Rafale beats F-35 & F-22 in Flight International

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.

Think twice; might this story be related to the "only half as many F-35 for the new carriers" problem?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, but what else has he flown to provide a valid comparison against? He doesn't say...

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.

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...

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".

Be fair play guys!
Collins is not a sunday pilot.

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

"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).

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.

"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

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Well if the F22 and F35 where so impressive and above rafale and typhon why then speaking so much about that...

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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 ...........

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...

French navy experience : Rafale F1 vs F18-E/F after 4 min F18 is dead.

it is simple

"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.

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.'

Rafale it's surely the better compromise between hight capability and price/Implementation.

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.

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.

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.

Who have nationalistic hubris M.Solomon ?
Peter Collins ?
The Luke Air Force Base' pilots ?
Or you ?
Veritas odium parit

"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.

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.

"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.

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 !

"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) .

Soloman, you are a comedian! Best laugh i've had in ages, where cam i see you live??

Good Work Collins,

Now, nobody can continue to says that Rafale is not a good bird. Rafale is combat proven since 2001.

Uh...if the Rafale is such a world beater then how come it hasn't had any export orders???

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.

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).

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.

@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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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.

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.

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

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).

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!!!

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!!!

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."

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.

"If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale,"!
The real issue is that to say that before to say that it would be better to have tested at least some comparable aircraft and that is not the case, as the "test pilot" has flown for Flight mostly civil business jets/trainers(5 articles written), and 4 military trainers, Aermacchi M311 & M346, KAI T-50 and Pilatus PC-21.

If the Rafale is the first Combat jet he has flown since the Harrier in '92 it is too simple to say that this is the best aircraft around.
And if you read the article, please note that the Rafale descripted in the first part of the story is not what he flew and tested, but a much simpler version.
And between me and you, 350 kt, full AB at =35 deg is not that impressive - at that angle the Eurofighter Typhoon will go Supersonic. Buffet at 4.5 g and dry power sustained 5g at 350 kts needing 10 deg nose down is equally less than startling. Test pilots could do as well in an F-15 20 years ago. The acceleration is approximately 10 sec to do 200-500. Good but so it should be for a twin engine fighter at that weight and altitude. Roll rates were clearly at 1 g - a better evaluation would have been at elevated g or AoA as a combat capability - noticeably missing in his test. Low speed and auto-recovery - fine. At 25 kft he went supersonic in a shallow dive - he does not say what power he used - if it used the after-burner, this is not great SEP.
1 hr 25 with 5.3 t of fuel ( needing a centre line tank) and 500 kg landing with the profile described says the ac is not that different from the competition.
The evaluation was rather cursory and the ending superlatives are more journalistic than real conclusions and recommendations. If he would risk his life in any combat situation based on the evidence of what he actually saw ......

"If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale,"!
The real issue is that to say that before to say that it would be better to have tested at least some comparable aircraft and that is not the case, as the "test pilot" has flown for Flight mostly civil business jets/trainers(5 articles written), and 4 military trainers, Aermacchi M311 & M346, KAI T-50 and Pilatus PC-21.

If the Rafale is the first Combat jet he has flown since the Harrier in '92 it is too simple to say that this is the best aircraft around.
And if you read the article, please note that the Rafale descripted in the first part of the story is not what he flew and tested, but a much simpler version.
And between me and you, 350 kt, full AB at =35 deg is not that impressive - at that angle the Eurofighter Typhoon will go Supersonic. Buffet at 4.5 g and dry power sustained 5g at 350 kts needing 10 deg nose down is equally less than startling. Test pilots could do as well in an F-15 20 years ago. The acceleration is approximately 10 sec to do 200-500. Good but so it should be for a twin engine fighter at that weight and altitude. Roll rates were clearly at 1 g - a better evaluation would have been at elevated g or AoA as a combat capability - noticeably missing in his test. Low speed and auto-recovery - fine. At 25 kft he went supersonic in a shallow dive - he does not say what power he used - if it used the after-burner, this is not great SEP.
1 hr 25 with 5.3 t of fuel ( needing a centre line tank) and 500 kg landing with the profile described says the ac is not that different from the competition.
The evaluation was rather cursory and the ending superlatives are more journalistic than real conclusions and recommendations. If he would risk his life in any combat situation based on the evidence of what he actually saw ......

Well Marcus,

If you show yourself to be proficient in aircraft performance paramenters and how to incorporate them into the actual aircraft performance you may want to consider that the EF was from the onset primarily an air defence optimised aircraft as where the Rafale was a multi role aircraft with emphasis on dirt moving and additionally carrier capable. Hence the EF has larger engines, larger wing area, larger basic weight (and is thus more expensive).

Interestingly so the Rafale has a larger max take of weight according to official specs and can carry a larger combat lay out: somewhat more than 9tons against the EF about 8 something tons. This implies a larger wing loading at representative lay-out. For a similar optimised wing it means that the buffet onset starts earlier indeed. But hey.... you carry more load as well. Drop the excess weight and you should have a similar performance.

And I wonder if the EF (which I do expect to perform better in the A2A role than the Rafale) can do the 350kts~35deg with external fuel store and bomb load out. THe Rafale was armed with two a2a missiles and 4 AASM's and was carrying an external fuel store.

It is also unlikely that without additional training Peter Collins would go to the edge of the flight envelope at his very first flight in the type.

So it seems to me you are comparing apples with pears.

Before to make comment like the one published it would be better to have tried a range of new generation fighters, not only the Rafale.

If I drive a Porsche as first fast car I would have the same sensation, but there are also Lamborghini and....Ferarri on the market.

If you have flown only military trainers: Aermacchi M311 & M346, KAI T-50 and Pilatus PC-21, I understand that you will be so excited in flying a Rafale.

Reading the article, it is important to note what is an actual part of the evaluation and what is 'background'

The Intro is basic history of the ac development and if appropriate In-service history. No issues on this section. ( note though the 2 year SW upgrade cycle!)

The part titled Superb Performance & Cockpit Image. is classically a detailed aircraft description. It is always based on the published information - either manufacturer's brochure for a new ac or the Aircraft manual for an in-service ac.

Just remember this IS NOT WHAT HE FLEW & TESTED! Superb, any mission, Fully operational deployments proven net centric, vast array of data, massive C of G range etc, etc. Where he says ' the pilot can .....' does mean he proved it or tried it. We can all write this stuff and do!

Test Flight. Air-to-Air: Comparisons with the Mirage 2000 are probably quite dated. 350 kt, full AB at =35 deg is not that impressive - at that angle a Typhoon, for example, will go Supersonic. Note that he was initially only allowed to fly A/S FCS laws! Buffet at 4.5 g and dry power sustained 5g at 350 kts needing 10 deg nose down is equally less than startling - It we possible to do as well in an F-15. The acceleration is approximately 10 sec to do 200-500. Good but so it should be for a twin engine fighter at that weight and altitude. Roll rates were clearly at 1 g - a better evaluation would have been at elevated g or AoA as a combat capability - noticeably missing in his test. Low speed and auto-recovery - fine. At 25 kft he went SS in a shallow dive - he does not say what power he used - if it was AB, this is not great SEP. Then follows some close formation from an intercept. Very sketchy info, no comments on radar handling or what range the TV was used. He treats pitch sensitivity as an indication of how agile the ac is - bad TP analysis. The assessment of the AAR laws was cursory. Tail chase comments are similarly lacking - he could be comparing this to a Hawk and not another advanced ac.

Air-to-Surface: His LL AP tests was using the GPWS as an input - he clearly did not see or use the radar for Terrain Avoidance or Terrain Following (mind you we could not even show him any TF). Note the Safety pilot did all the radar work using Single target track. The cuing of the TV by the RWR was a good trick if that is accurate data! the rest of the run is a pretty standard A/S attack run. I assume that all of the A/S run was in AP - what does that say about any Handling Qualities?

Circuit and landing. Two approaches in Auto-throttle mode say little and he makes no mention at all of flight path stability and ability to rapidly correct a poor line up from decision height - both essential TP tests for approaches. ! hr 25 with 5.3 t of fuel ( needing a centre line tank) and 500 kg landing with the profile described says the ac is not that different from the competition.

He is right in saying that he' only scratched the surface of the sensor and weapon capabilities'. That explains his claim to be 'fully at home in the ac retaining full situational awareness'

The evaluation was rather cursory and the ending superlatives are more journalistic than real conclusions and recommendations.
If he would risk his life in any combat situation based on the evidence of what he actually saw it would be....risky!

It's probably true. While I hate to admit it, what we once were we are no longer. Japan is about to produce a jet as we are incapable of producing one for export. The F-35 is as much if not more a British Engineered plane with us acting as the 'colony' picking up the tab. So much of our engineering a manufacturing base has been exported with high tech components assembled from 'Chinese' chips, while we still think we are number one, we don't stop to think that our corporate culture has exported and outsourced so much of our core ability that we lack the ability to build a good ANYTHING anymore. At best we assemble parts made and engineered overseas. Boeing is more Chinese than American anymore We are the new 4th world economy, a step behind the developing world as they have our jobs and industries, all we have are inept corporate leadership and paved roads that like our industries are also going to pot.
Got to hand it to the French they have been looking out for the French, to bad our CEO's geeks and fat cats don't do that here. But then if they did we would not be in the mess we are in would we? Heck we still think the world is flat, go figure.

http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/ricardo.ricjam/35559/

http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/ricardo.ricjam/18707/

http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/ricardo.ricjam/

http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/ricardo.ricjam/35559/

http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/ricardo.ricjam/18707/

http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/ricardo.ricjam/

@Mcfly

After reading the blog you mentioned (yes I also do speak and read french) I come to the conclusion that the Rafale was up to a2a engagements in the visual range only. There is clearly no statement about the BVR regime. That sounds logical because by all reports the F22 first strength is BVR. I have no reason to assume that the french pilot report was 'inaccurate' but the report is at odds with the statement that the F22 is so massively superior. It is clear that the Rafale never got a shot at the F22. But it is also clear that once its presence is known the F22 has a hard time catching the Rafale. This by itself is extremely worrying. It means that if for some reason the BVR engagement is less than 100% succesfull for whatever reason the F22 cannot be ensured of massive superiority anymore. All fine that nobody shoots down the F22, but if the F22 has such a hard time catching even a Rafale (which apparently is considerably better than people portray it) the F22 may have a hard time stopping a numerical superior force penetrating a defended space (tankers? AWACS? anyone?). Since the F35 does not have some important features that the F22 has (ceiling, supercruise, persistence and very high agility) this may be more so true for the F35 with the addition that the F35 may end up more often in the Rafales (Sukhois?) HUD's than desirable. Proof of the pudding is in the eating and we will only know after real life fly off a2a excersises but the report should be a major worry for the western alliance which is banking so heavily on some futuristic unproven (and quite debatable) assumptions of the F35 operational concept. And we may very well find out only after all the money is spend, leaving us empty handed if we made the wrong choice.

"Collins' report is timely because the Rafale appears to be nearing the end of a two-decade-old search for an export customer." LOL 20 years an still no buyers.

What actual air-to-air combat experience does Collins have? never heard of him. He's a Europeon and seems to be biased. Lets see what the "Euro fighter' can do in actual combat.Not impressed at all by someone with no actual combat experience

The F-35 was never intended to be an air superiority fighter. It was designed as a complement to the 750 F-22 the USAF was supposed to get, a very capable SEAD strike aircraft with a secondary role as a missile truck relying on the sensor feeds of AWACS and F-22's.

The all-aspect stealth and high agitlity of the F-22 could therefore be dispensed with to reduce costs and get the numbers even the USAF couldn't afford with the F-22 only because of its price tag.

In the original concept, allied NATO or almost-NATO countries like Australia would use their F-35's in coordination with USAF F-22's and slaughter the opposing force - presumably, at the time, a resurrected Soviet Union or China.

But the bottom line is the F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter. A good comparison would be an F-105 on steroids with frontal stealth thrown in - important, but far from being the defining characteristic of AtA combat.

So IMHO, its kill ratio - as announced by LM - against modern aircraft designed with AtA as a defining factor, like the Typhoon, Rafale or Su-27-35 is wildly optimistic.

The fact that the Israelis, who actually expect to go up against opponents equipped with those aircraft at any time, are dragging their heels is telling.

@ Vincent,

I am not sure what you intend to tell me. I am not pleased at all and extremely worried about the quite possible outcome; 'the JSF being a mediocre aircraft (no true 5th generation capabilities compared to likely oponents) while having having a 5th generation (and prohibitive) price tag. Adding to it that we are spending enormeous amounts of money before we actually know what we buy, to the point we are out of options if things turn out to be worse than we thought and eroding our military options.

The jury is still out but signs so far are not encouraging. Earlier on people said '2008 is going to be a decisive year for the JSF, then it was 2009, now it is 2010. All the time the good news is postponed. Yep, the JSF managed to land international sales. A whole of 3 (possibly 4) aircraft to the UK and the Netherlands. These countries will not opt out. But their buying numbers (under current prices) will be less than currently on the books (about half or less). I would consider this like being very dark clouds over the program.

And to the sideline there is the embarrasing situation of an actual performing aircraft (Rafale) and a lot of people seeing fit to bash Rafale and Gripen because they are unwilling to face the possibility that these aircraft may actually as good or better than the JSF (while most likely to be cheaper) and cannot stand the idea that anyone could be as good as the glorious USA.

Maybe the JSF is going to be a succes after all. But why is it so bad if it turns out the Rafale (or Gripen) are also very good aircraft?

Rafale is the best. It has the best avionics, full situational awareness. Red Flag results says for Rafale.

Si il y a un pays au monde qui sait fabriquer des avions de combat, c'est bien la france ! L'angleterre fait de l'assemblage d'avions avec ses partenaires européens tandis que Dassault fabrique des avions de A à Z depuis fort longtemps ...Le rafale est un exemple qui, je sais, gêne beaucoup Bae system avec tout le dénigrement contre le rafale depuis 15 ans et fait peur aux américains qui eux, savent mieux que quiconque, que le rafale est un danger pour la "pseudo" suprématie aérienne Us dans le monde sur un plan opérationnel...
La RAF à terriblement perdu en crédibilité opérationnelle ces dernieres années et possêde des appreils comme le tornado qui n'est qu'un fer à repasser et le typhoon, vanté pour être le meilleur en air-air et que se prend 7 gifles d'affilées face au rafale et dans sa soi-disante spécialité ! Je comprends le malaise et le silence anglo-saxon en ce moment mais en même temps, ils ne récoltent que ce qu'ils ont semés à savoir, perdre du temps à dénigrer constamment le rafale !
Le résultat est donc très mauvais pour le typhoon et pour le F22, face au client émirien et cela ne me surprends pas car à un moment donné, la désinformation ne suffit plus !

Pour le brésil, les USA essaye de faire acheter au pays le grippen NG pour empêcher, coûte que coûte, le rafale de se vendre ! Le problême, c'est que le grippen NG n'existe pas encore et ça nous fait beaucoup rire en france car comme il n'existe pas, les américains pensent que les brésiliens se rabattrerons sur le F18 !

Tout le monde se gargarise avec le F22 alors qu'il n'a jamais rien prouvé au combat et qu'il n'est même pas sur un théâtre d'opération, ni le typhoon d'ailleurs, ce qui n'est pas le cas du rafale qui se bat en afghanistan...De toute façon, le F22, il faut oublier donc que restera t-il aux américains ? Des F35 pas encore opérationnels et des vieux F15, F16 et F18.....
Y'a un moment donné ou il faut voir la réalité en face et cesser les attaques pathétiques et sans fondement contre le rafale...

Comptez sur la france pour sortir les crocs dans cette affaire et faire évoluer le rafale bien plus vite que la concurrence car elle, elle ne perd pas son temps à dénigrer le typhoon ou le F22, elle bosse sur ces avions pour mettre tout le monde d'accord face aux clients ...

Hello from france.

ok mais jusqu'à preuve du contraire, on à encore le droit de parler français sur cette planête et je suis sûr que certains anglais font l'effort de parler français, n'est-ce pas ?

France is not competitive because of his bad English ?... it's a joke ? But it is not a problem because without a good english language, she is in better state than the British industry which she speaks about the angalis every day... A little seriousness please !

The day or you will make combat aircraft from A to Z it is not for tomorrow and the typhoon is an example... Except for the finance, you do not have industry anymore in England without speaking about its care hospital worker which are a disaster so much that you come in france for make you look !

So I hope that my English is understandable by your readers and you will note that French make efforts to speak english but how much of Anglo-Saxon make the effort to speak French? Not many...

Fortunately Rafale messes it, English or American, he puts you slaps...

Go are good losers for once !

Hello from france.

(and thanks for your answer in french, so, it's not very clear and i think you say that france is competitive since she's make effort to speak english with partners, that's right ? )

the main characteristic of f-22 and dof-35 stealth is its characteristic, usaf bets in these characteristics for its aerial superiority, these is not faster, does not carry more armaments and nor possesss greater autonomy, is only stealth, already rafale possesss wing in delta, what of the biggest maneuverability, takes of 16 missiles and bombs more or, f-22 possesss an advanced radar very even so and f-35 also possesss it, and more agile for the white defense and ataquede.

peter collins must not be real familar with f-22,RECENTLY f-22 wins rafale in exercises in dubai as reported by FRENCH NEWS ARTICLE and FRENCH PILOTS.