Comments by "Valen Ron" (@valenrn8657) on "F-35 vs Rafale: The battle for fighter jet supremacy | CNBC International" video.
-
4
-
@ommsterlitz1805 Bullshit.
ttps://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/8a66ta/out_of_the_shadows_rnlaf_experiences_with_the/
Out Of The Shadows: RNLAF experiences with the F-35A - Combat Aircraft Magazine May 2018
1. Dutch F-35 Block 3F, "F-35 sits somewhere in between the F-16 and F/A-18 when it comes to within visual range manoeuvring'".
2. Lightest empty weight F-16A MLU air-superority model needs to be clean (no weapons, no external tanks) to make visual range dogfight interesting against combat loaded F-35A Block 3F.
3. Dutch has acknowledge early F-35 Block builds being beaten by F-16s which is NOT applicable for F-35A Block 3F build.
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/
More F-16 vs F-35 from Norwegian pilot.
I quote
Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNXhrYNv_xM
NATO Frisian Flag - mass launch and recovery of Vipers, Typhoons, Gripens & Hornets
Original source (non-English)
http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/suomella-vahvat-ilmavoimat-mutta-kuinka-kauan/
Frisian Flag 2012 exercises in Holland, Finnish F-18Cs gets 100 kills and 6 loses against Eurofighter (Germany, UK), Polish new F-16 and older F-16 planes (Norway, Belgium) and Gripen (Swedish)
Finland's F-18C has 16:1 kill ratio over Germany/UK's Eurofighter, Poland's F-16C Block 52+ and Norway/Belgium's F-16A MLU and Sweden's Gripen.
Poland, Norway and Belgium has selected F-35A over losers in Frisian Flag 2012.
------------
F-35A Block 3F has 9G with 50 degrees angle of attack.
For Refale
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale-334383/
The DFCS is a "g" demand system with +9.0g/29° angle of attack (AoA) limit in air-to-air mode and +5.5g/20° AoA limit in both of the two air-to-ground/heavy stores modes (ST1 and ST2) to cater for forward or aft centre of gravity
For F-35
A, http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15013&start=210
Article copied beyond Aviation Week paywall.
So it got stuck at 60 or 70 deg. alpha, and it was as happy as could be
For reference, F-16 Vista with thrust vector control can nearly sustain 90 degress angle of attack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj8OJs6E3JM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RTWnFaQfHU
F-35A's post-stall flay spin reversal maneuver with hover. Find Rafale's version.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/i-flew-supersonic-barely-at-th/
F-35C has 300 degrees per second roll rate.
F-35A roll rate: 300 deg/sec. Video proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qceZALofOcg&feature=youtu.be&t=1m15s
http://theaviationist.com/2015/05/01/aileron-roll-in-t-346a/
According to most reports a Rafale features a maximum roll rate of 270 deg/s, the Eurofighter Typhoon is able of around 250 deg/s, the F/A-18E Super Hornet has a maximum roll rate of 120 deg/s whereas the F-16 can roll at 240 deg/s.
Try again.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
macfly72
, On the ATLC
Air Forces Monthly had an article, "The Big Fight", about the Advanced Tactical Leadership Course (ATLC) in its April 2010 issue.
The successive article (same issue), "Justifiably Proud!", was an interview with Lt. Col. Fabrice Grandclaudon, Commander of EC 1/7.
"AFM: You apparently said 'the Rafale rubbed F-22 - the most modern fighter of the USAF. During six encounters the F-22 hit its goal only once'. The 27th FS doesn't remember the engagements that way and say the F-22 scored several victories against Rafale. Did you offer DACT to the Raptors and did they decline?
I did not say we 'rubbed them', I said that there was only one shot claimed (ie a simulated kill) for the six that were set-up. I read in a recent issue of Air et Cosmos that it was two. As far as I am concerned, one or two shots of six Basic Fighter Manoeuvres (BFM) encounters is a victory for the F-22 but not an overwhelming one. Not like the one we claimed against the Typhoons after combat in Solenzara, Corsica during September (9 set-up: 8 to 1 for the Rafale*). The other set-ups versus F-22s were terminated for combat deck, an un-decisive situation or lack of fuel. We never shot them down, but we hope to do so soon since we are quite good opposition for them, and it is in the pilot's spirit not to give up!
Like almost every nation, we offered Beyond Visual Range DACT, of course, but the F-22 was only authorized to do BFM 1v1 Within Visual Range (WVR) versus foreign countries (except the UK, with whom they did not fight even in the BFMs). I wish we could have done so, but we didn't - which bring me back to Air et Cosmos, where its information about BVR engagement with AMRAAM in stealth mode is wrong: besides the fact that we did not even fly BVR vs F-22s! F-22 was fitted with some specific device to increase their radar signature. It enabled us to have contact with them during work ups for example. But that's not the point here."
-------------
1. "one or two shots of six Basic Fighter Manoeuvres (BFM) encounters is a victory for the F-22" .
2. "We never shot them down" on another setup.
Note that F-22s has to increase it's RCS for the training.
In a real combat, F-22A's specific device to increase their radar signature would be turned off and Rafale's pilots would have comparably inferior situation awareness than F-22's pilots since Rafale's pilots wouldn't be aware of F-22A's specific location i.e. it's another F-22's mass (simulated) killing of F-15s type scenario.
Without F-22A's RCS booster, Rafale's pilots wouldn't be able to locate the F-22s for training.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Izno Iznogoud,
F-35A (year 2016 build) combat radius is 1407 Km with A2A load. http://s31.postimg.org/t6r9098gb/F_35_new_range.jpg
F-35A has passive EO-DAS for missile guidance.
Air Forces Monthly had an article, "The Big Fight", about the Advanced Tactical Leadership Course (ATLC) in its April 2010 issue.
The successive article (same issue), "Justifiably Proud!", was an interview with Lt. Col. Fabrice Grandclaudon, Commander of EC 1/7.
"AFM: You apparently said 'the Rafale rubbed F-22 - the most modern fighter of the USAF. During six encounters the F-22 hit its goal only once'. The 27th FS doesn't remember the engagements that way and say the F-22 scored several victories against Rafale. Did you offer DACT to the Raptors and did they decline?
I did not say we 'rubbed them', I said that there was only one shot claimed (ie a simulated kill) for the six that were set-up. I read in a recent issue of Air et Cosmos that it was two. As far as I am concerned, one or two shots of six Basic Fighter Manoeuvres (BFM) encounters is a victory for the F-22 but not an overwhelming one. Not like the one we claimed against the Typhoons after combat in Solenzara, Corsica during September (9 set-up: 8 to 1 for the Rafale*). The other set-ups versus F-22s were terminated for combat deck, an un-decisive situation or lack of fuel. We never shot them down, but we hope to do so soon since we are quite good opposition for them, and it is in the pilot's spirit not to give up!
Like almost every nation, we offered Beyond Visual Range DACT, of course, but the F-22 was only authorized to do BFM 1v1 Within Visual Range (WVR) versus foreign countries (except the UK, with whom they did not fight even in the BFMs). I wish we could have done so, but we didn't - which bring me back to Air et Cosmos, where its information about BVR engagement with AMRAAM in stealth mode is wrong: besides the fact that we did not even fly BVR vs F-22s! F-22 was fitted with some specific device to increase their radar signature. It enabled us to have contact with them during work ups for example. But that's not the point here."
-------------
1. "one or two shots of six Basic Fighter Manoeuvres (BFM) encounters is a victory for the F-22" .
2. "We never shot them down" on another setup.
Note that F-22s has to increase it's RCS for the training.
In a real combat, F-22A's specific device to increase their radar signature would be turned off and Rafale's pilots would have comparably inferior situation awareness than F-22's pilots since Rafale's pilots wouldn't be aware of F-22A's specific location i.e. it's another F-22's mass (simulated) killing of F-15s type scenario.
Without F-22A's RCS booster, Rafale's pilots wouldn't be able to locate the F-22s for training.
3. None of the OSF pictures released by the French Ministry of Defense represented a kill.
1
-
1
-
@joehentalack2443
Mirage F1
Combat range: 425 km (264 mi, 229 nmi) hi-lo-hi at Mach 0.75/0.88 with 14 × 250 kg (551 lb) bombs.
Ferry range: 3,300 km (2,100 mi, 1,800 nmi) with maximum external fuel.
F-22A
Combat radius: 1,093 km subsonic (internal weapons bay)
Combat range : 2,186 km subsonic (internal weapons bay)
Range with two external tanks: 2,963 km
Ferry range: 3,220 km
For strike missions, refer to F-15E and F-35A (including zero day SEAD missions)
Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@djorksolo8544
Air Forces Monthly had an article, "The Big Fight", about the Advanced Tactical Leadership Course (ATLC) in its April 2010 issue.
The successive article (same issue), "Justifiably Proud!", was an interview with Lt. Col. Fabrice Grandclaudon, Commander of EC 1/7.
"AFM: You apparently said 'the Rafale rubbed F-22 - the most modern fighter of the USAF. During six encounters the F-22 hit its goal only once'. The 27th FS doesn't remember the engagements that way and say the F-22 scored several victories against Rafale. Did you offer DACT to the Raptors and did they decline?
I did not say we 'rubbed them', I said that there was only one shot claimed (ie a simulated kill) for the six that were set-up. I read in a recent issue of Air et Cosmos that it was two. As far as I am concerned, one or two shots of six Basic Fighter Manoeuvres (BFM) encounters is a victory for the F-22 but not an overwhelming one. Not like the one we claimed against the Typhoons after combat in Solenzara, Corsica during September (9 set-up: 8 to 1 for the Rafale*). The other set-ups versus F-22s were terminated for combat deck, an un-decisive situation or lack of fuel. We never shot them down, but we hope to do so soon since we are quite good opposition for them, and it is in the pilot's spirit not to give up!
Like almost every nation, we offered Beyond Visual Range DACT, of course, but the F-22 was only authorized to do BFM 1v1 Within Visual Range (WVR) versus foreign countries (except the UK, with whom they did not fight even in the BFMs). I wish we could have done so, but we didn't - which bring me back to Air et Cosmos, where its information about BVR engagement with AMRAAM in stealth mode is wrong: besides the fact that we did not even fly BVR vs F-22s! F-22 was fitted with some specific device to increase their radar signature. It enabled us to have contact with them during work ups for example. But that's not the point here."
-------------
1. "one or two shots of six Basic Fighter Manoeuvres (BFM) encounters is a victory for the F-22" .
2. "We never shot them down" on another setup.
Note that F-22s has to increase it's RCS for the training.
In a real combat, F-22A's specific device to increase their radar signature would be turned off and Rafale's pilots would have comparably inferior situation awareness than F-22's pilots since Rafale's pilots wouldn't be aware of F-22A's specific location i.e. it's another F-22's mass (simulated) killing of F-15s type scenario.
Without F-22A's RCS booster, Rafale's pilots wouldn't be able to locate the F-22s for training.
3. None of the OSF pictures released by the French Ministry of Defense represented a kill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@f65
During WW2, UK delivered the 1st Nazi Germany defeat during the Battle of Britian, hence weakening Germany's airforce fleet.
Nazi Germany's large land army is a mismatch against UK's maritime superiority.
Both UK and Imperial Japan have about 11 aircraft carriers during WW2, but UK can only handle a single front war e.g. WW1.
US Navy was created to overcome Imperial Japan's UK size maritime power.
USA production is more than 4 times since the US was the only nation to mass-produced aircraft carriers.
Germany
Tiger I tank's 1,347 units x 44 tons = 59,268 tons
Tiger II tank has 492 units x 68 tons = 33,456 tons
Panther tank has 6000 units x 44 tons = 264,000 tons
Panzer IV has 8,553 unit x 25 tons = 213,825 tons
Total: 570,549 tons
Czech's Panzer 38(t) has 1414 units x 10 tons = 141,40 tons
USA
M26 tanks has 2,212 units x 44 tons = 97,328 tons M26 has 90 mm gun.
M4 tanks has 49,234 units x 33 tons = 1,624,722, Russian T34 tanks has similar number.
M10 tank destroyer has 6,406 units x 29 tons = 185,774 tons
M18 tank destroyer has 2,507 units x 39 tons = 97,773 tons
M36 tank destroyer has 2,324 units x 29 tons = 67,396 tons M36 has 90 mm gun.
Sub-Total: 2,072,993 tons
M4 Sherman Firefly (UK) has 2,200 units x 35 tons = 77,000 tons. M4 Firefly can takes on Tiger I and Panther tanks.
The US has both quality (M26) and numbers (M4).
A significant amount of the US Army's tonnage was against the German army.
The US has the following aircraft carrier production
24 Essex-class fleet carriers with 90 to 110 aircraft each. 650,400 tons for Essex-class.
21 Commencement Bay class with 228,900 tons
50 Casablanca-class with 390,000 tons.
45 Bogue-class with 747,900 tons
3 Yorktown-class fleet carriers with 59,400 tons
Sub-Total: 3,798,645 tons
Modern-day USN aircraft carrier fleet tonnage is just about 1,460,000 tons.
A significant amount of USN's tonnage was against the Japanese navy. WW2 UK has similar aircraft carrier builds as Imperial Japan i.e. around 10 to 11 units.
Not including UK, US and Canada other surface combat ships e.g. destroyers, heavy cruisers, battleships and 'etc'.
Grand Total: 5,871,638 tons
For the US, that's already 10.3X times over Germany's iron/steel tonnage extract/production.
WW2 Russian navy is small.
WW2 German navy is small.
Both Canada and the USA has the advantage of the entire North American continent on raw metal and oil resources.
European mainland is raw resource-poor, hence the reason for Hitler wanting Russian lands.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1