8 ms·

Dassault Rafale vs. F-35

27 points by rq1 4y ago

smcl 4y ago
This probably needs a [2015], I don’t know about everything in the article but there are a few mentions of costs which will at least be out of date now that F35 is more widely produced
GalenErso 4y ago
> 35 can fly one hour every two days This is wrong. The F-35 Joint Program Office said that maintenance man hours per flight hour (MMH/FH) were 4.79 for the F-35A, 7.48 for the U.S. Marine Corps’ F-35B, and 7.55 for the U.S. Navy F-35C https://www.aviationtoday.com/2022/09/02/lockheed-martin-notes-high-mission-capable-rates-forward-f-35s-training-aircraft-lag/ https://www.aviationtoday.com/2022/09/02/lockheed-martin-not...
- twawaaay 4y ago
  Yeah. There isn't a technical reason why a plane can't be in flight every moment it is not on the ground in maintenance. And US is kinda expert at long range, endurance missions with air to air refuelling. The only limitation is on how large budget you have to run your planes (and possibly availability of pilots for some type of aircraft) but this is only for peace time.
- bfgoodrich 4y ago
  [dead]
- HelloNurse 4y ago
  That section of the article has serious arithmetic issues. > Rafale can fly 2,7 hours every day. Direct operating cost is 16.500 USD per hour (cca, 17.000 USD when corrected for inflation). F-35 can fly one hour every two days, and has direct operating cost of 30.000 USD per hour. > direct operating costs per hour of flight will be 1.336.500 USD per month for Rafale and 450.000 USD per month for F-35.
  - Algent 4y ago
    The second sentence feel like the plane names got swapped, it's the only way this would make any sense.
ohadron 4y ago
I skimmed and quickly found many assumptions that I know for a fact are ridiculous. If you're in the market for a multi-role fighter I suggest you review additional resources before you splurge.
- causi 4y ago
  I maintain my opinion that "not being utter horseshit" should be added to the list of submission guidelines.
- FizBack 4y ago
  Best to describe what those assumptions are (otherwise it looks like another blurry assumption). Not that anyone here is in the market for a jet fighter…
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mebassett 4y ago
    many of us are, actually, indirectly as taxpayers. the MIC is really good at unaccountable taxpayer spending. So while reviews of military tech might just appease our inner child they're also useful from a civics perspective!
  - icegreentea2 4y ago
    I think some of the really challenging aspects of this piece is there's a lot of comparisons that really hinge on details that are both fixable (ie, not baked into the F-35 vs Rafale airframe selection per-se), or are details that -really- the greater community couldn't possibility -really- have insight into. Examples: * When discussing situational awareness, the article grants similar raw data gathering capabilities to both platforms, but then grants the overall win to Rafale because of better data presentation, claiming that the F-35 just dumps piles of raw numerical data at the pilot. Now, given the age of this article, I can connect to problems that Lockheed Martin had in delivering working sensor fusion software around that timeframe. To be fair to the article, that was actually a problem. But as a software problem, it's much more fixable. I can't find any recent discussion on broken sensor fusion or F-35 information overload. * I automatically red flag high precision/confidence discussion about RCS, radar set and IR search/track performance. Like... it's for sure some of the most sensitive parts of fighter platform performance. I would take the entire section with a grain of salt as well. * The entire engagement scenario chosen heavily boils down to missile choice/availability. There's no argument that AIM-120D has significant limitations in range compared to some of its peers, but this is also a solvable problem (AIM-260 in development). Weapons availability/compatibility is definitely a valid consideration when choosing between platforms, but should be weighed appropriately. * The engagement scenario is also a bit weird. It doesn't consider for example a pair of Rafales vs pair of F-35 (which would be much more likely scenario... wingmen exist for a reason). It removes AWACS (while AWACS is obviously very vulnerable, it's unclear to me that they would be fully neutralized in a peer conflict). It doesn't consider that data-links might actually be hard to jam. Because it doesn't consider cooperation, it doesn't consider that perhaps F-35s could work together, with one using its radar and feeding it's data to the other. Basically, the engagement scenario removes the F-35's greatest structural advantage (it's radar stealth). Now, I think it's completely fair to consider that scenario, but to be honest you'd need to consider it against other engagement scenarios and then weigh the relatively likelihood/importance of the different scenarios.
cameronh90 4y ago
I don't know anything about fighter jets but this reads like a very biased write up. I assume there's a reason that the F-35 has outsold the Rafele more than 3:1 - perhaps there's more to picking a fighter jet than playing top trumps on the spec?
- Thaxll 4y ago
  Indeed, politics plays a bigger role than specs.
- maeln 4y ago
  There is a joke in the France Defense sector that goes like "France has very good engineer and very bad salesman". When it come to pure "on paper" spec, Dassault (planes), Naval Group (submarines & boats) and Nexter (tanks) can often challenge their U.S and Russian competitor. But in the world of Defense, politics is often more important than pure spec. Buying from Uncle Sam is one way to be closer to the most (atm) powerful country in the world. Also, due to the fact that the U.S Defense budget is ludicrous, you can bet that whatever you buy will be produced in larger quantities, for a long time and will have plenty of spare parts and such. A good exemple is the fiasco of the Australian submarines contract with Naval Group. On paper, the contract was amazing for the Aussies: Not only would they have subs that would fit their specs, but the subs were planned to be built for the most part in Australia and to have a full transfer of technology. So they were buying the subs and the means and knowledge to make them themselves in the future. It would also have created a lot of jobs in Australia. But then the U.S came around and used their diplomacy to make the contract fail even though their proposition was on paper inferior. It is funny because the French, if they had been given the opportunity, could have proposed something similar to the U.S proposition (especially since France is one of the only country willing to export their nuclear subs technology), but the aussies didn't even give them the chance, clearly showing that it was not a business or a specs issue, but a diplomatic one.
  - creshal 4y ago
    Dassault is no longer really competitive¹. The gap between 4th/4.5th generation jets and 5th generation jets is massive, no matter how many military bloggers use creative accounting to explain it away, and Dassault is really only competing in markets that would also be fine with an American F-16 if the price is right, and that's a 1970s design. ¹: Their engineers might still be, but their products are not, and France cannot fund the development of any.
idontwantthis 4y ago
What is even the point of comparing a stealth fighter to a non stealth fighter? > Both aircraft have similar, almost identical purposes Plainly false. What is the point of this article?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Spooky23 4y ago
These sorts of comparisons end up being shark vs bear discussions - until engagements happen, the information you need isn’t available. When I was a kid in the late 80s I was an aviation nut, and the over the top analyst takes on the MiG 29 were totally off. Air Force and Navy comparisons always depend on the ecosystem around the systems. The US system around operating these things on deployments is the magic. The other thing is as a dude on a message board without context, the cynicism re the F35 almost too much. I always question whether that’s misinformation.

27 points by rq1 4y ago

smcl 4y ago

This probably needs a [2015], I don’t know about everything in the article but there are a few mentions of costs which will at least be out of date now that F35 is more widely produced

GalenErso 4y ago

> 35 can fly one hour every two days This is wrong. The F-35 Joint Program Office said that maintenance man hours per flight hour (MMH/FH) were 4.79 for the F-35A, 7.48 for the U.S. Marine Corps’ F-35B, and 7.55 for the U.S. Navy F-35C https://www.aviationtoday.com/2022/09/02/lockheed-martin-notes-high-mission-capable-rates-forward-f-35s-training-aircraft-lag/ https://www.aviationtoday.com/2022/09/02/lockheed-martin-not...

twawaaay 4y ago
Yeah. There isn't a technical reason why a plane can't be in flight every moment it is not on the ground in maintenance. And US is kinda expert at long range, endurance missions with air to air refuelling. The only limitation is on how large budget you have to run your planes (and possibly availability of pilots for some type of aircraft) but this is only for peace time.
bfgoodrich 4y ago
[dead]
HelloNurse 4y ago
That section of the article has serious arithmetic issues. > Rafale can fly 2,7 hours every day. Direct operating cost is 16.500 USD per hour (cca, 17.000 USD when corrected for inflation). F-35 can fly one hour every two days, and has direct operating cost of 30.000 USD per hour. > direct operating costs per hour of flight will be 1.336.500 USD per month for Rafale and 450.000 USD per month for F-35.
- Algent 4y ago
  The second sentence feel like the plane names got swapped, it's the only way this would make any sense.

ohadron 4y ago

I skimmed and quickly found many assumptions that I know for a fact are ridiculous. If you're in the market for a multi-role fighter I suggest you review additional resources before you splurge.

causi 4y ago
I maintain my opinion that "not being utter horseshit" should be added to the list of submission guidelines.
FizBack 4y ago
Best to describe what those assumptions are (otherwise it looks like another blurry assumption). Not that anyone here is in the market for a jet fighter…
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mebassett 4y ago
  many of us are, actually, indirectly as taxpayers. the MIC is really good at unaccountable taxpayer spending. So while reviews of military tech might just appease our inner child they're also useful from a civics perspective!
- icegreentea2 4y ago
  I think some of the really challenging aspects of this piece is there's a lot of comparisons that really hinge on details that are both fixable (ie, not baked into the F-35 vs Rafale airframe selection per-se), or are details that -really- the greater community couldn't possibility -really- have insight into. Examples: * When discussing situational awareness, the article grants similar raw data gathering capabilities to both platforms, but then grants the overall win to Rafale because of better data presentation, claiming that the F-35 just dumps piles of raw numerical data at the pilot. Now, given the age of this article, I can connect to problems that Lockheed Martin had in delivering working sensor fusion software around that timeframe. To be fair to the article, that was actually a problem. But as a software problem, it's much more fixable. I can't find any recent discussion on broken sensor fusion or F-35 information overload. * I automatically red flag high precision/confidence discussion about RCS, radar set and IR search/track performance. Like... it's for sure some of the most sensitive parts of fighter platform performance. I would take the entire section with a grain of salt as well. * The entire engagement scenario chosen heavily boils down to missile choice/availability. There's no argument that AIM-120D has significant limitations in range compared to some of its peers, but this is also a solvable problem (AIM-260 in development). Weapons availability/compatibility is definitely a valid consideration when choosing between platforms, but should be weighed appropriately. * The engagement scenario is also a bit weird. It doesn't consider for example a pair of Rafales vs pair of F-35 (which would be much more likely scenario... wingmen exist for a reason). It removes AWACS (while AWACS is obviously very vulnerable, it's unclear to me that they would be fully neutralized in a peer conflict). It doesn't consider that data-links might actually be hard to jam. Because it doesn't consider cooperation, it doesn't consider that perhaps F-35s could work together, with one using its radar and feeding it's data to the other. Basically, the engagement scenario removes the F-35's greatest structural advantage (it's radar stealth). Now, I think it's completely fair to consider that scenario, but to be honest you'd need to consider it against other engagement scenarios and then weigh the relatively likelihood/importance of the different scenarios.

cameronh90 4y ago

I don't know anything about fighter jets but this reads like a very biased write up. I assume there's a reason that the F-35 has outsold the Rafele more than 3:1 - perhaps there's more to picking a fighter jet than playing top trumps on the spec?

Thaxll 4y ago
Indeed, politics plays a bigger role than specs.
maeln 4y ago
There is a joke in the France Defense sector that goes like "France has very good engineer and very bad salesman". When it come to pure "on paper" spec, Dassault (planes), Naval Group (submarines & boats) and Nexter (tanks) can often challenge their U.S and Russian competitor. But in the world of Defense, politics is often more important than pure spec. Buying from Uncle Sam is one way to be closer to the most (atm) powerful country in the world. Also, due to the fact that the U.S Defense budget is ludicrous, you can bet that whatever you buy will be produced in larger quantities, for a long time and will have plenty of spare parts and such. A good exemple is the fiasco of the Australian submarines contract with Naval Group. On paper, the contract was amazing for the Aussies: Not only would they have subs that would fit their specs, but the subs were planned to be built for the most part in Australia and to have a full transfer of technology. So they were buying the subs and the means and knowledge to make them themselves in the future. It would also have created a lot of jobs in Australia. But then the U.S came around and used their diplomacy to make the contract fail even though their proposition was on paper inferior. It is funny because the French, if they had been given the opportunity, could have proposed something similar to the U.S proposition (especially since France is one of the only country willing to export their nuclear subs technology), but the aussies didn't even give them the chance, clearly showing that it was not a business or a specs issue, but a diplomatic one.
- creshal 4y ago
  Dassault is no longer really competitive¹. The gap between 4th/4.5th generation jets and 5th generation jets is massive, no matter how many military bloggers use creative accounting to explain it away, and Dassault is really only competing in markets that would also be fine with an American F-16 if the price is right, and that's a 1970s design. ¹: Their engineers might still be, but their products are not, and France cannot fund the development of any.

idontwantthis 4y ago

What is even the point of comparing a stealth fighter to a non stealth fighter? > Both aircraft have similar, almost identical purposes Plainly false. What is the point of this article?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Spooky23 4y ago

These sorts of comparisons end up being shark vs bear discussions - until engagements happen, the information you need isn’t available. When I was a kid in the late 80s I was an aviation nut, and the over the top analyst takes on the MiG 29 were totally off. Air Force and Navy comparisons always depend on the ecosystem around the systems. The US system around operating these things on deployments is the magic. The other thing is as a dude on a message board without context, the cynicism re the F35 almost too much. I always question whether that’s misinformation.