JSF vs. Rafale for a Royal Navy future aircraft carriers

[r16]

ı am just an oddball who would be equally at home discussing the most recent Galactica show personally seen , which will surely go down in the Sci-fi history as ridiculous where we learn 6 has been knocked up by Tigh . While it is just another point that proves that he is actually a human , ı personally didn't like it ; this continious attack on loyalty does not represent even the modern society . The hormonal boosters added in captivity just will not interact with Sixes . ı just don't care it is now the canon .

or ı might be debating canon versus cannon , but ı will hasten to add ı use the canon as rules and not in its mostly ( ? ) Catholic meaning . My doubt about it will show there are far more qualified people to discuss it ; ı see priests only on news and TV series ...

on the F-35 , ı never claimed it was true , it was simply a personal belief and we sure would be reformatting Lightnings if we ever needed them .

 

[F-14D]

the Phantom is underrated as a combat aircraft , in a similar ratio to its being overrated before bloodied in battle . In Vietnam it lacked proper support .If it had flown defensively with radar coverage and CGI it would have a much higher success ratio . Israeli experience tends to support this .In the attack they didn't do good , being on attack missions they lost heavily to interceptors .In the initial Arab attack in 1973 , one pilot shot down 13 Migs in two days .

This a key point; F-4 was not used properly air-to-air at first for various reasons including the insane restrictions it had to work under, lack of proper training in how to use it in air combat, and the desire by some organizations to macho it out in close-in dogfighting. While its overall win/loss ratio in the war was 5.42 I believe, if you look at what the USN achieved with it once it was used properly after the US went back up North you'll see it did quite well indeed.

 

[F-14D]

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

Am I wrong or did you just say air superiority isn't necessary at sea? Well, I don't know what to say to that.

In the meantime here's the Red Flag critique, courtesy of Flight:-

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html

And no, I'm not getting testy - if you could see me you'd see the smile on my face.... the rye smile.

Cheers, Woody

(...using his best Cary Grant voice)

Woo-dy, Woo-dy, Woo-dy...

I never said air superiority isn't necessary at sea (well, actually what we're talking about here is not so much air superiority as Fleet Air Defense), I was responding to your comment, "...Oh and by the way, air defense will be the F-35's or Rafale's primary mission for the RN". Even the USN has not been able to afford a specialized pure fighter since the F-8. Given the limited numbers available, carrier aircraft have to be multi-role. This is especially true for the RN. The primary mission of the F-35 or Rafale in RN service has to be strike, it's the reason for the carrier and its aircraft's existence.

P.S. If your smile is "rye", mine has to be "nut bread"

 

[F-14D]

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

Am I wrong or did you just say air superiority isn't necessary at sea? Well, I don't know what to say to that.

I think his point was that it was meaningless by itself, air superiority exists in order to permit you to do something else, which is almost always striking the opponent.

Yeah! What he said!

 

[Woody]

Strike or fleet air defense.

Though strike is a useful attribute of a carrier aircraft, if you are only going to have one combat aircraft there are other rolls it must be able to fulfill. If strike was the only requirement, the US navy would be better served by reviving the A-6 Intruder (a much better attack aircraft than the F-18 buy all accounts) and retiring all other types.

In a real war (one where you are fighting for survival, and not just beating up third world countries) cruise missiles and ICBM are much more affective strike options - aircraft may be needed though for reconnaissance if satellites and UAV communications are neutralised. RN naval air power on the other hand, will be required to defend vital sea-lanes and protect shipping (and oil rigs?) from air strikes or to act as air cover for expeditionary forces.

But pretending for a moment that strike or fleet air defense is the only issues for the RN carrier aircraft: if you can't strike, you are ineffective - if you can't defend your airspace, you're DEAD. Which is worse?

Moving along to the recent Red Flag Youtube briefing in regards to our RN carrier aircraft debate, a few factors appear to be relevant:-

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/10/318544/pilots-youtube-indiscretions-could-trigger-wider-air-power.html

He confirms hints that the USAF's long-range radar-guided missiles are susceptible to jamming, blunting their edge in beyond-visual-range combat.

This kind of junks the idea that the F-35 would be able to stay out of range of opponents and dog fights.

Indian air force's RSK MiG-21 Bison aircraft, modified with Israeli radar, active radar missiles and electronic jammers, are now nearly "invisible" to the F-15's and F-16's current mechanically scanned arrays.

How much better is the F-35's radar? And how much worse is the MIG's stealth that the F-35's

The Indian MiG-21 pilots can use their jammers to sneak past the USAF radar screen and engage the F-15s and F-16s in dogfights, where the outcome is far from pre-determined.

In this instance the dog fight is still very relevant and the old MIG apparently could mach the American 'teen fighters agility, aircraft the F-35 doesn't claim to better.

We just don't carry enough missiles (on the F-22). When the balloon goes up, we're going to have to go in and gun somebody. And the Raptor, thank God, it still has a gun on it.

If the F-22's stealth missile payload is pore at 6 x AMRAAM and 2 x AIM-9, the F-35's is only 2 x AMRAAM or 4 x AIM-9 or 2 x ASRAAM. And again you're going to have to be able to dog fight.

The lecturer goes on to rubbish the Su-30 radar but (according to Flight) the Indians were only permitted, by agreement with the Russians, to only use training mode so as not to reveal the radars waveform and true potency. If the Americans had brought out F-22 perhaps the Indians would have tried it but they wouldn't risk that.

It would appear that the Typhoon will soon need an AESA radar to remain effective and moves are being made to fit one to Captor.
If so it wouldn't cost anymore in development to put it into the Rafale (except a bigger raydome?), along with a jammer similar to the Israeli one in the Indian MIGs.
This would give you a faster, more agile, bigger payloaded, just as stealthy, better radared aircraft than the F-35.
Also it would use a tried and trusted carrier capable airframe and be able to fire the Meteor, a much more advanced missile than the AMRAAM.
(If a distributed aperture vision system could be developed this would obviously benefit both the Rafale and the Typhoon.)

I'm sure you guys will all have opinions on what I've written but please consider only what would be the best all round solution for the RN, given the rolls required, the limited money available and credibility of the vendors.

Cheers, Woody

 

[Woody]

New radar could boost Rafale's export prospects

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/11/318499/new-radar-could-boost-rafales-export-prospects.html

Well I hate to reply to my own post but...

The AESA radar face improves detection range by "about 40% compared with previous technologies of radar", says Chaltiel.

"This capability has ended its development phase and is now entering into the production phase," says Thales Airborne Systems chief executive Pierre-Yves Chaltiel.

In the export market, "Rafale was very difficult to sell perhaps five or 10 years ago", says Chaltiel. "But now it's fully available with what I think is a real differentiator towards all its competitors".

"It is possible now to have a fully passive detection capability and shoot down enemy aircraft without transmitting a single emission from the aircraft," says Chaltiel.

Amazing, an manufacturer actually does what any fool could see they should have done.

Now, really all I'd like to know is the Rafale's RCS vs the F-35's (with jammers on).

Cheers, Woody

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In a real war (one where you are fighting for survival, and not just beating up third world countries) cruise missiles and ICBM are much more affective strike options - aircraft may be needed though for reconnaissance if satellites and UAV communications are neutralised.

So by ‘real war’ you mean nuclear war (cruise and ICBMs)? How will your precious Rafale fighters be defending British carriers from nuclear tipped anti-ship missile strikes then?

But pretending for a moment that strike or fleet air defense is the only issues for the RN carrier aircraft: if you can't strike, you are ineffective - if you can't defend your airspace, you're DEAD. Which is worse?

It’s not as simple as that. The fleet has other avenues for fleet defence such as surface to air missiles, its own manoeuvre and so on. Also strike to suppress enemy airfields and ASM sites is a much better tactic than passively sitting back and letting them thump you. Of course that’s a lesson anyone with any operational experience learns on day 1 but clearly the "armchair admiral’s" working in a knowledge free environment can always plan a better method of war fighting.

Moving along to the recent Red Flag Youtube briefing in regards to our RN carrier aircraft debate, a few factors appear to be relevant:-

He confirms hints that the USAF's long-range radar-guided missiles are susceptible to jamming, blunting their edge in beyond-visual-range combat.

This kind of junks the idea that the F-35 would be able to stay out of range of opponents and dog fights.

No it doesn’t nor is that an argument anyone has been making. The F-35 is highly capable in WVR (within visual range) engagements and a killer at the merge. That you take the flimsiest of arguments and revert back to the preconceived and completely wrong in fact argument that the F-35 is no dogfighter indicates that you are a vexatious debater.

Indian air force's RSK MiG-21 Bison aircraft, modified with Israeli radar, active radar missiles and electronic jammers, are now nearly "invisible" to the F-15's and F-16's current mechanically scanned arrays.

How much better is the F-35's radar? And how much worse is the MIG's stealth that the F-35's

The MiG-21 has a RCS about three significant figures higher than the F-35 and the F-35’s radar is about 2-3 times better than the F-15. What is significant here is that the deception jamming leverages vulnerabilities in a fighter MSA. It won’t get past an AWACS class AEW&C or an AESA fighter.

The Indian MiG-21 pilots can use their jammers to sneak past the USAF radar screen and engage the F-15s and F-16s in dogfights, where the outcome is far from pre-determined.

In this instance the dog fight is still very relevant and the old MIG apparently could mach the American 'teen fighters agility, aircraft the F-35 doesn't claim to better.

The F-35 may not beat them with agility but it doesn’t fight that way. Unsurprisingly it uses new technology to fight with new methods. Woody and co from the Flat Earth Society can keep harping on about agility but it’s not relevant anymore.

We just don't carry enough missiles (on the F-22). When the balloon goes up, we're going to have to go in and gun somebody. And the Raptor, thank God, it still has a gun on it.

If the F-22's stealth missile payload is pore at 6 x AMRAAM and 2 x AIM-9, the F-35's is only 2 x AMRAAM or 4 x AIM-9 or 2 x ASRAAM. And again you're going to have to be able to dog fight.

Again more BS. The F-35’s current weapon’s bay configuration allows the internal carriage of four AAM (AMRAAM or ASRAAM) because its optimised for strike roles. There is space in those bays for at least eight AAMs or up to 12. Considering the aircraft is about 5-10 years from actually being in service its a bit early to be writing off its weapon’s carriage capability.

This would give you a faster, more agile, bigger payloaded, just as stealthy, better radared aircraft than the F-35.

Garbage. You seem to assume that the Rafale can increase its stealth by deception jamming yet the F-35 can’t? From the base starting point of reflectivity the F-35 will have three significant figures less radar reflectivity than the Rafale. It will also have a huge boost in computer power and RF emission capability. So who’s going to be able to deceive more? Who’s deception efforts is going to be able to leverage far less actual reflection?

As for speed in a weapon’s configuration the Rafale won’t be faster because of the drag of all those fuel tanks and external weapons. Its radar will never be better, that’s just crazy talk. And agility? What for? Airshow performances to give Woody a synonym? Big deal.

This Also it would use a tried and trusted carrier capable airframe and be able to fire the Meteor, a much more advanced missile than the AMRAAM.

That uses the AMRAAM’s seeker head... Just with a liquid fuel body. And while the Euros spend all the money on Meteor the Americans are developing a two stage hypersonic AMRAAM that will make Meteor look like a Sopwith Camel with a PITBULL seeker...

"It is possible now to have a fully passive detection capability and shoot down enemy aircraft without transmitting a single emission from the aircraft," says Chaltiel.

Amazing, an manufacturer actually does what any fool could see they should have done.

This is perhaps the most offensive thing you have said. You make it sound soooo easy. While any fool can say – why don’t we have a weapon that can defeat the enemy without giving away our position – its actually really hard to make. The benefit of your “any fool’s” perspective is you don’t have to do anything. You can sit at home and imagine any solution to really hard technical issues. Even the most enthusiastic of armchair fighter pilots should realise that there is a requirement for someone to actually make something that needs to happen between insight and reality.

I'm sure you guys will all have opinions on what I've written but please consider only what would be the best all round solution for the RN, given the rolls required, the limited money available and credibility of the vendors.

Opinions based on fact and a willingness to change when presented with new data. Something you don’t have judging by the arguments you have persisted with in the face of all sorts of actual knowledge.

 

[swerve]

This Also it would use a tried and trusted carrier capable airframe and be able to fire the Meteor, a much more advanced missile than the AMRAAM.

That uses the AMRAAM’s seeker head...

Why do you say that? When did MBDA & Thales licence it? Odd that their public statements say the Meteor seeker is designed by MBDA & Thales, using technology derived from Mica & Aster. But obviously, you know better.

the Americans are developing a two stage hypersonic AMRAAM that will make Meteor look like a Sopwith Camel with a PITBULL seeker...

Do you mean NCADE? The missile with an AIM-9X seeker, designed to intercept ballistic missiles? From Raytheons publicity sheets, it appears to be a single-purpose weapon, not intended for use against aircraft.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Why do you say that? When did MBDA & Thales licence it? Odd that their public statements say the Meteor seeker is designed by MBDA & Thales, using technology derived from Mica & Aster. But obviously, you know better.

My bad. Getting confused with the original BVRAAM competition and the Huges (aka Raytheon) offer that lost out to Meteor. Which BTW because of space weight and technology limitations won't be much of a different seeker to the latest block AMRAAMs, arguably even less effective.

PS Thanks for the snide comment, a nice way to improve the tone of this thread,

Do you mean NCADE? The missile with an AIM-9X seeker, designed to intercept ballistic missiles? From Raytheons publicity sheets, it appears to be a single-purpose weapon, not intended for use against aircraft.

Nope. NCADE is a BMD weapon.

 

[Woody]

Hi Abraham,

Opinions based on fact and a willingness to change when presented with new data. Something you don’t have judging by the arguments you have persisted with in the face of all sorts of actual knowledge.

So citations from Fightglobal and video briefings from a serving Nellis F-15 instructor don't constitute new data?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/10/318544/pilots-youtube-indiscretions-could-trigger-wider-air-power.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/11/318499/new-radar-could-boost-rafales-export-prospects.html

I'm sorry you were offended by my quote from "Thales Airborne Systems chief executive Pierre-Yves Chaltiel" and Swerve's gentle comment, yet you are happy to call others "Armchair Admirals" and call their posts "BS" and "garbage" with no citations in support.

I believed that the F-35 couldn't carry AMRAAMs or ASRAAMs internally but I myself had to find a photo to question this (of a mock-up; have either of them ever been live fired?). Other than that, and some Lockheed Martin PR on DAS and stealth, I'm not sure what "all sorts of knowledge" you speak of.

I, like 99.9% of the population, am just a tax-payer and my knowledge is not all I'd like. I don't work for Lockheed Martin (or pretend to). I just pay for this stuff while children can't afford operations.

So if you have information (without getting angry) to increase my confidence in the F-35's cost and abilities, that would put my mind at ease, as this is probably (lets face it) the plane the RN will end up with.

Cheers, Woody

PS: The STOVL or navy CTOL version of the F-35 for the RN, doesn't have a gun (only an optional pod), the Rafale has a 30 mm.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I don’t need to quote Steve Trimble to know what Col. Fornof is saying when he talks to the Daedalians. Frankly Trimble and many other commentators miss the point listening to this You Tube video because they don’t understand the context or have manipulated it to achieve their preconceived aimpoint (sound familiar?). For example in that Flight Global report (which is a journal far from the cutting edge of air combat analysis) Trimble says:

Asked by an audience member about his opinion of the F-35, the pilot perhaps politely demurs. "Let's save that for another discussion," he says, adding that he "probably knows too much about it. So let's save that for another time."

This is not what Col. Fornof says at all. He says:
“Lets save that for another discussion.”
(Gooood Call!)
“Chet and I do a lot of work in the 412 so we know too much about it at this point.”

Is he demurring politely because the F-35 is no good as Trimble breathlessly alludes? No he is saying that his team works together a lot with the 412th Test Wing at Edwards AFB that works on introducing new aircraft to US service. So he knows a lot about the F-35’s capabilities and doesn’t have time to talk about it at that meeting. It’s hardly a smoking gun saying the F-35 is crap but quite similar to the other shreds of nothingness clinged to by the F-35’s opponents. In fact its more that he’s hanging back and going this capability is too golden bullet to talk about even there... especially with someone going with a handicam.

I'm sorry you were offended by my quote from "Thales Airborne Systems chief executive Pierre-Yves Chaltiel" and Swerve's gentle comment, yet you are happy to call others "Armchair Admirals" and call their posts "BS" and "garbage" with no citations in support.

At what stage does he say the Rafale with RBE-2 would be as good as the F-35? Of course he doesn’t say that it took you to do so and you were way off target. All he says is it will have a 40% radar sensitivity boost.

I believed that the F-35 couldn't carry AMRAAMs or ASRAAMs internally but I myself had to find a photo to question this (of a mock-up; have either of them ever been live fired?). Other than that, and some Lockheed Martin PR on DAS and stealth, I'm not sure what "all sorts of knowledge" you speak of.

Ahh so everything that disagrees with your preconceived view point you can dismiss as just PR and therefore spin (ie lies) and because the F-35 hasn’t yet test fired any munitions (it’s still five years out from entering service) you can dismiss that as well? And now I’ve got to show you a photo of the F-35 loaded with ASRAAMs to make you believe it can carry one? Yet you’re happy to accept that the Rafale will have some mystical EW system that will make it harder to see than the F-35?

 

[donnage99]

Beside what Abraham pointed out, I felt compelled to add in some.

In this instance the dog fight is still very relevant and the old MIG apparently could mach the American 'teen fighters agility, aircraft the F-35 doesn't claim to better.

I apologize but I'm pretty sure you playing dumb (not that you are, so I don't think what I'm saying is offensive) for the sake of arguing, since I already said more than once that Lockheed has claimed that f-35 has the agility of f-16, and that in air combat mode, with weapons and fuel tanks internally, it outmaneuvers all the 4th generation aircrafts. This does not take into the fact that its strongest dogfighting capability is DAS, which renders all other aircrafts obsolete and irrelevant like a gun to a knife. The way you arguing is basically saying the f-35's knife is smaller than other aircraft's (even though nothing backs that up) when the f-35 has a freakin' gun. As far as Logic goes (since the f-35 is not combat tested), f-35 has a slightly bigger knife, plus a GUN.

And no, the DAS cannot be intergrated into other airframes as an upgrade. This is too much of an oversimplification. The DAS is a combinations of devices spread out on the airplane that significantly influenced the plane's internal structure, and therefore possibly external structure. Saying such thing is ALMOST as saying a Hornet can be upgraded into a Super Hornet.

I would also like to add something to what Abraham Gubler said (that you illogically assumed f-35 doesn't have active jamming capabilities). I can dissect your oversimplification of active radar jamming and complete disregard all of its disadvantages and limitations, but I think it's unnecessary due to your argument being too obviously illogical. So let's just respond to that by raising some questions of the obvious itself:

Rafale or Typhoon to possibly be stealthier by anyway? I think you need to take a step back and reconsider it. Sometimes, we argue so passionately that we gradually lose our common sense a little. It happens to me sometimes, on youtube board ;D. Active jamming to be on equal with passive jamming such as stealth? What next? Replace B-2 with B-1b because of its powerful jamming devices? When did we start going backward in time?
There's a reason why the F-117 and B-2 came into existence though we already had had radar jamming capabilities, ya know?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Its certainly odd that the F-35 is coming in for such sustained criticism. Its got a hell of a lot of advanced stuff going into it, and some of the best people from around the world are involved in it, which makes it strange that it should be criticised so heavily before its even finished.

 

[donnage99]

Its certainly odd that the F-35 is coming in for such sustained criticism. Its got a hell of a lot of advanced stuff going into it, and some of the best people from around the world are involved in it, which makes it strange that it should be criticised so heavily before its even finished.

The unwillingness of people who refuse to evolve. Fear of things that would change the ways that people are so used to. And of course, biggest reason: competition for the aerospace market. F-35 will be the largest sell around the world, and that threaten every other guys who's not evolved. A while ago, Lockheed came out angrily at Boeing by spreading what they called "half truths" about f-35 for their Super Hornet sales.

 

[Woody]

Ahh so everything that disagrees with your preconceived view point you can dismiss as just PR and therefore spin (ie lies) and because the F-35 hasn’t yet test fired any munitions (it’s still five years out from entering service) you can dismiss that as well? And now I’ve got to show you a photo of the F-35 loaded with ASRAAMs to make you believe it can carry one? Yet you’re happy to accept that the Rafale will have some mystical EW system that will make it harder to see than the F-35?

Yup.

HA-HA-HA, sorry couldn't resist, but that's what people do in the absence of facts.

Please tell me more about the F-35's radar because unless I know otherwise I'm just playing Lockheed Martin PR against Thales PR - and so is (nearly) everyone else.

He confirms hints that the USAF's long-range radar-guided missiles are susceptible to jamming, blunting their edge in beyond-visual-range combat.

So nobody wants to talk about this?

...when the f-35 has a freakin' gun

Only on the USAF CTOL version that the RN won't be getting, but prove me wrong.

I started this inquiry in response to the Typhoon being suggested as an F-35 carrier alternative as the F-35's future looked in some doubt as the US congress appeared to be loosing faith in the project.
I never meant to criticise the F-35 but you guys make it too easy.
You're right that the F-35 is five years away from service and counting - is that a good thing?
It could be surmised that the only reason the F-22 (Lockheed Martin's only original fighter - the rest were Lockkheed or General Dynamics) ever made it into service is because Boeing was on board (you know, the guys who make the Super Hornet ;D).
So for me (unlike all the JSF fan-boys) seeing is believing.

Cheers, Woody

 

[starviking]

Here's something to consider - if you want to use the F-35 to provide CAP for the fleet - there really isn't much of a problem putting missiles under the wings. Sure it'll increase the radar return of the CAP planes - but it probably won't be greater than a Rafale or SH.

Stealthy attack and LO CAP.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Please tell me more about the F-35's radar because unless I know otherwise I'm just playing Lockheed Martin PR against Thales PR - and so is (nearly) everyone else.

Actually the radar is a Northrop Grumman product. But since you seem to think everything published by a defence company is just 'PR' then I guess you won't accept their descriptions either.

Your last post showed your true colours. You’re just another knowledge poor, ego manic out to get a buzz through online debating. A flame warrior with nothing to contribute.

There’s a whole webpage dedicated to cataloguing your type:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm

Secret Projects used to be a great forum that never had this kind of crap. It was just people coming online and freely sharing research they had garnered into various, but mostly defence aviation, projects that were lesser known or hadn’t progressed to an in service system.

Now thanks to the various publicity it’s getting clogged with fan boys who can’t answer basic questions for themselves on Google and/or flame warriors. What a shame.

Woody if it some stage you wish to awake from your stupor please note that the Royal Navy is acquiring the F-35B for its carriers. They were offered the Rafale and a CTOL carrier configuration as part of the CVF lead up. But they said no and went for a more capable solution. But I guess that's all just PR to you...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I think this discussion has run out of steam. I'm going to lock it. If you think there's something new to talk about regarding JSF or Rafale for the UK RN, message me and I'll reopen it.

Abraham, I understand the sentiment but try not to make criticisms personal.