Dassault Rafale vs F-35

Situational awareness:

Rafale’s primary air-to-air sensor is OSF optical sensor suite on top of the nose, and has 80/130 km detection range against subsonic targets. It consists of IRST sensor with 40 km identification range and video camera with 45-50 km identification range. In addition, it has RBE-2 radar, two fisheye IR MAWS sensors and 4 RWR sensors. MAWS and RWR sensors provide spherical coverage, and can be used to generate firing solution. It has framed canopy providing 360* horizontal and 197,7* vertical visibility, including 16* over the nose, 1,7* over the tail and 27* over the sides, with a maximum of 54* over the side visibility. RBE-2 has 120* angular coverage while RBE-2AA (AESA) has 140* angular coverage.

F-35 has a single IRST sensor (EOTS) under the nose, with 160 km detection range against low-flying targets in afterburner. It is a staring midwave (or dual-band) sensor covering low frontal sector. Additionally, its IR missile warning system (DAS) can (?) be used as IRST. This system provides spherical coverage, with a caveat that it is short-ranged when compared to full-blown IRST systems. It also has radar and RWR sensors. It has a sunk, framed canopy providing 340* horizontal and 188,5* vertical visibility, including 16* over the nose, -7,5* over the tail and 26* over the sides, with a maximum of 40* over the side visibility.

2/?

Overall, both aircraft have similar raw situational awareness. Rafale has the advantage of having air-to-air optimized IRST and 360* cockpit visibility, while F-35 may have spherical coverage with DAS providing optical feed to the pilot, assuming that helmet issues are solved. However, pilots still prefer not to use the helmet, as that way they can see with far more clarity and depth perception than what helmet allows. F-35s EOTS may be capable of detecting aircraft at 160 km from the rear, compared to 130 km detection range of OSF, but since aircraft detected was low-flying F-16 in afterburner, it is hard to estimate wether it will be able to detect aircraft from that distance at higher altitudes if it does not engage afterburner; answer is most likely no. Its radar is also optimized for air-to-ground work.

However, data presentation is just as important as data collection when it comes to situational awareness. Rafale’s Human-Machine Interface is similar in concept to Gripen’s, being minimalistic so as to avoid potentially lethal data overload. On the other hand, F-35 presents huge quantity of information, typically in numerical form, which can easily overload the pilot. End result is that Rafale has significant advantage in situational awareness over the F-35.

3/?

Conclusion

Rafale is significantly superior to F-35 in air-to-air combat (both WVR and BVR), which is logical as it was designed primarily for air-to-air missions. In air-to-ground combat, either can be a better choice, depending on mission requirements.

>>31918217
Knew I'd heard these shitty arguments before:

https://defenseissues.net/2015/09/11/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35/

>>31918272

Explain what is wrong or point me to a source that disproves it.

>>31918217
>>31918210
>>31918201
>>31918196
This is youtube comment section levels of ignorance.

>>31918310
>badly needing factchecking
>cherrypicked stats
>apples to oranges comparisons
>asserting opinions as fact

I'd like to see some citations for these assertions. This one seems particularly weird.

>However, data presentation is just as important as data collection when it comes to situational awareness. Rafale’s Human-Machine Interface is similar in concept to Gripen’s, being minimalistic so as to avoid potentially lethal data overload. On the other hand, F-35 presents huge quantity of information, typically in numerical form, which can easily overload the pilot. End result is that Rafale has significant advantage in situational awareness over the F-35.

Ridiculous amounts of development has gone into the F-35 HMD and OODA loop optimisation by tackling big challenges such as sensor fusion. Trying to claim this is a down side seems like desperately grasping at straws for the Rafale.

>>31918196
Une demi-baguette et deux tranches de camembert ont été déposées sur votre compte bancaire.

>>31918310
I'm about to hit the hay, so I'm going to make this quick, but:

1. The 130km and 160km IRST / EOTS, etc data comes from nowhere.
2. The visibility specifications aren't particularly relevant, especially when a lot of it depends on the pilot's physiology.
3. The argument leaves out the fact that the F-35's AESA has roughly twice the T/R modules, meaning significantly greater range. The APG-81 is also certainly not any less optimised for air-to-air than the RBE-2.
4. It ignores the F-35's stealth and that impact on situational awareness.
5. It doesn't consider how IRSTs (not DAS / MAWS, but the nose-mounted kind), have poor search speeds and without proper multi-ship sensor fusion, can't be used for BVR engagements (at least not without a radar return for range).
6. The "Rafale's Human-Machine Interface" is being claimed as superior without evidence; in the contrary, the Rafale uses multiple displays.
7. The F-35 has superior sensor fusion; the Rafale supposedly uses sensor fusion in the sense that it'll display data from one sensor or another, not try to amalgamate or interpolate a more accurate answer out of multiple sensors.
8. The Rafale's MAWS is two sensors with fisheye lenses. The F-35's DAS is 6 sensors with shorter fields of view, meaning greater resolution and usefulness as a targeting and situational-awareness system.
9. Does the Rafale have a BVRAAM yet?

File: Gt_mfw_there_was_a_thread_saying_quot_trips_decides_which_celebrity__019aaeb8df4b7c075b535019d4593bbf.jpg (87KB, 409x393px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 409x393px

>>31918365

File: 5188144+_5b441ea31bf4664f76a1f51420d65c6a.jpg (22KB, 512x342px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 512x342px

>>31918383
>9. Does the Rafale have a BVRAAM yet?

>>31918196
Rafalefags get sadder every year because there's no point to it's existence.

If you want a dominant air superiority fighter (with some actually good A2G capability, and more coming every year) you can buy the Typhoon. If you're a smaller nation looking to just police your air space with some decent capabilities on the side you can buy the Gripen or F-16. If you want to be a real part of NATO and have an interoperable multi-role fighter there's the F-35. If you just want people to think you have a big dick you can buy the F-15. And you can get all of this without having to buy overpriced French munitions.

File: 1450043586979.png (456KB, 804x876px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 804x876px

>>31918365

>>31918647
carriers

>>31919419
>F-35C for real carriers
>F-35B for fake carriers with ramps

>>31918647

The amusing thing is, even if you do buy Rafale you have to buy overpriced French munitions which are even more expensive because the actual bomb portion has to also be bought from America anyway, because France has no bomb makers any more.

>>31919894
The AASM was hilariously expensive even before SAMP shut down, but I can't imagine it helped.

>>31918310
Here's what's wrong with the entire article:
[Citation needed]

Don't believe every random blog post you read

>>31919983

Rafalefags literally live and die by random blogs. One of them once claimed from a "Dassault" source that Rafale won every single competition it's ever been in and that it owned in every single DACT exercise with other aircraft so now they all tout it constantly and constantly ignore the proof otherwise to just try it on the next person.

Same as how they keep posting those jpegs of other munitions as "proof" of weapons integration being more than it is.

File: FA18E Super Hornet refuel.jpg (540KB, 2100x1474px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 2100x1474px

>>31918647
Don't forget me.

I'm not gonna lie, specifications and costs aside, Rafale is sexy as fuck.

>>31920082
It does fill basically the exact same role as the Rafale, but it's export prospects are very limited...so it really is the exact same as the Rafale.

Though technically there are more export Super Hornets flying right now then there are Rafales.

>>31920121
*more export Super Hornets flying right now then there are export Rafales

My bad

File: ob_3c2ef8_rafale-us-navy.jpg (100KB, 1407x603px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1407x603px

What's with fucking BVRAAM memes?

Like it's the only single argument I see in here against the Rafale.

Meteor missiles are finished and only a few months to mass produce it.
It would be a better missile than the Aim-120D.


Pic related could've happened my Burger friends, but you went for the retarded option of a 1.5 trillion dollars aircraft

>>31920175
>USAF
>relying on foreign planes

>>31920175

Because Rafale and BVR is a meme.

It currently lacks one entirely, will only have one option in future, and the Meteor its getting is a gimped version worse than both the real full blown Meteor and the AIM-120D as it completely lacks a two-way datalink, and hasn't announced the AESA seeker that the full blown Meteor for UK and Japan is getting.

Not to mention its got the smallest AESA out of all the ones flying or planned (Even Gripen and F-16's are larger), only has a static AESA face, it has a pretty meh supercruise launch capability and its IRST while better than Russian ones, is shorter ranged with lower resolution than other EU or US ones. No to mention its flight ceiling is generally low, not good for BVR altitude advantages.

It also has steel facing engine intakes, no canard management system and no tilted radar capability or comparible low detection datalink (such as F-35), which makes it much easier to spot from the front.

It absolutely was not designed for BVR, and it shows in every single way.

File: drj3FO5.png (893KB, 1200x849px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 1200x849px

>>31920228
Oh don't be arrogant, we kno u want it

>Has beaten every single other 4th gen aircrafts in competitions

>Has locked on an F-22

>Has the superior French avionics and technology

>>31920259
Nice memes, you found them in an Ace combat DLC?

File: t2362626262.gif (1MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x150px

>yfw even the Gripen will be a better aircraft than the Rafale in a few years

>>31920294

>Has beaten every single other 4th gen aircrafts in competitions

Yeah, no.

Also despite that bullshit claim everyone trots out it's still the lowest selling 4.5th gen around.

>Has locked on an F-22

Luneberg lens, Frog.

>Has the superior French avionics and technology

>Smallest AESA with least t/r modules
>average tier IRST res and range
>Only single-way datalink
>No HMD connection

>>31920310

Kindly show me a link where a Rafale customer has officially signed a development contract for a two-way datalink, AIM-120D integration, Meteor AESA seeker, larger AESA, traversable AESA, enhanced engines for proper supercruise launch capability, high res IRST, composite engine intakes or access to the inaccessable low detection Link 16 from F-35 then.

>>31920294
>superior French technology

Reminder that French military tech is so bad, their aircraft carrier has to be refueled every 7 years, meaning for the next 2 years they won't have any carrier capability available at all. Literally a non-country.

>>31918196
Why does no one faun over the typhoon like this?

>>31920421
Because most nations that operate the Typhoon have other aircraft to make up for it's perceived shortcomings (the Tornado for A2G for instance). So it doesn't matter as much to them.

All France has is the Rafale so they get extremely salty if anyone points out it's flaws.

>>31920449
>typhoon A2G
>literally held up by Germany to the point Britain and Italy are doing the module themselves

Can't wait for dem Brimstone missile volleys.

File: Dutch cost study.jpg (41KB, 960x658px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 960x658px

>>31920315
Yeah, that would never happen, Sven.

>>31920346
>it's still the lowest selling 4.5th gen around
Alright, so more sellings means it's good right?
Your opinion just went to the trash.
It's 150 million $ per unit, fully armed.
Because it deserves it and french ministry don't really give a fuck about exporting it.
>Luneberg lens, Frog.
I cringed so hard, dude stop

>>31920381
>French military tech is so bad
You do realize that Russia uses French tech and optics in its Tanks and Flankers...

Let's see some facts :
>Tested by Swiss army :
Best aircraft
>Tested by Indian army :
Best aircraft
>Tested by US pilots :
Loved it so fucking much

You guys are just butthurted that we have an aircraft that can beat every US plane

>>31920421

As a huge fan of the Typhoon, it can happen. Some people do exaggerate, but just not as often as Rafale, because most Typhoon "supporters" are also big on the F-35 because their countries are getting both, so they tend to be pretty knowledge able about the strengths and limitations of both types, and in how they work together.

So you see less "BEST EVER" Typhoon posting because they are inherantly more varied of interest. Also because there's a quiet confidence on account of the Typhoon having already proven itself. It's gotten the future growth funded, it's the highest selling 4.5th gen around. It doesn't need trumpeted, it's already done its task.

Rafalefags however are RAFALE OR NOTHING levels because France has no other plane project right now and they are very much the underdog, being the lowest selling 4.5th.

File: fond2.jpg (242KB, 1000x1396px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1000x1396px

>>31920449
Feels good...

File: dassault-rafale-650-cockpit_650x400_71452768286.jpg (45KB, 650x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 650x400px

>TFW you will never lock on an F-22 while chilling in this comphy cockpit

Why live?

>>31920121
>>31920138
It is a good middle ground between the F16 and F15 in terms of load and performance. It's small and light like the F16 with similar kinematics, but can carry a larger payload than the F16. Also IIRC it has a larger combat radius than the F16 with or without drop tanks on it.

>>31919996
Rafalefags are a strange breed.

>>31920479

>It's 150 million $ per unit, fully armed.

So more expensive than an F-35 and therefore a pointless purchase. Good job crippling your own arguement.

>I cringed so hard, dude stop

You seriously don't know what a luneberg lens is?

>You do realize that Russia uses French tech and optics in its Tanks and Flankers...

"Russia uses it" is hardly a sign of quality. Flankers are shit tier, and tanks have nothing to do with planes. Austria makes some good rifles, doesn't mean I'd buy a plane from them.

>tested by X Y Z

The Swiss tests are outdated as fuck, and were competing against a base level old Gripen and a monkey model Typhoon trainer, while the Rafale was pretty much at the level they are today. Since then the times have changed very dramatically.

India never released their full technical evaluation. Rafale won on cost alone is all thats known (the cost that then exploded and was disproven). Several open source letters to the Indian MoD said quite the opposite too.

>>31920479
>You do realize that Russia uses French tech and optics in its Tanks and Flankers...

Because they can't make it themselves, and who else is going to sell to them?

>Tested by Swiss army :

Why is why they bought it right? Or no, they tried to buy the Gripen instead.

>Tested by Indian army :
So they bought 36 and then immediately launched another competition. And are you really sure you want to try and point to India as knowing what the fuck they're doing as far as procurement goes?

>Tested by US pilots
Did this ever happen? I haven't heard of it.

>You guys are just butthurted that we have an aircraft that can beat every US plane

Most modern fighters have some sort of shot against other modern fighters. Does a Rafale have some sort of shot against F-22s and F-35s? Sure, they're not invincible. So do the Typhoon and Gripen. Could it achieve a positive kill ratio? Probably not. It could probably do so against older blocks of F-16s. With all the support assets the US has, I doubt they could achieve it against 'peer' opponents like the Super Hornet and modern F-16s and F-15s.

>>31920175
>whining about memes while at the same time posting memes
Great show, Pierre

>>31920479
>Luneberg lens, Frog.
>I cringed so hard, dude stop
>>31920515
>TFW you will never lock on an F-22 while chilling in this comphy cockpit

The Rafale pilot that got that "kill" said himself that it was a lucky as fuck break that came from the F22 pilot not paying attention to him while the F22 was shitting on another plane in the exercise.
While I'm paraphrasing it, he basically said he could never hope to pull something like that off normally and it was a massive fluke.

>>31920485

With the F-22 not for sale, the Typhoon doesn't really have any proper western competition as the best available air superiority & interceptor aircraft.

>>31921102

For interceptor work in terms of getting off the ground, to the zone and making the intercept, absolutely not, no.

For air to air work, there are a lot of arguements to be put in for the F-35. DEFINITELY in BVR. WVR is much more up for debate.

But either way as I said, most people with Typhoons operate both. They are complimentary platforms in very nice ways.

But if you can't get F-35 to have a debate against, then holy hell yes, Typhoon is absolutely the way to go.

>>31918383
>9. Does the Rafale have a BVRAAM yet?
Well technically the MICA EM has a longer range than 20km, but its hilariously short ranged compared to AMRAAMs or other missiles usually termed BVRAAMs. IIRC they also have the Meteor working on it, but likely in low numbers.

>>31921120

I was stating the roles together, because that is what I regard the Typhoon as primarily. Interceptor and air superiority with strike missions in distant third. In comparison to the Rafale, which, lacking in the interceptor role, ends up competing more directly with newer multi-role aircraft like the F-35, and potentially cost-effective multi-role aircraft like Gripen NG, F-16, F/A-18E.

Honestly, I hope the F-35 is much better than the Typhoon at BVR (otherwise it'll be in trouble facing other 4.5 like the Su-35). I'm looking forward to the integration of the two working together to complement each other. The ability suggested for an aircraft like the Typhoon to hand off AMRAAMs / Meteors for the F-35 (launched from further back using the Typhoons high speed and service ceiling to enhance range), so the F-35 doesn't have to use its limited payload or compromise stealth by opening bays, I find quite exciting, if it works.

File: RUSIpap35.png (77KB, 637x418px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 637x418px

>>31921269
>I'm looking forward to the integration of the two working together to complement each other.

The future is bright mate.

>>31921293
>>31921269
If they can direct SM-6 shots, the principle shouldn't be too different for A2A missiles.

This quote from the USNI article is pretty great actually.

>Last year, a Lockheed Skunk Works, Aegis, F-35 technical team did tests at Lockheed’s JSF plant in Fort Worth, Texas last year to pull MADL data to a ground station that would represent the link to a Baseline 9 cruiser or destroyer, Potts said.

>“It was absolutely breathtaking, the Aegis display in our labs as soon as [the test F-35] turned his radar on looking north… He picked up the conga line, if you will of aircraft going into [Dallas Fort Worth Airport],” he said.

>“The display just exploded with hundreds of ranged tracks, so we knew it would work.”

File: F35.png (142KB, 741x511px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 741x511px

>>31921346

There's definitely thoughts on this for the RN, certainly would stop the LOL NO FIXED WING AWACS.

>>31921426

Now they just need to fork out for more VLS on the Type-45s to make the most of the capability...

>>31921570

Depends if F-35 can talk to Aster or not. If it can, then there's not much need for SM-6's for it, given Aster already has an active seeker.

The Mk41 slots on T45 would be almost certainly used for SM-3 instead, given their BMD aspirations.

>>31921570

There's space for about another 16 strike length VLS, Mk41 or Sylver (idk which one).

However, on the point on the Type 45's 48 VLS space compared to other 64, 96 or 128 monsters you have to consider that their entire VLS silos wouldn't be dedicated to AAW, but a mixture of things because they are multirole ships whilst the Type 45 is singular role. If that makes sense.

>>31921589
As long as it's Link 16 compatible it should work.

>>31921589

I'm not so sure on getting Sm-3, Aster 30 is already consider BMD capable, however there's upgrades and a different block for BMD.

>Aster 30 Block 1: 600 km
>Aster 30 Block 1NT: 1500 km
>Aster Block 2 BMD: 3000 km

UK have expressed interest in acquiring 1NT.

>>31918196
>USAFs F-4s achieved negative 2:1 exchange ratios

[Citation Needed]

>>31921702

Royal Navy wants SM-3, of course it must be borne in mind that "we want SM-3" carries the undercurrent of "If we get what we want, then it means we have to get Mk41 as well which is ALSO what we want." They want that missile because what they get WITH the missile means more to them overall.

Government wants Aster BMD, better diplomatic back and forth with France/Italy to get them buying Brimstone (France is interested in it for Tiger) and cheaper than new silos+missiles+integration.

So yes, Aster BMD is almost certainly the one that'll happen. What Gov wants. Unfortunately this likely means no Mk41. The backup plan is making CAMM integrated with Sylver, which would allow the Daring Class (I really hate "Type" designations) to quad-pack.

>>31921670

In which case it will, Aster is Link 16 capable.

Rafale is so good nobody wants to buy.

LOL!

>>31921826

I haven't heard much on the RN wanting SM-3, not that I'm screaming PROOFS but I'm genuinely curious. Got anything that points to that? Fine if you don't, I understand how these things are.

What comes with SM-3 compared with sticking on Aster BMD?

We're in agreement about the "type" naming, always feels awkward to me.

Though, having quad-packing on Daring class isn't the worst case. Whilst shitposters exaggerate it, Daring does look increasingly under-armed in a future of mass saturation and 128 VLS ships

>>31921826
Speaking of Aster and BMD, sort of weird thing I found in a recent Congressional Research Service report. Among countries listed as having potential as supporting the US in BMD, the UK, Netherlands, and Germany are listed but France and Italy are notably absent. Seems sort of odd since they use the same radar system.

>Other countries that MDA views as potential naval BMD operators (using either the Aegis BMD system or some other system of their own design) include the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Denmark, South Korea, and Australia. As mentioned earlier, Spain, South Korea, and Australia either operate, are building, or are planning to build Aegis ships. The other countries operate destroyers and frigates with different combat systems that may have potential for contributing to BMD operations.

Link to report

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/02/document-report-congress-navy-aegis-ballistic-missile-defense-program

>>31921293
i like the idea of aircraft being buddies like this

Turning a Rafale wank thread into a British military wank thread is the best show of disrespect to the frogs I can think of.

On topic, I would be interested to see if the F-35 using ship borne missiles opens up other options, like using some Type-26 VLS for long range air defence missiles in carrier groups with the F-35, or even land based systems.

File: GR.png (66KB, 601x393px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 601x393px

>>31921949

Interesting.

Italy was at JW15-2, although both Italy and France aren't probably capitalising on S1850M BMD capability for whatever reason, though Daring is using (or rather would) both her Sampson and S1850M for BMD.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/uk-and-nato-navies-take-further-small-steps-in-developing-ballistic-missile-defence/

Note the author makes a mistake calling the radar Sampson when it's actually EMPAR. Though, they probably got mixed up between S1850M being on both.

>>31922043

Another example.

>>31922047

That is a point, since the Type 26 will be getting MK41 VLS could pose a good reason for acquiring SM-6.

>>31918217
>Rafale is significantly superior to F-35 in air-to-air combat (both WVR and BVR)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>31920175
>Meteor missiles are finished and only a few months to mass produce it.
>It would be a better missile than the Aim-120D.

Rafale's are getting a gimped version of Meteor and Meteor's range comparison to AMRAAM's are based on AIM-120C.

>>31922047
It's an interesting question. NIFC-CA is apparently "sensor-agnostic". It doesn't care where the data comes from, whether it's MADL or Link 16.

As for how it'll work in militaries without Aegis, i'm unsure but it should work. A Netherlands frigate using SMART-L was able to pass targeting data in a BMD test to an Aegis ship. So it seems likely that there shouldn't be a large issue in integrating the two systems.

File: EPAA-JOan-op-ed-figure2.jpg (156KB, 1132x800px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1132x800px

>>31921702
>Aster 30 is already consider BMD capable

So is SM-6, but neither are comparable to a SM-3, especially the newer blocks.

>>31921426
An F-35 is powerful, but it's no AWACS when it comes to what you cant over a CBG.

>>31921705
No citation needed friendo, USAF F4 pilots in Vietnam had shit A2A training compared to the USN pilots. While they weren't getting BTFOed, they were horrible in comparison to the gavy until they implemented their version of top gun.
Also i think the poster you're replying to meant to say they had less than a 2:1 ratio against the slopes, while the navy enjoyed a 2+:1 ratio the entire war.

File: 1363322697433.jpg (26KB, 175x231px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 175x231px

>>31922149
You really need an image for that friend.

>>31922222

nice on topic get

>>31922232
Terminal interception is arguably enough for fleet defense, though not area defense like the SM-3 is capable of.

Also oddly enough, the Russians of all people recently claimed the SM-3 is capable of intercepting missiles in the initial acceleration phase.

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/october-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4438-us-sm-3-interceptors-can-take-down-ballistic-missiles-at-initial-flight-stage.html

They seem mad about it as it's a potential threat to MAD, though how the US could possibly get targeting data on a missile in the boost phase is beyond me.

>>31922135
>SM-6

Sorry, not SM-6, but SM-3.

>>31922238
One F-35 might not equate to an AWACS, but a 4-ship flying a patrol that has them pointed in different directions and fusing their radar returns would at least give similar radar coverage; the carrier can act as the C2 using that data.

>>31921705
>>31922257
http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/San-Diego-Magazine/October-2009/Top-Gun-40-Years-of-Higher-Learning/
Both the USN and USAF were getting about 2:1 in favour of the Phantoms (which could be worse, but was pretty bad). The USAF added guns with the F-4E variant, the USN didn't want to spend the $$$ but created Top Gun to teach both pilots and maintainers how to use these fandangled missiles better.

USAF stayed at about 2:1, even got slightly worse over time, USN jumped to 13:1 because missiles, even shitty Vietnam-era ones, are fairly effective if you know how to use them.

>>31918217
>Worse sensor range
>No BVR missiles
>Assuming it can even detect a f35

I require proofs

>>31920294
It locked on a f22 with that Lense and radar reflectors.

That's like finding a dude in Camo, but that camo is also has a flashing disco light.

File: F-35 HMD symbology.gif (55KB, 969x593px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 969x593px

>>31918383
>the Rafale supposedly uses sensor fusion in the sense that it'll display data from one sensor or another, not try to amalgamate or interpolate a more accurate answer out of multiple sensors.
I think you're wrong about that. Sensor fusion is not actually that new or profound, and virtually every modern fighter has it at least to some extent. Two examples that are pretty much universal now are fusion between INS and GPS navigation, and fusion between the primary radar and SSR/IFF subsystems.

As for the Rafale in particular, it's sensor fusion (as it pertains to target tracking specifically) is mentioned here: http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/the-sheer-power-of-multisensor-data-fusion/
>Implementation of the “multi-sensor data fusion” into the RAFALE translates into accurate, reliable and strong tracks, uncluttered displays, reduced pilot workload, quicker pilot response, and eventually into increased situational awareness.

>It is a full automated process carried out in three steps:

>Establishing consolidated track files and refining primary information provided by the sensors,
>Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,
>Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays.
Not saying it's any BETTER than the F-35's; only that the F-35 is hardly unique in this particular regard.

>>31922296
>One F-35 might not equate to an AWACS, but a 4-ship flying a patrol that has them pointed in different directions and fusing their radar returns would at least give similar radar coverage; the carrier can act as the C2 using that data.

In addition DAS would most likely pick up marauding missiles. While that's not enough to pass back to the ship, it can cue the pilot to slew in that direction and check it out with his radar.

>>31922352
>Not saying it's any BETTER than the F-35's; only that the F-35 is hardly unique in this particular regard.

A Model T is an automobile, but you wouldn't be comparing it to 2017 model year vehicles now would you?

File: F-35 dealwithit.gif (3MB, 636x350px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 636x350px

>>31922386
Well, the Rafale and F-35 are almost contemporaries, but even still, yeah. VLO alone is such a huge advantage it's not even funny.

File: Rafale Eater.jpg (61KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x533px

Reminder to all Rafalefags.

That's an F-4.

This thread my god...

I can't decide what's the saddest, either the frogs trolling or the rest trying to act knowledgeable while spewing bullshit about the Rafale.

Both of you are so fucking wrong on so many levels.

>>31922484
Thanks for your input anon.

File: tmp_12133-F-35B-MBDA-SPEAR-ASRAAM-Meteor-960443859.jpg (222KB, 2168x1069px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 2168x1069px

>>31922296

Dragon, any thoughts on the RN's F-35B loadouts?

>>31922352
>Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays.

That's what I was talking about - the Rafale takes multiple tracks, performs analysis to figure out which is most accurate and reliable ("assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks") and then shows it instead of the others to the pilot ("suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays").

The F-35 takes all the data from all of the tracks, does an analysis with the logic that "the truth is somewhere in the middle" and shows the pilot an artificial track that's a blend of all the others.

What that means is that if all the tracks are of shitty quality (eg, the target is LO and is far enough away that their heat signature may or may not be background noise), the Rafale will be forced to either show the pilot a shitty track, or disregard it altogether. The F-35 however can take all the little scraps of data and build a 'hypothesis' of the target.

>>31922505
Meteor + F-35 will be effective; I'd be interested to see the impact that the ASRAAMs have on RCS, but either way they're the ones with the classified data.

File: ob_e21f15_ob-815617-151207-f-kb808-256.jpg (85KB, 1600x1065px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1600x1065px

>>31922449
Reminer to you : the pic shows an EF2000.

Maybe the krauts mistook a german plane for one of their own ?

topkek

And the US Air force thinks the Rafale is so bad french pilots are invited to the trilateral exercice...

And the US navy thinks it's so bad there are still strong rumors about a fucking squadron of Rafale operating for a long period aboard a US carrier in 2017.

Surely this must mean the plane, its systems, its weapons, its pilots and the air force flying it are both hilariously bad, right mate ?

God fucking dammit. Really, there is fanboyism, and then there's this thread.

>>31920175
>Pic related could've happened my Burger friends, but you went for the retarded option of a 1.5 trillion dollars aircraft
>Still citing the 50 year+ guesstimate as money spent
>Implying the F-35A isn't going to be $23m less than a Rafale

>>31922353
Yep, although with the way that the sensor fusion works, if the F-35's aren't under strict EMCON, the radars would do that automatically anyway.

>>31922558
>And the US navy thinks it's so bad there are still strong rumors about a fucking squadron of Rafale operating for a long period aboard a US carrier in 2017.

There are rumors about that because France won't have a carrier of it's own in 2017. The US would be doing France a fucking favor so they can keep up their carrier op experience.

>>31920294
>Has locked on an F-22
Luneberg lens, barely even then, and could only get that position in a couple out of 14 engagements.

>>31922569
The radar doesn't have 360 degree coverage the way DAS or a proper AWACS radar does though. At least AFAIK.

>>31922594
True, but if any of the 4 F-35s in a flight are looking that way, the computers act as a shared brain, so if one sees a missile on MADL, the aircraft pointed in that direction will automatically give it a quick scan with their radar. Being a fixed AESA, they each have a radar FOV of 120 degrees (60 degrees to each side) and can scan between targets instantaneously.

Alternatively, if more than one aircraft's DAS or EOTS sees the missile, they can avoid using radar and just triangulate based on their relative positions and the bearing / elevation to the missile.

Meteor indeed looks extremely mean.

>>31922558

Weren't France banned from Red Flag because they recorded radar returns on others people aircraft, specifically the F-22?

File: Cute dance.gif (460KB, 360x560px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 360x560px

>>31922558

Are you mad, Frog?

>Reminer to you : the pic shows an EF2000. Maybe the krauts mistook a german plane for one of their own ?

Yeah, because that sounds entirely reasonable. How would they "mistake" them when they'd have gone through an entire briefing before going up? What would be the point in lying? Why would they write "Rafale" and leave it up after they've landed?

>And the US Air force thinks the Rafale is so bad french pilots are invited to the trilateral exercice...

Oh gee, who would've thought that one of the major NATO partners and US allies gets invited to a training exercise? I guess that totally proves the Rafale isn't shit! I could also say since the French agree to attend, they must think pretty highly of US pilots, right? So, saying that, if we go back to the topic of the thread, the F-35 would cream the Rafale six ways till Sunday.


>And the US navy thinks it's so bad there are still strong rumors about a fucking squadron of Rafale operating for a long period aboard a US carrier in 2017.

Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with CdG being laid up, or that since the US owns like 11 fucking carriers, it's useful for training the French pilots and sharing assets and shit?

>Surely this must mean the plane, its systems, its weapons, its pilots and the air force flying it are both hilariously bad, right mate ?

God fucking dammit. Really, there is retardation, and there's you.

File: F35 with Meteor and Spear 3.jpg (911KB, 1417x1417px) Image search: [Google]

911KB, 1417x1417px

>>31921949

> UK, Netherlands, and Germany

They all use Sampson or APAR which are BMD enabled.

>but France and Italy

They both use EMPAR, which is not BMD capable.

>Seems sort of odd since they use the same radar system.

You're likely thinking of the S1850M, which is used by all of those nations, but is not a BMD radar. It's the Sampson and APAR on the Daring, Sachsen and De Zeven ships that can accomplish that. Same reason Denmark is listed as well, as the Iver Frigates use APAR too.

>>31922558

Spear Cap 3 makes me hard to imagine. Taking Brimstone's seeker/network/missile swarm tech and putting it on miniature cruise missiles. Thats a special kind of fucked up thinking to let those things off the chain at those ranges.

>>31922554

ASRAAM was inherantly designed to be quite low RCS, hence its long and thin design, no massive fins, relying more on thrust power and lack of being noticed to make the intercept rather than superagile terminal swinging. So I don't imagine it'll be too bad. Certainly not with the range boost that ASRAAM permits anyway, those fuckers'll go to 50km. Sort of begins to edge away from "short range missile" entirely.

>>31922574

Not rumours, a certainty. CdG needs refuelled sometime.

>>31922755
>Not rumours, a certainty. CdG needs refuelled sometime.

Not in reference to whether or not the CdG will be refueling, we know it will as it's in it's schedule, in reference to the rumor as to whether or not we'll see Rafales on a Nimitz, since apparently it was discussed last year. I think it's pretty likely, since Hollande will probably be under alot of pressure to keep hitting ISIS.

>>31922788

I've seen parroted that Rafale can't operate (launch but not operate) from Nimitz(s) for whatever reason.

>>31922849

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't. The hardest thing would be putting all those French munitions into the carrier, but thats not insurmountable.

>>31922849
It can, but you'd have to move French air crews, maintenance personnel, parts, munitions and such onto the Nimitz. So the logistical baggage would be hell.

They might do it anyways for political reasons.

>>31918196
>https://defenseissues.net/2015/09/11/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35/

Since this is your source OP, you should know that latest communicates on the F-35 put it's sortie rate waay lower than that. Which is really quite laughable even though sensors and range have been upgraded. The wiki is a better source.

Tbh, the F-35 (any variant) really is shit. It's really fucking stupid that we americans keep defending our stuff like that when we have been taking bad decisions since the sixties. If we wanted to be efficient we'd scrap the fucking lobbyist corporations in charge of our military, and tell congress to fuck itself when it says it wants to decomission the A10

File: unnamed.jpg (31KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 700x394px

>>31922959

I wonder who could be behind this post?

>>31922554
>the Rafale takes multiple tracks, performs analysis to figure out which is most accurate and reliable ("assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks")
"Assessing the confidence level of CONSOLIDATED tracks." As in, determining the reliability of the resultant track AFTER fusing together the different sensors. The noise in each sensor as well as the variation between sensors will all affect this confidence, but they ARE combining data from multiple sensors (probably with EKF or some similar filter). It's NOT just picking whichever sensor seems best at the moment.

Sensor fusion has a specific meaning; it's essentially refining or narrowing the range of uncertainty from one sensor with additional information from other sensors. If the final fused state has the same or more uncertainty than any of the initial readings, then it's not sensor fusion. What you're suggesting the Rafale uses is not, by itself, sensor fusion.

>>31922987
It's a me, jewyo

Seriously though, there's already a monopoly for defense contracts. To build our future stealth bomber that can outrun AA, we had the choice between boeing and northrop. If boeing won, they won, and if northrop won they were bought by boeing.

>>31922998
The catch then however is why are there separate tracks to be assessed if they're consolidated?

>>31923046
The consolidated track is the result of sensor fusion. Several sources of data go in, one track (and a confidence assessment) comes out.

>>31923035
Pierre Sprey is French, buddy.

>canards

so eurofighter is good yes?

>>31923115
I must have been wrong about the Rafale's fusion - from the Dassault page:

>1. Establishing consolidated track files and refining primary information provided by the sensors,
>2. Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,
>3. Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays.

I know this is moving the goalposts, but one thing the Rafale's sensor fusion does seem to lack (I could be wrong again, but I went and did some more reading) is multiship fusion; ie, the same thing again, but using the sensors of multiple jets.

>>31923545
Even then, the Rafale doesn't have the 6-spherical IR array, or an equivalent to the ASQ-239, so it still doesn't have the same breadth of raw sensor data just from itself to fuse and present to the pilot.

so any news on tornado successor?

>>31922678
Sensor fusion + MADL makes me fucking diamonds.

>>31924142

Only Germany is really in the market for a replacement.

The RAF has upgraded its Typhoons to the FGR4 standard, is buying the F-35B in the medium term, and in the long term may buy some F-35A.

The Italians are extending their Tornado fleet's life, while buying the F-35A.

The Saudis are seem to be going to replace their Tornados in the strike role with the F-15E, and in the "not just US aircraft" role with possibly more Typhoons.

>>31918210
>assuming that helmet issues are solved.

>radar optimized for A2G

>bad information presentation

>>31922755
>the SMART-L/S1850M is not a BMD radar

what the fuck am I reading

http://www.janes.com/article/58958/smart-l-ewc-radar-produces-first-air-picture

Thales Nederland is currently upgrading the SMART-L to have a ballistic missile detection range of 2000 km. From 2017 it will be installed on all 4 air-defense frigates of the Dutch Navy. In 2019 it will be ready to contribute to NATO BMD.

Denmark and Germany are also interested in this upgrade, that's why they are listed. France and Italy are not.

>>31925995

I'm not him, but SMART-L is not the same as S1850M. Yes, S1850M is a derivative of SMART-L, but there's a difference. To what extend? I have no idea.

Likely the software is optimised for different things.

The Mirage F1 is essentially a Mirage V with the wings and tail

>>31920479
>French military tech is so bad
>You do realize that Russia uses French tech and optics in its Tanks and Flankers...
tankfag here, not really an expert in planes and the majority of this thread is gibberish, but I wanted to jump in here. The French optics which are copied/used in Russian tanks are well established as just about the single worst thing ever in every MBT. Catherine optics are absolute garbage, they're expensive, unreliable, melt in high temperatures, and freeze in cold ones. I don't know if you said this because you're uninformed or because you thought no one would point it out, but the French electronics sold to Russia are unfit to be used as toilet paper.

File: t50.jpg (543KB, 2250x1463px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 2250x1463px

>>31926782
well rooskis REALLY wanted those helicarriers so they must do something right

>>31925995

Smart-l-EWC is not on any of those country's ships, and only one nation has a plan for it, and even then it's not fully funded for final production and service.

They're referring to Sampson and APAR, m8.

>it's another rafalefag shits up the board episode

>>31920515
I'll give you Rafalefags one thing, it's that the Rafale has a cool cockpit. Doesn't make it any less worse than an F-35 or a Typhoon though.

>>31922558
> the pic shows an EF2000.

It pretty clearly represents a Rafale. Kraut ground crew will just have more access to EF2000 silhouettes than Rafales, and they're both roughly the same twin-engine eurocanard profile

The Rafale is sexy.
Nuff said

>>31923384
>rafaleshitters and spreyshitters had the same naitonal origin

this makes quite a lot of sense

>>31922296
>AWACS, but a 4-ship flying a patro
I feel as if this would be massively inefficient.
What are the chances of a big wide radar pod mounted on the underside of a f35, where a central drop tank may be?

>>31930082
Problem would be maintaining the cooling characteristics needed for a powerful radar like the AN/APG-81. I don't think the central pylon is piped for fuel.

Other than that, side facing radars aren't too hard.

>>31930273
I don't think you'll get the sort of performance out of them that you'd need for this.

As is, the F-35 has the capabilities to greatly complement a carrier group's missile defense ships. And while a 4 plane overwatch would be ideal, I don't think it's completely necessary. 3 could probably give sufficient performance, and even 2 would greatly enhance detection to an amazing extent. You won't get full 360 degree radar coverage that way, but the F-35s other sensors can compensate to a great extent. A big fat supersonic missile is going to be throwing off enough heat to light up the F-35's DAS from a very long distance, so for missile defense it's probably enough, though it wouldn't be as suited for detecting enemy aircraft.

>>31930082

They do have helicopter AEW, which can cover the area near the carrier well enough. If F-35 patrols can extend that in the direction enemies are most likely to come from that's a bonus.

>>31930082
>>31930273
A radar pod would work; as for cooling, you can just use a ram-air heat exchanger.

>>31931467
Sure, but I imagine the pod would get pretty hot, and need most of the space for radar kraut space magic rather than having to put a big stealthy ram air exchanger in there. Though it could be a good power generator, NGJ style.

>>31931467
>>31932055

Big dumb dumb here, why would you need an additional radar of the same type fitted for better coverage?

>>31932086
I imagine for 360 degree coverage.

That said, i'm not really sold on the idea of A. Putting a big non-stealthy radar on an F-35 and B. Having them pump out a shitload of emissions (even AESA isn't immune to detection if you're just throwing out a crapload of power).

Plus i'm not sure how much it's actually worth it. Maybe it's worth it for the Americans, but wasn't CEC canceled for the Type 45s? I don't think they can actually benefit from this unless they decide to fit them with it.

File: Gulfstream G550 with IAI EL:W-2085 radar.jpg (235KB, 1600x653px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1600x653px

>>31930082
>I feel as if this would be massively inefficient.
I wouldn't say inefficient, but it's definitely different. The APG-81 lacks the aperture and range of a large, dedicated L-band AEW radar, but it's LPI and mounted on a much more survivable, VLO airframe. It's really a dramatically different kind of approach to early warning, though not entirely unprecedented (take, for instance, the development of the MiG-31 with its own powerful PESA radar and ability to operate effectively in lieu of GCI/AEW).

I don't think conventional AEW will be falling out of the picture any time soon, but they'll probably play a smaller role in high-intensity symmetrical warfare.
>>31930273
>Problem would be maintaining the cooling characteristics needed for a powerful radar like the AN/APG-81.
What makes you think the radar would have (or need) the power density of the APG-81? If it has that big of an aperture, it can derive a lot of range just from antenna gain, and run even lower power densities.
>Other than that, side facing radars aren't too hard.
Then why are they so uncommon? It seems like such a good approach to bridging the gap between uncontrolled/peer-controlled intercept and conventional AEW.
>>31930362
>A big fat supersonic missile is going to be throwing off enough heat to light up the F-35's DAS from a very long distance
Still not nearly as hot/bright as a rocket booster. EO-DAS is more launch detection than anything, though it is considerably more capable than other IR-based MAWs (which can't support other functionalities supported by EO-DAS, like medium-range IRST and FLIR, whatsoever).
>>31931467
Yeah. Or a self-contained liquid coolant circuit, if needed. It'd be heavy, but it could work.

>>31932111
Yeah, CEC was cancelled. The real fucking piss take is that CEC was used to justify cutting the number of the class in half. From twelve to six, super depressing. To think what you could have done with four or three Darings per CBG.

>>31932215
Yeah, I don't really get their mindset. Though honestly, i'm not sure how prevalent CEC-like systems actually are outside of Aegis. You hear about European vessels being able to pass data to Aegis ships, but can they take shots based off of data from other vessels in their own navies? If they have i'm not sure i've heard of it. I think it may be a technology that's often considered to be far more widespread than it actually is.

>>31932112
That used to be G550? My god, what horrible things did they do to it?!

File: Phalcon EL:M-2075 AEW&C on Chilean 707 airframe.jpg (220KB, 768x435px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 768x435px

>>31933170
>My god, what horrible things did they do to it?!
What can I say? The Jews got to it.

>>31933252
And holy fuck does it have the nose to match. You couldn't see that in the other picture. Bet the APU exhaust still hits the line crew exclusively, though. Can't get rid of that.