Debate on F-35 JSF aerodynamics
- Thread starter BKNO
- Start date
Im sorry to offend that was not directed at you in any way. Its fine to use APA as a source as they do bring up good idea's. For example they showed that we definitely need more tankers, the analysis was excellent, but their conclusion was off the mark. We definitely dont need over a dozen tankers though it made it pretty clear that we need more.
As a researcher the conclusion is always the authors opinion based on the information they analysed. You personally can use the analysis from various sources and combine it all into one giant conclusion.
My first conclusion is that both the F-22 and F-35 are decent and would offer excellent capability to Australia. Either aircraft will annihilate the enemy (Indonesia) back to the stone age.
My second conclusion is that based on various projects in recent history, (Block 60 F-16's) i do not believe for one second that the Evolved F-111 will cost the price that Air Power Australia suggests. Tripple the figure and we may get close, and at that price its no longer a cost effective solution. Still effective just no longer the cheapest.
As the F-111 wont work then this effects my first conclusion as we may not be able to afford enough F-35's let alone F-22's to fill all the squadrons. So the F-35 gets my tick of approval.
Also it seems that you have seen through APA's vested interest in the Evolved F-111, so the half a brain comment does not apply
Notice the fine print at the bottom of my postThe F-22 will cost more than the F-35 but where on earth did you get these figures from?
You always must read the fine print.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I unlike many people hereabouts am simply not prepared to make definitive statements about capability when none of us are authorised to know what ANY of these levels are.
BKNO for instance makes claims about the Rafales T:W ratio advantage over the F-35. This is very curious given the F-35 is STILL under development and the F-135 and F-136 are proving to generate MUCH greater thrust levels than previously expected. In any case even the 43,000lbs afterburner and 28,00lbs dry figures released in the P&W data sheet in September 2006 are only a publicly releasable numbers. They COULD be the real numbers, or perhaps the real figure could be less or more, but none of us will know for sure.
And cost an absolute FORTUNE to maintain the 2 types, for a small gain in capability in one narrow role.
I'd rather say if we really NEEDED it we could afford it. Assuming the USA would actually sell it to us and it was still in production.
I don't see that need eventuating, even in 20 years.
I'm not being sarcastic, but what are you refering to in this comment, i'm not realy understanding what this is actually refering to??????
It was in reply to your "however it will still be vulnerable to advanced EO/IR" comment. Every aircraft until the advent of "cloaking devices" will be...
Except the integration of said weapons onto F-22 is not funded nor is the upgrades and sensor additions needed to employ them. The pods if they eventuate will have equal applicability on an F-35.
If the need for SOW is not there on an LO aircraft, why does the mighty B-2 need them?
And with 183 aircraft, and a better striker on the way I'm sure USAF is going to be employing it's F-22 in this most dangerous (to it) role, on a regular occurrence, once F-35 arrives...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #86
1) M-88 ECO is also in developement and have already generated 90 kN.
2) A twin engine have always a higher degree of TWR growth than a single engine aircraft, while it wouldn't matter if F-35 had a higher TWR now it makes a difference from now on anyway because its TWR is lower and wingload higher today.
3) F-35 weight can only grow during developement, that of Rafale is NOT going to increase as its avionics/systems developement is already well matured into the F2 standard with no weight increase foreseen to the F-3/post F-3s.
At Dassault they talk about weight saving measures including an increase in TWR without engine mass increase = ECO.
4) You still keep implying that design targets havent been reached at L-M i suggest you read their documentation, and check for the weights figures as well as design standards, 240-4 is clearly representative of production aircrafts.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9663/lmprogrambriefsept06wt9.jpg
That's:
20.036 lb CTOL
32.161 lb STVOL.
32.072 lb CV.
If anything in the STVOL case weight increased since SWAT.
You're definitly NOT going to have Typhoon/Rafale performances out of F-35 simply because it was never designed for the purpose in the first place.
What is IS is a stealthy strike aircraft which is going to dominate the battlefield thanks to its design features but is NOT designed for high level of A2A threats like F-22 or even the Typhoon/Rafales.
A limited amount of L.O in its design doesn't change this fact, to achieve this you need the F-22 total requierements; i.e. high cruising speed, FULL L.O, high maneuvrability and kinetiq energy etc...
The rest like sensors and to a lower degree engines can be upgraded for BOTH F-35 and its futur opponents.
Last edited:
OK - I get the picture now. Damn, I always forget to read the fime print! :I
Notice the fine print at the bottom of my post
Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Lucky Australia has no current intention of buying the STOVL variant then. We intend to acquire the F-35A which IS the cheapest, lightest and quickest of the 3 variants.
Out of interest how exactly can you tell what the T:W ratio of these aircraft will be when they are still developmental, EXTREMELY so in the case of the F-35?
The F-136 engine for instance is reputedly creating full afterburning thrust at around the 50,000lbs mark and 30,000lbs dry thrust mark. That hasn't been released publicly though...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #90
How can you miss the bit were 240-4 is already frozen???
Another LEGEND? Go to the manufacturer own web site and this is going to be 43.000 lb like for everyone else...
Yep! Well spoted ELP. I typoed this one..
I am NOT making thing up, so i make NO claims as such, i just have to compare manufacturer datas and i use the aircrafts politico-industrial histories to figure what their requierements were in the first place.
A pretty obvious tendency in the "F-35" community is to forget what F-35 was requiered (and designed) to do, and it is not to take the role LWF was designed to have when it was launched.
LWF was totally design-biased toward air-superiority with performances in this role which were the standard for 30 years and this is the reason WHY F-16 was such a good fighting machine, it was designed for air superiority.
Now the other fashionable thing is to tell us that there are no datas on performances or capabilities when the manufacturer have been publishing high-end figures for years and the programme is so well documented that even MTO limitations for its optronics are known.
So i dont know about YOU down-under but WE, in Europe, WE KNOW damned well what the whole F-35 programme is about since France was duely briefed on F-35 before L-M aircraft was chosen, and Britain the only priviledge partner so far...
Dassault was pitted with Boieng in the concurent bid on the cockpit layout ("Big Picture") and its avionics.
So the PRECISE set of requierement was perfectly known from France industrials, reason why none of them is so impressed by what F-35 is really today.
To make thing clear here, i want to remind you that as opposed to what many implies, F-35 level of stealth have certainly not increased.
If anything it have decreased, wing skin and some bulkheads thickness have decreased to save weight and it IS also a L.O feature.
SAME fro structural G limits...
Now, the Dutch fighters competition results show one thing:
F-35 : 697/850
Rafale : 695/850
Eurofighter : 585/850
With L.O, the US industrial package and all the goodies actually fitted to the actual aircraft can someone explain to me why an underdeveloped export version of the Rafale dubbed F-4 scored only 2 point less than F-35???
TECHNICAL POINTS:
1) The optimised intakes are the result of an atempt to recover thrust at low speed, because the STVOL version overshot its target design weight by a full 35% and that it was impossible to recover more than 25% of the weight.
The rest have to be found in extra thrust at low level/low-speeds to allow for safe STVOL operations and the previous intake was found to be "licking" BTW.
2) The difference in design between the TWO intake configuration allows for an extra 33% of static thrust recovery NOT an increase of ENGINE thrust of 33%.
3) The Engine is also optimised for STVOL Ops NOT high/altitude/High-speed, in fact it is a logical approach as the STVOL version can't use Burners during T-O and Landings.
Now you can check all you want you won't find better than what L-M are giving in their PDFs as non-approximates for the most recent 240-4 configuration.
CTOL: 29.036 lb
STVOL: 32.161 lb
CV: 32.072 lb.
TWR would give us:
Non-AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 0.964.
AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 1.480.
Non-AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 0.870
AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 1.337.
Non-AB Thrust TWR CV: 0.873.
AB Thrust TWR CV: 1.340.
Mach LIMIT for all variants: 1.6.
I didn't read Carlo Kopp essai on the subject BEFORE becoming a member of this board but i can already see one thing, the French specialists are coming to the same conclusions about F-35 and they know much more than Kopp on the subject...
The only thing that they are visibly worried about are the politico-industrial implications of the programme and its long-term impact on Europe R&D effort.
Remember they were part of the programme once and if F-35 had been predicted to be that better it would have been in AdA shoping list, even as a X-Mass wish...
In Singapore 2000 Serge Dassault was already stating that comes 2010 his aircraft would have every single system F-35 have been designed to carry and more, with the actual roadmap and R&D it's well on its way to become reality.
Another aspect of the F-35 programme that some have to beggin to aknowledge.
So that's WHY the Brits are going it all out with Typhoon, SAAB invests in upgrading their JAS-39 and France won't consider taking part into the programme.
My opinion is:
Trying to pass this aircraft for the "futur of air-to-air combat" is the greatest insult anyone could make to John Boyd, there cannot be an OODA loop out of the Energy-Maneuverability Theory...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Structural limits for the "A" model remain 9G's. The B and C are rated at 7.5G due to an attempt to conserve airframe life in the naturally more challenging naval environment.
It is USN policy to operate to a maximum of 7.5g. The current Hornet fleets are operated to the same level, but their ability to exceed 7.5G is well documented.
Wow, the Dutch show that the F-35 in such an immature stage of development STILL outclasses both the Eurofighter and Rafale, yet you still manage to turn this around and chalk it up as an example of this alleged superiority for the Rafale?
Incidentally, which fighter have the Dutch chosen to invest in as their next generation fighter?
What exactly do these numbers indicate anyway? What was the criteria for the competition and Is it too much to ask that you actually provide some evidence of your claim?
I think your nationalistic pride is starting to get the better of your reasoning here, mate.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #92
It's a structural LIMITATION resulting from DESIGN and WEIGHT issues.
And for your info, USN like the other services requiered better turning performances following the Critical design Review of configuration 230..
As for the USN "traditional" 7.5 g it's another forum myth, they would use a 9G fighter if ever they could put their hands on it, only no one have been able to design a 9 G carrier capable aircraft with the same structural life-span than the 7.5G F-18 which BTW have been flight-tested at up to 11.0 Gs.
There is a huge difference between the limits imposed by F-18 design (aerodynamics) and conventional FBW and that imposed by L-M after SWAT had to shread metal from everywhere they could to keep up with their weight devis.
Immature? You are mystaking design configurations with predicted global performances and capabilties here, at the time is was also predicted to be lighter, and NOT structurally G-limited.
Alleged? No mate PROVEN. MORE poke, FASTER, FURTHER, TIGHTER.
Incidentaly which country did equip their A-F previously?
The Netherland is one of the European contries who never used anything non-US since the F-84 and i should know about it i have been living in Nijmegen for 3 and half years and also speak Dutch.
Yep, i was there when their pilots were experiencing G=looks with their brand new F-16s and crashing in people's gardens
The indicate that despite the US industrial weight, the weapon package, the L.O and the FACT that the other aircrafts were not from the US it only was marginally ahead as a total package.
My "nationalistic pride " is looking increasingly like a reality check-up for you guys...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
And yet the Dutch found it to be superior.
Can you provide a link to where L-M states The F-35 is structurally limited to 7.5G. I'd wager you can't.
The USA obviously. As a current F-16 user I am CERTAIN they are well aware of the capability gains the F-35 provides over it. Certainly more so than yourself.
But still ahead and cheaper too...
No, it's making you look arrogant and foolish.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #95
@ Aussie Digger Listen mate i'm going to try to stay polite here. Your reality denial exercise is leading you nowhere.
You want evidences you got them, the only thing you have been doing so far is denying them and resorting to personal attacks.
Been ignorant ofsome fact is something denying them when presented with them another one, attacking people personal integrity for lack of arguments is pull by the (pubic) hairs methink...
AGAIN you ressort to personal attacks here, looks like you're very short in arguments.
So far in view of the developement cost you are provren WRONG.
nfloorl:
For the time being i'm bugging out i'm done here for a little while i need to read some good literature on the subject of aviation.
You want evidences you got them, the only thing you have been doing so far is denying them and resorting to personal attacks.
LOL that's a really funny quote. Take L.O the US economy and weapon out of the equation and what do YOU have left???
Yes i CAN because as opposed to you i dont FEED myself with mythology, i'll dig it for you if it pleases you but instead of giving us the bull factor woudln't it be more "respectfull" to inform US properly???
Sure of course so according to the USAF commericals let say 4 X time legacy effisciency in A2A do YOU know what our Rafale kill ratio is vs F-16 for a laugh? Even the 2000-5F score better than that.
Been ignorant ofsome fact is something denying them when presented with them another one, attacking people personal integrity for lack of arguments is pull by the (pubic) hairs methink...
AGAIN you ressort to personal attacks here, looks like you're very short in arguments.
Cheaper? Wait for it mate and you'll SEE once you have to pay for 30 years of support and spare if you can match the price.
So far in view of the developement cost you are provren WRONG.
GEE there must be a LOT of sand where you live...
nfloorl:For the time being i'm bugging out i'm done here for a little while i need to read some good literature on the subject of aviation.
Take the wings, engines, ejector seat and avionics out of the F-35 and what do you have left? An aircraft that doesn't fly.
Not a very good argument at all. The F-35 has great levels of stealth the Rafale has basic stealth. The only way the Rafale will be as survivable would be to have insane speed, speed that makes the F-22 look slow. As it does not have this speed it will not have the survivability of the F-35. The Rafale may in fact be quicker than the F-35, however all the international customers must believe that its not quick enough to overcome its higher radar cross section.
I notice how your strike comparison between the F-35 have the Rafale carrying three external fuel tanks compared to the internal fuel of the F-35. Now thats not fair at all. Compare the numbers of the F-35 with a pair of 480 gallon fuel tanks. The Rafale can no longer match its range, as its now in the range class of an F-111 not an F-15E.
If you know an aircraft will always be carrying external fuel tanks, then its internal fuel capacity should be increased. The F-35 took decades of Aviation history into account. Lets do a simple comparison, Aircraft A carries 5000kg of fuel externally and that knocks 100 knots off its cruising speed. Aircraft B Integrated that extra 5,000kg of fuel into the fuselage this only knock roughly 10 knots off the cruising speed. So when traveling to the target aircraft B will be flying 90 knots faster, when returning the aircraft A would dump its tanks and will be traveling only 10 knots faster.
Also as a third of the external fuel is needed just to overcome the drag added the range will be reduced. Aircraft B now only needs 3,333 kg of fuel internally to have the same range as Aircraft A carrying 5,000kg externally. So now Aircraft B travels even quicker to the target and when returning Aircraft A in clean config will only be a few knots quicker.
Thats why the F-35 is better than the Rafale in long range, subsonic strikes.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
You don't provide evidence. You post attachments stating, "look at this comparison of an M-88 and F-135" and you post only a picture of the M-88.
You state "French pilots" are quite impressed with the capability of their Rafales against Italian Typhoon's. What pilots? From what Squadron? What exercise? What was the objective? What were the rules in play (WVR only etc?) What did the Italian pilots have to say about the Rafales?
Answer THOSE sorts of questions and I'll concede you are providing something approaching evidence, because then we can try and CHECK them.
You provide unqualified statements as "evidence
and quote unspecified "manufactures data" and a nameless Squadrons website.
Then turn around and accuse US of lacking evidence because we quote Lockheed Martin...
A fighter which exceeds the flight performance of the F-16/F/A-18 series fighters, has an avionics suite the ENVY of any other fighter, as one example Rafale may get an AESA one day, though with a reduction in aircraft purchases to PAY for it, F-35 will START with it.
So you say, again with no qualification. I can provide ANY number of links to F-16 articles where people rave about it's superiority over the M-2000 series fighters.
Here's one comment from a HaF commander (MIRA 330 Squadon) of Mirage v F-16 in ATA combat, BUT with the Caveat of MICA IR armed Mirages but AIM-9L and AIM-120A AMRAAMS on Block 30 F-16's.
Put AIM-120C5, IRIS-T and JHMCS on the Block 52's (as Greece are doing) and things will be somewhat different... (For those unaware the Hellenic Air Force operates BOTH the F-16 and Mirage 2000-5 fighters)
"I'm very satisfied with the F-16 - in fact, I love it. In particular I love the Block 30."
He also states about the Mirage 2000 used mainly for Air to Air:
"It's an effective fighter, which the f-16 can't beat in a dogfight."
He ends by saying:
"The F-16 is much better multi-roll combat jet... it really is the complete package... " (Courtesy - Illustrated Aircraft).
Dogfighting. Wow. The 1 area that even a HaF commander conceeds a Mirage outperforms F-16. Thanks but I'd rather overall capability.
Indeed I am. I don't claim technical expertise in this area and am forced to rely on the open sourced data I can be bothered to find, but you do. Once again without ANY qualification whatsoever.
What? Do these costs not exist with Rafale? Do 2x engines NOT require more maintenance than 1x?
Or have the brilliance of the French designers managed to make a more reliable and cheaper aircraft to acquire and maintain despite this aircraft being at least 10 YEARS older developmental wise and having a user base that will be at least 10 times smaller???
Perhaps you can predict support costs from it's political-industrial history too?
nfloorl:Excellent, perhaps you can share some of it with us, next time you make a point. A novel idea I know, but give it a try sometime. You'll find it refreshing if nothing else.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #98
No? And what is it then??? You WONT see what doesn't please YOU.
Starting with all the most recent L-M documentation on weights and performances...
Mate i expect people to have the minimum of curiosity, i'm not in charge of making the news here and i provided with more sources already than i'm sure we can find to your name in this entire forum NO???...
I'm proving MY points while you do NOT make yours.
Sure. L-M Programme briefs are unspecified "manufactures data", nameless Squadrons website arent the real thing. What planet are you living in?
Keep quoting, only from now on try quoting L-M.
Apparently you still NEED to READ L-M documentation.
They dont say ANYTHING like you say to start with.
Slower, G -limited, superior ONLY in A2G configuration due (logically) to internal weapon loading ,spare us the hyped-up commercials please...
No mate it's NOT ME saying it's OUR pilots as well as the RAF pilots saying that there is only ONE aicraft they regards a superior thanks to its L.O and it's F-22, the fact that you keep dismissing their comments doesn't change FACTS.
My friend the Greeks are using the 2000-5 derivative in the Air defense role for a good reason. It IS an Air superiority fighter in a league above that of the F-16 and is NOT designed for thre strike role, for this we have the Ds.
You DENY source datas even the most recent from L-M, are you kidding me??? As for technical expertise i dont think all due respect that you could claim any, your comments are showing some serious lack of basics as for aerodynamics, structural design and the rest...
Try to compare them as they are, and BTW the equation is also valid for F-22 or the S-H for that matter.
The Rafale programme is WAY cheaper and unit costs includes all part supports for 30 years. Thanks.
What they have produced is a faster, more maneuvrable omnirole which carries MORE, further than F-35 in stealth configuration and still have some in reserve like CFTs for example.
Perhaps you should interess yourself to the subject you'll be enlighted then...
I keep doing it and as amatter of FACT it's an advice i return to you.
>>>>>Here goes.
Quote 1: Similarly, the design team has spent a long time looking at high angle-of-attack (alpha) flow characteristics to see if the F-35 might be susceptible to the vertical tail buffet issues encountered by the F/A-18 and F/A-22. "It's a good thing we did that," says Burbage, adding that the windtunnel tests show the F-35 chine does indeed generate a strong vortex at high alpha, and that flight tests would have revealed a distinct tail buffet. Structural reinforcement is being designed into the aircraft's F-35 vertical fins as a result of the tests says Burbage. He adds: "We are bound to have enough of our own problems without repeating those of others."
DATE: 25/11/03
SOURCE:Flight International
Weighty matters
Guy Norris / Los Angeles
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/11/25/174243/weighty-matters.html
>>>>>
Quote 2: The concept of cousin parts has been maintained – the 7g-stressed F-35B may have thinner, lighter bulkheads than the carrier-capable F-35C or 9g-capable F-35A, but the difference is not visible, says Williams. There are also cousin parts in the systems: the electro-hydrostatic actuators on the power-by-wire flight controls are different sizes – the STOVL actuators were downsized to reduce weight, while the CV’s are bigger to provide higher control rates for low-speed approach – but they are all manufactured by the same supplier using the same process, he says.
DATE:27/06/06
SOURCE:Flight International
JSF special: Future fighter
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...-strike-flight-international-jsf-special.html
SO? NO SOURCES?
YOU ARE WRONG: According to Bobby Williams, L-M air vehicle team leader.
"the 7g-stressed F-35B may have thinner, lighter bulkheads than the carrier-capable F-35C or 9g-capable F-35A,"
As I was saying it's 7.0, 7.5 AND 9.0 Gs structural LIMITS and you'd could wager that all i am coming forward with is duely documented with official sources.
As Quote 1: shows to well, there ARE progresses made in some areas but weight have also to INCREASE in order to solve other problems as they occur.
"Structural reinforcement is being designed into the aircraft's F-35 vertical fins as a result of the tests says Burbage."
As for the turning performances:
Configuration 230 (230-3) had reduced area of USAF/USMC JSF wings by seven per cent, but increased USN variant wing area by 11 per cent.
Further redesign occured in 1999, culminating in September with configuration 230-5 which has enlarged wing to satisfy sustained turn performance requierement and strengthened to meet 9G stress requierement for the CTOL variant.
Source: Jane's world's Aircraft edition 2006/07.
Among the more visible changes to the final Lockheed Martin-led 230-5 design iteration is an enlarged main wing to meet a higher 9g stress requirement. The size of the wing on the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) and conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) versions has been increased from 38.3m² (412ft²) to 42.7m², while the wing on the US Navy's carrier variant (CV) has grown from 55.7m² to 57.6m².
DATE:10/11/99
SOURCE:Flight International
JSF changes revealed
Paul Lewis/WASHINGTON DC
So if the USN "didn't requier" a 9 G aircraft it simply because it wasn't possible to achieve this with 11% more wing surface and keep a reasonable empty weight...
The parametric estimates were overstated by 35% for all version and L-M were still 10% off them with configuration 240, they had to look for alternative solutions.
Configuration 230-5 was submited as Prefered Weapon System Conceipt design in mid-2000, at the time there was still NO talks about reducing Gs to 7.0 on the F-35B, this was all due to the SWAT effort to regain weight margins.
NOW: The British NAO aren't in the buzziness of desingorming people arwe they???
Quote: NAO 2005 on F-35...
MoD assured us that in total there has been a 3.000 lb reduction in the actual weight of the STVOL aircraft and the equivalent of a further reduction of 1.000 lb through improvements in thrust and the review of the landing requierements
NAO-JSF.jpg
So since the Dutch and other customers were given the parametric estimates and figures for 230 performances, i guess it IS what you could call IMMATURE.
According to the Ministrie van defensie Bevelhebber der Luchtstrijdkrachten, directie Materieel:
Dates for request for submission is 1999, MOU was signed in 2002.
As i was saying, F-35 as proposed to them was expected to be lighter and without structural limitation due to design and weight target problems.
For the rest there have been NO change in specification as for where the systems are concerned, they were all well known at the time.
HERE is reality for you my friend.
F-35 Avionics and Systems developements:
From first tests to up to 2000 h+.
Source: Jane's Wordl's Aircrafts.
FCS = ------------------------TESTED IN April 1998.
Avionics = -------------------TESTED IN 1999.
HMD = ------------------------TESTED IN 2000.
ATC/EOTS = -------------------TESTED IN 2000. SNIPER DEIVATIVE.
Comparison:
SPECTRA/Rafale F1 = ----------TESTED IN 1996. Standard F1.
SPECTRA/Rafale F2= -----------TESTED IN 2000. (NATO MACE-X = F2 Standard).
NEW MDPU = -------------------TESTED IN 2000.
DVI = ------------------------TESTED IN 2001.
MIDS/LVT = -------------------TESTED IN 2002.
DGA contract RBE2 AESA (1) dev = ------ 2002.
DGA contract F3 dev = --------------Feb 2004. STILL being developed today..
DGA contract RBE2 AESA (2) dev = ---Jun 2004. Flight-tested now.
OSF NG = --------------------------STILL R&D.
APG-81 FIRST TEST-FLIGHT: = --------Aug 2005.
Source: Jane's and some other reputable specialised press....
Now i'm SURE you'll claim that these are unqualified sources and no evidences, next time i will scan the book for you....
Scorpion82
New Member
Just some infos about that. Earlier this year (February 15-16) french and italians conducted a dissimilar air combat training in Italy (Sardinia if I remember right). Aircraft involved included french air force Mirage 2000-5F, french navy Rafale M F1 of Flottille 12F squadron and italian air force Typhoon block 2 from 4° Stormo (wing). French people where the first to spread the event in the media and over the internet along with a statement from one of the Rafale M pilots being involved.
The statement was (roughly translated):
"it works very well and has no difficulties in (challenging-rival) with F16 F18 or the eurofighter. It is an extremly performant aircraft, one of the best. When you see it in air superiority, I think we will be very delightelly surprised with the F2 standart"
Recently 9 Sqn commander Lt Col Daniele Picco from the italian air force commented with:
"dissimilar training has been conducted with French air force Dassault Mirage 2000 and French navy Rafale M fighters, Boeing F-15s and Lockheed Martin F-16s, "with positive feedback"
To sum it up no results were disclosed, no details are known and the vague statements say at all nothing. We will have to wait until both types met each other more often and more information is released to the public.
Just my 2 cent
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Concur. Absolutely nothing of substance or any conclusions can be made from what has come out from the exercise at Corse.
Simple as that. Any attempt at interpretation or laying out what is being said is ridiculous, as you will only get "we are happy with our fighter jet" from both sides. And nothing of the actual circumstances and nature of the exercises or how the jets performed.
There is also the nature of DACT to consider. There is a reason why this is a sticky on the aviation forum:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1157
It would simply be disingenous to use DACT as a datum for aircraft vs aircraft performance.
Any analysis of such can only be done with the detailed circumstances and data as a minimum. You only have a generic commetn from a pilot to go by...