen, F18, F35 (huge restrictions for the mighty F35) or even typhoon which all have american pieces in it. Thus making the Rafale the only plane of that ability to be transferred completely if France is OK (which tends to be the case if financial/strategic retributions are good, not like, say, any american plane) , giving full access to the plane for eventual modifications or local production. For countries attached to their sovereignty, it's not a little thing in the balance.
About the F22, not much to say, the plane seems really fantastic and will surely stay n°1 in air-to-air for a long time. But the production has ended, the maintenance costs are above the roof, and last but not least, the Air Force has less than 200 of them (which seems very very low for such a big country) . So comparing it with other planes makes absolutely no sense at all in a market situation, because F22 is simply not for sale (Japan would have preferred those over F35, even at their high price tag) .
on November 11, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply
Soloman, you are a comedian! Best laugh i've had in ages, where cam i see you live??
on November 11, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply
Good Work Collins,
Now, nobody can continue to says that Rafale is not a good bird. Rafale is combat proven since 2001.
on November 11, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply
Uh...if the Rafale is such a world beater then how come it hasn't had any export orders???
on November 11, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply
and the national hubris remark??? yeah it applies. every journal lists the F-35 as an international program not a US program but an international one. Tier 1 partners would be mighty upset to not have their contributions counted...as would the other partners.
the F-35 has equal agility to the F-16 and has the added benefit of much more advanced avionics. it has an engine that is beyond big, its huge. its fuel load internally is greater than the F-16 plus some external tanks. it can carry a useful bomb load internally along with its sensors. nothing has to pickled off to get it into fighting configuration. it has stealth. but instead of hailing it for what its intended to be, the APA fanboys continue to attempt to degrade it. i don't want what you're smoking but i do want it tested.
on November 11, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply
because american make all of possible for take this market.see morocco , they take old f-16 for one price who the USA was the looser but have the market.
The export was start now and UAE,brasil, kuwait, switzerland, libya, india can take it .
rafale have lose 3 or 4 market (not every day you can sell one plane) and US make stupid rumors of it
on November 11, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply
I see that for a change Sollie is comming up with arguments, and to my surprise quite fair arguments.
As to why the Rafale has zill export orders. There may be a multiple of reasons, and many of them have little to do with military effectiveness. Most of them center around tow arguments. First of all the Rafale is expensive if compared to ohter aircraft on the market. I refer to F-16's and F-18's and Gripens in particular. This disadvantage may not apply in relation to the JSF. Second, a lot of smaller nations feel completely dependent on the USA and will buy US products no matter what because they cannot afford to be seen as 'unloyal' (at least in their perspective. I now of at least one case where a US diplomat stated literally and publicy that (the JSF participating) airforce could forget about a priviledge role in excersises etc. if they would opt for a non US aircraft. And of course there is always the possibility that the JSF will after all be a good and not too expensive aircraft. But the fact that even the IAF balks and waits tells that everyone now prefers to wait to see if the JSF actually delivers on promises. People are not as confident as they were not soo long ago. That does BTW not mean that defectors of the JSF will opt for the Rafale. THey may very well go for updated F16 F15 and F18 aircraft if only to satisfy their dependancy on the USA. Having said that I think that especially the upgrade F16 and F15 aircraft are still (after so many years) quite good and impressive aircraft and probably good enough for most roles, especially when enough F22's are available in the battlefield to play the point of the needle.
Then there is of course the hype of a cheap aircraft that is so magically much better than everything else. Now that the JSF is not cheap anymore the export market is evaporating and the JSF HAS to be much better than its competitors to justify its costs. We will see what happens in the USA.
Equal agility compared to the F16 is not bad, but not impressive either. More advanced avionics? Maybe but I doubt if it is soo much better than what will be available on updated legacy aircraft and it may not make that big of a difference.
The engine is indeed impressive (ane of the few things I actually admire on the JSF). But it is needed to overcome bad aerodynamics limitations (as a result of Stealth choices) and to compensate for limited agility. So you burn more fuel to get the same.... congratulations.
The internal load is nice if you need only a small bomb run. If you need to move a lot of dirt you compromise stealth and have even more drag (= fuel burn). Fuel burn may very well become one of the (many?) Archillus heels of the JSF. Fuel is getting more expensive to start with and moving fuel around near battlefields is an expensive and hazardeous excersise. It pays military to be less dependent on big fuel consumption.
Stealth is nice to have but you always must take into consideration at what expense. Is it really worth that what you have to sacrifice?
Of course if the JSF performance turns out to be stellar and order of magnitudes better than anything else available till at least 2025 it is a great deal. Track record so far does not encourage me to think this will be the case and too many favourable assumptions must be made on effectiveness of complete new technology and concepts. It would not be the first time the USAF went into a fight based on wrong assumptions (see fe the F4 / Sparrow story).
on November 11, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply
I might add a little remark towards Sollies comments on the partners.
Outside the USA only the UK is tier 1 partner so it looks a bit weird to talk about multiple tier one partners. And of all 'partners' the JSF buy in the UK has been scaled back from 150 to50 (probably going to be arouind 66). And why? Statement from a UK rear admiral: because of the prohibitive costs of the aircraft.
Then we have tier 2 partners: Holland and Italy. Holland seems to be ending up with a bone or two and desperately holds on hoping the program in the end brings 'benefits' for the industry against all odss and based on fluked arguments. Italy seems to be getting a decent workshare if only they are willing to pump in even more money to support their industry. In Italy the numbers hold but in Holland the JSF numbers to buy went from 144 to 85 to 57 now. What a great development.
Tier 3 partners. Balking over costs and hoping against all odss to preserve a workshare in 6000 aircraft!!! Australia, Turkey, Norway and Denmark. Turkey and Norway seem to get a decent workshare. In Turkey somebody (I do not know if that is actually an official statement) says that instead of 100 Turkey may buy 120 aircraft. I wonder how they come up with the money. Norway and Denmark officially hold on tho intended numbers but it is public secret that these are going to be substantially less (because.... guess what..... substantially higer costs than promise). Canada scaled back to 65 JSF's, Autralia is holding the line with 100 aircraft but I am curious where they are going to find the money. An unanswered question so far. Unofficially it is heard that Australia may scale back to 50 JSF aircraft.
Israel is stalling. JSF seems to be less favourable than they initially thought and largely because of the great price without being sure if the JSF is actually delivering. On top of that there is the issue of building in their own equipment. Excactly that what gives the IAF extra punch and allows Israely industry to promote technology upgrades all over the world. A quite significant economical issue.
Non tier nations like Singapore and Finland have stated interest but as long as JSF does not deliver that is rather gratuit.
All tier nations act in terms of dependency so after all it is a US program. The international aspect is marketing rather than anything else. The only difference between say the succesfull F16 program and the JSF program is than the USA managed to make partners pay in advance. From political and economical point of view an impressive achievement, because it ties money and political dependency of its allies (many of which act rather like vazals than allies and are treated accordingly). But is says little about the eventual succes of the JSF.
Seeing that the Rafale is judged as very good (and maybe even as good as the JSF in combat effectiveness) and was developed not only on a considerable smaller budget than the JSF but also partly funded by Dassault itself makes in my eyes the Rafale program more impressive than the JSF program.
on November 11, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply
@Solomon :
You write "the F-35 has equal agility to the F-16 and has the added benefit of much more advanced avionics. "
From a strict aerodynamic perspective, that's dubious. The F16 was quite a work of art in this area, and in the latest versions has quite advanced avionics. Rafale is in the same category, which maked it a good plane for dogfight (lower speed) by itself (as opposed to typhoons or F35, designed for M1.6-M2 combats as what I understand to aerodynamic) . Avionics can't do better than aerodynamic laws.
You write also : "it has an engine that is beyond big, its huge"
Maybe, but the power to mass ratio is a big step forward in modern fighters. Again, not bad for long-range air-to-air (as stealth) but not good for a dogfight.
In conclusion, the major problem about the F35 is : it's not designed to do what it claims to do. It's not a cheap F22, it's a stealth bomber (means little payload) which can defend itself. And, one major point to this assertion seems to be that USA never intended it to be used without the F22 (international buyers know they do not have the full package : see japan trying to buy F22).
Most of what you write about F35 is speculation (as with the pure-BS price) , as opposed to the hisorical facts of the program or the aerodynamic abilities of the prototypes (evolving from year to year : all problems still aren't sold) .
So, on the market : most of the countries begin to think that the F35 is too much of a risk to take (including huge price evolving up each month or so) , for a plane that is quite not as good and capable in every field of the air as the sellers claim it is or will be anytime soon (for a bit more than 15 years now) . And if you buy it, you'll have very large technology restrictions, like for the Israelis not to be able to put their own electronics in it. And the plane, above all, is really late to come, has still many problems, some of those being not close to be solve for now (like, the large engine).
Rafale seems, by the Collins standards, much more accurate to what its seller claims it is, as confirms the history of that program. And, mostly, it allows eventually large technology transfers as well as local manufacturing (as opposed to any american planes or even the Gripen).
on November 11, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply
ha ha i can see that cheeky raf humor in mr collins article.rafale>f22/f35? ha ha ha ha ha ,i think from the comments it doesnt tranlate very well.ha ha ha
on November 11, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply
Do you have anything other than petty nationalistic assertions to offer? Didn't think so...
on November 12, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply
a couple of points...
the Israeli's have finally put the paperwork in thru the FMS to actually buy 25 F-35B's. look like the trip to Israel by LM was to push the sale...not to save it from cancellation.
the F-35 and indeed all stealth aircraft look to have aspects of a lifting body inherent in their design. the idea that increased fuel consumption is automatic might be a misnomer. it is finding the sweet aerodynamic spot that is the difficult thing here and that might be in its optimized loiter profile. surely in that mission template its at its aerodynamic optimum.
the idea that an airplane designed before the F/A-118E/F...the Rafale...is suddenly a 5th gen aircraft is beyond laughable. its an outright lie. you can stuff the avionics designed for the F-35 into all kinds of 4th gen fighters but they don't have the computing power or the growth margin to properly utilize it. the helmet mounted cuing system, EODS all was designed for the F-35 and the advancements brought forward by that design are trickling back to the 4th gen fighters. the F-35 is advancing the state of the art. even the F-22 is benefiting from systems designed for the F-35.
multinational relations. the F-35 is a multinational airplane. that's the way of the future. the Rafale and Gripen will have shorter upgrade paths because even if they win future competitions they will still be limited in their production runs. the F-35 will be in the air arms of many airforces around the world. it will have a wide and varied base of users working on upgrading the airplane.
face it people. its a winner. if you want an acrobatic airplane then their are a couple of prop jobs that do a better job than the Rafale. if you want a combat airplane, then my friend what you should get is the F-35.
on November 12, 2009 1:18 AM | Reply
a couple of points...
the Israeli's have finally put the paperwork in thru the FMS to actually buy 25 F-35B's. look like the trip to Israel by LM was to push the sale...not to save it from cancellation.
the F-35 and indeed all stealth aircraft look to have aspects of a lifting body inherent in their design. the idea that increased fuel consumption is automatic might be a misnomer. it is finding the sweet aerodynamic spot that is the difficult thing here and that might be in its optimized loiter profile. surely in that mission template its at its aerodynamic optimum.
the idea that an airplane designed before the F/A-118E/F...the Rafale...is suddenly a 5th gen aircraft is beyond laughable. its an outright lie. you can stuff the avionics designed for the F-35 into all kinds of 4th gen fighters but they don't have the computing power or the growth margin to properly utilize it. the helmet mounted cuing system, EODS all was designed for the F-35 and the advancements brought forward by that design are trickling back to the 4th gen fighters. the F-35 is advancing the state of the art. even the F-22 is benefiting from systems designed for the F-35.
multinational relations. the F-35 is a multinational airplane. that's the way of the future. the Rafale and Gripen will have shorter upgrade paths because even if they win future competitions they will still be limited in their production runs. the F-35 will be in the air arms of many airforces around the world. it will have a wide and varied base of users working on upgrading the airplane.
face it people. its a winner. if you want an acrobatic airplane then their are a couple of prop jobs that do a better job than the Rafale. if you want a combat airplane, then my friend what you should get is the F-35.
on November 12, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply
Jeb, we are talking about realities here, not (your) dreams. Need to be serious two minutes. The Rafale exists and has been in operation since 2001 in real conditions, so it has a track record, and there are quantitative and qualitative tests to prove it i.e. objective data. Grippen is not even operational yet - still a programme- and even on paper it has serious limitations compared to Rafale (this is objective data). F22 is not available etc. On paper or in theory anything can better than what you currently have around you, and in twenty years, thanks to tech progress, everyone would agree that planes will be better than existing ones. Unfortunately, we live in a real world, and at this point in time, Rafale does better than its competitors. You probably should have a look at tests made with the different planes recently.
on November 12, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply
Sollie,
For a moment I thought you were actually comming up with arguments instead of just copying marketing speak.
Seems I was too optimistic.
Maybe the Israelies will indeed buy the JSF. With the USA paying for most of their stuff they may actually not have much of a choice. We will see. I have not seen anything yet.
As for the rest of the arguments. The JSF burns fuel at prodigeous rates compared to the benchmark, the F16, period.
International program? No more than the F16 was. The rest is marketing speak. Non US partners have nothing to want, no decision power whatsoever, so talking about 'partnership' sounds 'funny', not to say 'insincere'.
And excactly why is it laughable that the Rafale is a better aircraft than the F18 or the F16 (and maybe even in the class of the JSF or better)? Please elaborate with actual arguments instead of limiting yourself to 'laughable'.
That it is clear that the JSF is a winner remains to be seen. No data available to support that view yet. Chances are that it will go the same way as the F22 (death spiral) except it is not as superior as the F22.
on November 12, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply
Stephen - does Mike Gerzanics still work for Flight?
Suggestion: as an ex-USAF test pilot, maybe USAF would trust him in the cockpit of the single seat only F-22, and F-35 when its comes along, to give us a pilot-journalist's perspective of these two jets...
Worth a try?
on November 12, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply
don't say if the rafale was designed (not developped) before the f-18 he was inferior.the prob is the US propaganda and you know it. you imagine USA in the number one everywhere but that's not true. you read US classment and test and in the first place you see only US equipment. they will be the first for sale , and will prove their superiority. you can't imagine the level of this manipulate of the USA (wikipedia,classment...).all english country follow that and know that.
See the abram's tank he was not better of other tank but american say that was the better of the better (tiger vs apache to)
on November 12, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply
Despite this little Rafale vs. F22/35 war, the most interesting information in this text are those, that are not mentioned.
Mr. Collins praised every little goody of the Rafale, but did not write anything about supercruise.
The key sentence is in my oppinion the following:
"Re-climbing to 25,000ft, the aircraft was put supersonic up to M1.2 in a shallow dive and then pulled back subsonic to M0.8 in a 4g turn with the throttle slammed closed."
It seems that a Rafale (with one supersonic fuel tank) has no supercruise performance.
on November 13, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply
dlf...
its not marketing spin. the F-16 was made initially only with the thought of the USAF in mind. it turned into a multinational airplane. the F-35 is coming out the box with international development in mind.
as far as the Israeli's and there purchasing decision. its not that simple. they are offered and turn down equipment all the time. the latest example being the V-22. they turned it down and are going to wait for the CH-53K. to dismiss their decision to buy the F-35 is to ignore some unpleasant realities for the anti-F-35 crowd.
the F-35 burns fuel at a prodigious rate? i don't think so. if you compare it to the latest block with the engine that pumps out 30,000 pounds plus of thrust...if you compare it in combat configuration....if you add all the pods needed to allow it to successfully complete its mission, then you'll find that the F-35 is in the same class but better.
the F-35 is better because it adds a dimension that the other planes lack. stealth. either the Air Force was right in moving to a stealth force or someone needs to be castrated. i'll say that they were right before i let you grab a knife.
on November 13, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply
br_dlf wrote:
"As for the 6 to 1 kill ratio for the JSF as advertised. would that have been true it would mean the JSF is about as effective as the F22. It would have meant the F22 would have been killed from the onset. USAF however vigourly fought for the F22, meaning the F35 does not perform even close. Conclusion: the claim of a 6 to 1 kill ratio against modern oponents is just bull, even the USAF does not believe that."
The F-35's estimated 6:1 loss-exchange ratio (LER) is real and is in fact a conservative estimate. As the program matures so is confidence in the F-35's capabilities. According to Lockheed the TAC BRAWLER simulations (which by the way are USAF models) are based on a Block 3 revision against an anticipated advanced threat scenario in the 2015-2020 timeframe.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
on November 13, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply
no, AFAIK the rafale doesn't have surpercruise... it wasn't considered as a needed feature at the time of its conception.
btw, it's been a long time since the fighters stopped looking for greater speeds (we have mach 2 class fighters since the '50s), but, as it became apparent, you can't run away from a missile
What I find funny is all the guys bragging about the "fabulous" F-35, which exists operationnaly only on powerpoint (not unlike saddam's weapons of mass destruction... remember Colin Powell trying to convince the whole world with a bunch of ppts?) so, when (IF) it becomes operational, we may eventually see what it really does, or does not...
All the stealth (and supercruise for that matter) stuff makes me think of the "all missiles fighters" doctrines froml the late fifties (again?). Seems taht US officials spend their time looking for some "superweapon" that would be unbeatable, just to get smacked down by the reality of the sword/shield theory which has been around for centuries: you improve one, the other gets better to beat it.. then the first one get stronger, and the other one imrpoves again...
take supercruise, for example: you go M1.6 in a stealthy plane... believing you're on top of the game.. unbeatable, un reachable... and heated air around you (friction produces heat, enough to be seen by modern IR stuff) becomes a powerful IR beacon that will guide M5 missiles right up on you... tough luck...
on November 13, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply
Solomon, the F-16 was designed as a pure dogfighter and wasn't even wanted by the USAF in the first place.. the little guys in charge (with plenty of stars on their shoulders) always wanted bigger and more powerful planes... like the F4 or the F15.
You say that the F-35 was designed as internation project from the start... er, in fact, it was designed to drain international budget, but the US do what they want with it without much conideration for their, so-called, partners.
it's the US who decided which JSF will be built, alone. It's the US that have decided to scrap the development of one of the two proposed engines (the one that UK would have partially built), alone. The source codes, key to all upgrades will be kept in the US, alone. that's not international in my book.
The only thing that was international is the cost sharing.. or at least was intended to be, and that's why mosst "partners" pull out or try to minimize the cost they have to pay for waht will be, basically, a US plane, for the US services, and of which they'll get some dowgraded version (in all aspects) which they can't even be sure will outperform today's F-16s (not to speak about more modern designs like the Rafales or Typhoons)
on November 13, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply
Solomon,
If the JSF had actually been sold headlines would be screaming victory all over. I have not seen that yet so I wonder where you get that 'inside' information that cannot be made public except by you.
I am quite sure the JSF is eventually going to make a sale to Israel regardless if the JSF is going to be excellent or weather it sucks. It would be an extreme bad advertisement for LM if of all airforces with the most stringent needs and the most combat experience of all the IAF would not opt for the JSF. So either way LM and uncle Sam will go to great lengths pushing the JSF in Israel. If LM sells it because the JSF is good, kudo's for the JSF. If it is bad uncle sam will defenitely ring the money pocket. Since a large part of the IDF budget is funded by the USA they will not have much of a choice if the USA actually pushes.
I do not think the JSF is going to be a bad aircraft. Neither do I believe it is going to be stellar. The fact that 'Brawler' says it is good does not convince me. I know a thad too much about modelling that I accept the outcome of a simulation without knowing how the parameters were weighted (and those details are secret are they not?). Small differences in the kill chain assumptions can make a huge difference in the outcome.
The issue in Israel focuses on a few matters that are quite important. Who pays for the (costly) certification of Isreals home bred weapons on the JSF. Does Israel actually gets acces to source code so that they can integrate their own equipment? The last is not a small issue because in the past Israel could capitalise on its electronic expertise to market fighter upgrades all over the world. Being denied this acces brings this lucrative market for Israel to a standstill. Since this is a big economical issue the Israelies will not walk lightly over this. So I expect the Israelies to drag if only to get a better negotiation position.
Price still remains an issue even when uncle Sam pays (part of) the bill. Despite the fact that in Israel defense budgets are more lavish than anywhere in the world they too have constrains. And Israel needs much more than just the fighters and many of these needs are currently more urgent and competing for a slice of the budget (as in many other countries). All falls or stands with the question if LM is able to keep cost growth down. Since there is 'no plan B' as foolishly admitted by Gates I would not count on LM to suddenly be more cost effective. A monopolist does not have a true incentive to keep costs down (provided they actually can do that).
on November 15, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply
He guys, please be more pragmatic as North American are supposed to be!!!
I’m French and from my side I’m considering the Rafale as a very well design fighter (more pleasant that the Typhoon as example), with most probably interesting capabilities, but I cannot compare with other fighters as I’m not a specialist…
I’m not a pilot and it seems that most of you neither. I’m pleasantly surprised by Collin’s article and I prefer to trust professionals (Collin and US pilots form Luke AFB) rather than salomon and colleagues, which are mixing too much sensitivity in their pseudo-analysis…
Finally, the Rafale seems a pretty good plane… I would imagine that if the comment on this French plane is made by English’s pilot (i.e. Mr Collin) it’s even most powerful… and fortunately, the US pilots (Luke AFB) are pragmatics!!!
on November 15, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply
He guys, please be more pragmatic as North American are supposed to be!!!
I’m French and from my side I’m considering the Rafale as a very well design fighter (more pleasant that the Typhoon as example), with most probably interesting capabilities, but I cannot compare with other fighters as I’m not a specialist…
I’m not a pilot and it seems that most of you neither. I’m pleasantly surprised by Collin’s article and I prefer to trust professionals (Collin and US pilots form Luke AFB) rather than salomon and colleagues, which are mixing too much sensitivity in their pseudo-analysis…
Finally, the Rafale seems a pretty good plane… I would imagine that if the comment on this French plane is made by English’s pilot (i.e. Mr Collin) it’s even most powerful… and fortunately, the US pilots (Luke AFB) are pragmatics!!!
on November 16, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply
If you want real facts about the Rafale look up what the French were doing at Red flag when they could have shown what there precious Rafale could do they were sniffing around to see what technology everyone ellse had. Even the indians brought there new SU 30 MKI and showed what they could do, wich the F 22 proved its performance was huge leap beter.
____________________________________________________________
Subject: F-22 Dominates at Red Flag
Phaid 2/24/2007 9:13:33 AM
Some interesting quotes from the wrap-up
"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."
""We [even] tried to overload them with numbers and failed," said Colonel Bruce. "It's humbling to fly against the F-22." This is a remarkable testimony because the Red Flag aggressor pilots are renowned for their skill and experience. Lt. Col. Dirk Smith, 94th Fighter Squadron commander, said the aggressor forces represent the most lethal threat friendly forces would ever face."
h**p://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041725
______________________________________________________
"My F-16 is still a formidable weapons system in its own right. But it is not even in the same league as an F-22," Brenton says. "Technology keeps the F-22 a virtually undetectable and untouchable regime. It is fair to say that unless an F-22 driver makes a mistake, or has a critical system failure, I will always lose a fight against him. That is a good thing. As a nation, we want it this way. We also want him to be able to handle two, six or eight of us completely on his own."
on November 16, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply
actually, the agressors are there to imitate certain tactics and systems, not to do their best to win, so, saying that if F-22 beat them it's beacause they could not do anything while trying their best isn't correct...
their job is, to loose the confrontations, since they teach the participants to beat the tactics they may encounter against air forces that are considered potentially as hostiles (russian equipped, basically).
as for "rafales only sniffing around", seems to me that they wouldn't have been flying a lot if that was the case... maybe the pilot didn't want to praise that much rafales ECM suite as they did for the F-22s? or maybe they were just a bit angry the french didn't need to show everything they've got (so the US sniffing planes didn't get enought data)?
basically, bashing the other side is quite common... it's easier than trying to be better by own qualities... (just look at all comments about collins: "he's been out of the game for too long to be competent" is the most often comment you hear from guys praising other types of aircraft). When the rafale made a few exercises against USN, it came out victorious, in basically all "export competitions", it bettered the opposition, just to be smacked down by decision makers (politicians).
That's also why the positive comments on behalf of a UK test pilot are so unique... UK has its "own" fighter to sell, and usually, you don't read much good on the french from UK side (a bit like you don't read much good on UK from the french side either)...
on November 16, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply
David,
No question that the F22 rules the sky and is better than anything else for some time to come, possibly even the next generation Russian and Chinese aircraft. This may be less relevant now since the F22 production line is about to close while having produced possibly quite insufficient numbers of aircraft for military needs.
But when it comes to the JSF we look to an aircraft that does not have a number of features that do give the F22 an overwhelming advantage (all aspect Stealth, supercruise, very high operation ceiling, extreme high agility). And in fairness the Rafale should be compared to the JSF rather than the F22.
What the F35 is going to be is still a guess but there are real concerns. Below an excerpt from an article that summarises on the concerns that surround the JSF hype.
As for the statement that the JSF was originaly intended to be similar in a2a capabilities. Maybe that is not true anymore (I could accept that because somehow this hyped Cost As Independednt Variable has been abandonned long time ago helping to let the JSF price skyrocket) but I can recall an AW article in the farther past (around 2002) stating just that.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/
The F-35’s explicit design goal has been stated as being the F-16’s equal in in air to air combat, at a time when the F-16’s future ability to survive in that arena is questioned. The question naturally arises: what special features give the F-35 a unique ability to prevail against the kind of advanced, upgraded 4.5 generation and better fighters that it can be expected to face between its induction, and a likely out of service date around 2050 or later?
Classified simulations whose assumptions are shielded from the public may indeed demonstrate the attested results, but their foundations are outside any public scrutiny, and amount to a claim that must be taken on faith. That may not be very convincing in the political sphere. Especially since models of this type have been very wrong before, due to the well-known phenomenon of incorrect or missing assumptions producing results that don’t match the test of battle.
on November 20, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply
THE F35 DOESNT EXIST..........................
SO WHY YOU WANNA COMPARE IT TO THE RAFALE............
THE RAFALE IS THE BEST LIVING AIRCRAFT OF THE WORLD, LIVING........
IF YOU WANNA COMPARE A F35 TO ANOTHER PLAIN, YOU SHOULD COMPARE IT TO NEW AIRCRAFTS THAT FRENCH OR OTHERS NATIONS WILL MAKE IN THE FUTUR........
Im french and not proud of being french! but i just see british and american are racist about us or jealous, and i can see it in your commentaries about or rafale!!!!!! you can say all what you want, but if europe is attaqued, you will be glad of having french rafale to defend you......