Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,577
11,326
India
Something called external stores drag + weight, plus percentage additional weight of weapons and stores and BPR.

It's common sense. If the F-35 and Rafale need to get to a point in the sky that's about 200-300Km away as quickly as possible, then the Rafale can supercruise its way far more quickly than the F-35 can subsonic. Furthermore, at dash speeds or close to it, the F-35's not going to get more than 100Km range, so it can't compete anyway. So the Rafale will still have far more fuel for a fight in the end. All of this is elementary and doesn't require explanation.

You consider fuel fraction from before the aircraft has even taken off. But the closer and closer the jets get to the enemy, the F-35's fuel fraction is going to drop considerably faster than the Rafale's. This is what pilots concern themselves with, not the fuel on the ground that you have considered.

The only advatange the F-35 has over the Rafale in terms of performance is its ability to be scrambled faster with its one engine. It's a pretty big advantage for the Swiss since their main mission is QRA.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
14,563
2,811
It's common sense. If the F-35 and Rafale need to get to a point in the sky that's about 200-300Km away as quickly as possible, then the Rafale can supercruise its way far more quickly than the F-35 can subsonic. Furthermore, at dash speeds or close to it, the F-35's not going to get more than 100Km range, so it can't compete anyway. So the Rafale will still have far more fuel for a fight in the end. All of this is elementary and doesn't require explanation.

You consider fuel fraction from before the aircraft has even taken off. But the closer and closer the jets get to the enemy, the F-35's fuel fraction is going to drop considerably faster than the Rafale's. This is what pilots concern themselves with, not the fuel on the ground that you have considered.

The only advatange the F-35 has over the Rafale in terms of performance is its ability to be scrambled faster with its one engine. It's a pretty big advantage for the Swiss since their main mission is QRA.
Supercruising with a tank in the transonic regime isn't going to be very efficient at all.

100km, now you're just making stuff up. I'm willing to bet that when a Rafale is tanked up to the same fuel fraction as an F-35A (still probably not the same range due to drag) it's top speed is no higher than M1.6, and hence its supercruise speed will be no higher either.

Not when the Rafale is carrying 2-3 tanks to make up the same fuel fraction and dragging like a SOAB, oh yeah and it costs you those 2 tanks if you need to fight, assuming the enemy hasn't seen your huge ar5e RCS and blown you out of the sky by then.

The only advantage the F-35 has over the Rafale is that it's 10x better in every regard that matters.
 

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,569
981
California
Supercruising with a tank in the transonic regime isn't going to be very efficient at all.

100km, now you're just making stuff up. I'm willing to bet that when a Rafale is tanked up to the same fuel fraction as an F-35A (still probably not the same range due to drag) it's top speed is no higher than M1.6, and hence its supercruise speed will be no higher either.

Not when the Rafale is carrying 2-3 tanks to make up the same fuel fraction and dragging like a SOAB, oh yeah and it costs you those 2 tanks if you need to fight, assuming the enemy hasn't seen your huge ar5e RCS and blown you out of the sky by then.

The only advantage the F-35 has over the Rafale is that it's 10x better in every regard that matters.
Rafale is using that skinny center tank that carries a lot less fuel than the fat one for its "supercruise".
 

Attachments

  • 880px-QA217_-_Dassault_Rafale_-_Qatar_Air_Force_(47734694781).jpg
    880px-QA217_-_Dassault_Rafale_-_Qatar_Air_Force_(47734694781).jpg
    146.2 KB · Views: 60
  • CmpMmaAWcAElmf2.jpg
    CmpMmaAWcAElmf2.jpg
    74.5 KB · Views: 67
  • Agree
Reactions: BMD

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
14,563
2,811
Rafale is using that skinny center tank that carries a lot less fuel than the fat one for its "supercruise".
The fat ones (2000L) can't even go supersonic, only the 1250L one can. The Rafale in the second picture - as loaded - would probably struggle to outperform a MiG-15.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,577
11,326
India
Supercruising with a tank in the transonic regime isn't going to be very efficient at all.

Mach 1.4. Plus it's gonna be empty by the time the Rafale climbs to altitude and flies around for 10 min or so.

100km, now you're just making stuff up.

At dash speeds, a fighter jet gets only 2-3 min of flying time before falling to the ground. That's 86Km at mach 1.6. 100Km is extremely reasonable. Even if you argue it's double that, it's only 160Km. More elementary stuff, more common sense.

The only way to last longer is to fly slower. Maybe the F-35 will do 200Km at mach 1.4, that should be about the limit. The numbers are quite reasonable.

I'm willing to bet that when a Rafale is tanked up to the same fuel fraction as an F-35A (still probably not the same range due to drag) it's top speed is no higher than M1.6, and hence its supercruise speed will be no higher either.

It doesn't matter. When carrying heavier loads the Rafale will stay subsonic, while the F-35 can go supersonic, this has always been an advantage of the IWB, and I have always held that opinion. But you don't need performance when carrying heavy loads, you only need it for A2A loads and the Rafale can supercruise in that configuration. Regardless, the F-35 will also stay subsonic when carrying heavier loads simply because that makes more sense for pretty much any bombing mission.

If you give me an option between supercruise and subsonic cruise for A2A loads, I will always choose supercruise. Even if the second aircraft can go supersonic with heavier loads. 'Cause supercruise is a massive game changer, as important as stealth. The more serious an air force is, the more important it becomes.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,577
11,326
India
@Picdelamirand-oil @Bon Plan @Herciv @A Person @halloweene

The cost advantage from the Swiss PoV for the F-35 makes sense.

The F-35 already starts with a near 20% advantage due to the exchange rate. And the difference between the F-35 and second place is 13%. Assuming the second place jet was the Rafale, it implies the Rafale is cheaper using neutral currency. Then if you remove 20% of flight hours that the F-35 apparently does not need from its lifecycle, then the overall $2.2B CHF advantage more than makes up for the difference in flight hours. 4800 hours vs 6000 hours... no contest. That's too much of a discount.

If the second jet turns out to be the SH, the 20% exchange rate difference can become insurmountable for the Rafale.

Furthermore, the Swiss intend to operate each jet only for 30 years, with only one upgrade. Only post 30 years makes it a whole different ballgame.

With the insistence on testing only operational jets, it looks like this is gonna repeat in Finland as well. The Rafale F4.2 today is where the Gripen E was during the first Swiss tender, only on paper. So, in theory, the F-35 Block 4 comes with lesser development risk as well.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,832
4,444
74
France
@Picdelamirand-oil @Bon Plan @Herciv @A Person @halloweene

The cost advantage from the Swiss PoV for the F-35 makes sense.

The F-35 already starts with a near 20% advantage due to the exchange rate. And the difference between the F-35 and second place is 13%. Assuming the second place jet was the Rafale, it implies the Rafale is cheaper using neutral currency. Then if you remove 20% of flight hours that the F-35 apparently does not need from its lifecycle, then the overall $2.2B CHF advantage more than makes up for the difference in flight hours. 4800 hours vs 6000 hours... no contest. That's too much of a discount.

If the second jet turns out to be the SH, the 20% exchange rate difference can become insurmountable for the Rafale.

Furthermore, the Swiss intend to operate each jet only for 30 years, with only one upgrade. Only post 30 years makes it a whole different ballgame.

With the insistence on testing only operational jets, it looks like this is gonna repeat in Finland as well. The Rafale F4.2 today is where the Gripen E was during the first Swiss tender, only on paper. So, in theory, the F-35 Block 4 comes with lesser development risk as well.
No The Rafale F4.2 today is where the Rafale F3R was when MODI decided to buy it (except ISE only on paper!) F4.2 capabilities where tested by the Finns and it's F4.2 which is proposed by Dassault.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BMD

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
14,563
2,811
Mach 1.4. Plus it's gonna be empty by the time the Rafale climbs to altitude and flies around for 10 min or so.



At dash speeds, a fighter jet gets only 2-3 min of flying time before falling to the ground. That's 86Km at mach 1.6. 100Km is extremely reasonable. Even if you argue it's double that, it's only 160Km. More elementary stuff, more common sense.

The only way to last longer is to fly slower. Maybe the F-35 will do 200Km at mach 1.4, that should be about the limit. The numbers are quite reasonable.



It doesn't matter. When carrying heavier loads the Rafale will stay subsonic, while the F-35 can go supersonic, this has always been an advantage of the IWB, and I have always held that opinion. But you don't need performance when carrying heavy loads, you only need it for A2A loads and the Rafale can supercruise in that configuration. Regardless, the F-35 will also stay subsonic when carrying heavier loads simply because that makes more sense for pretty much any bombing mission.

If you give me an option between supercruise and subsonic cruise for A2A loads, I will always choose supercruise. Even if the second aircraft can go supersonic with heavier loads. 'Cause supercruise is a massive game changer, as important as stealth. The more serious an air force is, the more important it becomes.
The Rafale can't do Mach 1.4 supercruise with any tank, absolute horsesh!t, I'd need a video to believe that. You're now saying that the Rafale is better at supercruising than a Typhoon, despite having a much lower TWR and inferior supersonic L/D ratio.

I'm afraid that's just stuff you've made up, like much of the Rafale marketing.

The Rafale will need 3 1250L tanks to match an F-35's range.

In that case you should have bought the Typhoon because it's supercruise ability far exceeds the Rafale. That was mentioned in other competitions too.
No The Rafale F4.2 today is where the Rafale F3R was when MODI decided to buy it (except ISE only on paper!) F4.2 capabilities where tested by the Finns and it's F4.2 which is proposed by Dassault.
They're back.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
14,563
2,811
Also relevant.


Fighter Radars Poised For Gallium Nitride Breakthrough​

Steve Trimble June 28, 2021
gallium nitride ground-based military radars
Raytheon installed an APG-79(V)4 array with gallium nitride semiconductor material in a Boeing F/A-18C for the first time in April.
Credit: Raytheon
Gallium nitride, the semiconductor of choice for 5G electronics and large search radars, is on the cusp of transitioning into fighter aircraft’s fire-control radar, promising the single largest leap in performance since the active, electronically scanned array revolution in the late 1990s.
A technological shift from traveling-wave tubes to gallium arsenide (GaAs) chips enabled the packaging of active, electronically scanned arrays (AESA) into the cramped nose radomes of fighters two decades ago.
  • Fighter radars poised for gallium nitride breakthrough
  • APG-79(V)4 set for first GaN delivery by December
  • GaN reopens design space for next-gen fighters
Now, far more powerful gallium nitride (GaN) technology is finally approaching critical mass for the same application. Advanced fabrication techniques have increased the hardiness and lowered the cost of GaN semiconductors, paving the way to introduce the monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) chips of a new generation of airborne phased arrays.
In the near term, GaN offers an opportunity to double the detection range of installed AESA radars on several fighter fleets, if power generation and cooling requirements can be met.
Longer term, the shift to GaN opens up design options for a new generation of combat aircraft. Instead of shaping the nose of a fighter around the cross section of the radar antenna, the extra power-added efficiency of GaAs’ powerful replacement may lead to installing a smaller array of transmitter/receiver modules up front and distributing networked, multifunctional apertures around the airframe.
In new fighter radars designed in France, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, the UK and U.S., GaN is already the most promising semiconductor material for the next generation of combat aircraft.
But the first fighter to enter service with a GaN-improved fire-control radar will not be an American Next-Generation Air Dominance, British Tempest, French or German Future Combat Air System, Japanese F-X, Korean KF-21 or Swedish JAS-39E/F Gripen. That distinction will instead belong to the U.S. Marine Corps’ aging Boeing F/A-18A-D fleet, an aircraft type still in service only because of delays with the Lockheed Martin F-35B/C.
In late April, Raytheon revealed that a two-year-old project to upgrade radar on the remaining F/A-18A-Ds to an AESA features the first application of GaN in a fire-control radar. As with most radio frequency (RF) device manufacturers, Raytheon has had more than a decade of experience in manufacturing the fickle GaN material; previous applications ranged from the ground-based Patriot radar to the airborne Next-Generation Jammer Mid-Band. But the APG-79(V)4 upgrade represents the first application of GaN in a fighter’s primary RF sensor.
APG-79(V)4 array
Northrop Grumman began the shift to gallium nitride in ground-based military radars in 2018 with the TPS-80 Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) for the U.S. Marine Corps. Credit: Northrop Grumman
As it was previously understood, the APG-79(V)4 in the F/A-18A-D Hornet represented merely a scaled-down version of the APG-79 AESA installed inside the larger radome of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Radar range is a function of the size and the amount of power transmitted by the array. Although the array of the APG-79(V)4 is smaller than the APG-79, the application of GaN, a significantly more efficient semiconductor than GaAs, means that Raytheon can deliver a radar for the F/A-18A-D fleet with similar performance as the F/A-18E/F’s radar.
“We can bring in the gallium nitride capability onto that platform, and it provides the same detection range and capabilities that you see on the Super Hornet,” says Eric Ditmars, vice president of Secure Sensor Solutions for Raytheon Intelligence and Space. “You couldn’t do that with a standard GaAs chip. You have to go to GaN in order to gain the efficiencies you need in that smaller footprint.”
The transition has not been straightforward. Using internal research and engineering funds, Raytheon has converted the GaAs-based MMICs in the transmit-receive modules of the APG-79 to GaN, which Ditmars describes as a “very challenging technical problem.”
The greater efficiency of an array of GaN-based transmitter/receiver modules means that more power is being transmitted at the aperture face. As power rises, so does the temperature on the face of the array. The extra heat would overwhelm the forced-air cooling system installed in the radome of the F/A-18A-D, so Raytheon has also installed a liquid cooling system.
“You do need to make sure that you’re bringing the right amount of cooling solution into that system to take the heat out so that the circuits perform at their optimal level and keep them at the right temperatures for both performance as well as for reliability,” Ditmars says.
The Marine Corps has ordered 25 APG-79(V)4s, and Raytheon plans to deliver the first radar in December. The F/A-18A-D, however, is only the first step with GaN in Raytheon-designed fighter radars, Ditmars says. The next logical step is to upgrade the APG-79 on the F/A-18E/F with GaN.
“If you take this V4 configuration that’s currently sized for the Marine Corps and then incorporate that on the Super Hornet, for example, and get that array back to that larger size, then we’ll see even more performance improvements,” Ditmars says.
The exact numbers are classified, but in general terms, the greater power-added efficiency of GaN compared with GaAs “roughly doubles the detection range with the same size, same aperture and the same amount of power,” Ditmars says.
In a way, the advent of GaN arrays could make fourth-generation fighters such as the F/A-18E/F more relevant as adversaries deploy ground-based air defenses and air-to-air intercept missiles with longer range. The F/A-18E/F lacks the extent of stealth technology embedded into the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35, so maximizing the range of the fire-control radar may become a priority.
The same principle could also apply to another service using fighters with Raytheon radars. The Air Force is now fielding the Boeing F-15EX with the APG-82 AESA radar but last December issued a request for information seeking a broad range of potential upgrades. Raytheon responded to the solicitation with ideas for applying GaN to the APG-82, Ditmars says. Follow-up discussions with the Air Force about future radar upgrades for the F-15EX began in early June, he adds.
The ultimate prize for radar manufacturers, however, is the next generation of combat aircraft. In the U.S., the Air Force and Navy are developing replacements for the F-22 and F/A-18E/F, respectively. A highly stealthy aircraft should be able to approach a target more closely without being detected, reducing the range advantage of a GaN-enabled radar. GaN-based sensors offer other benefits, though, including the ability to use smaller arrays and employ frequency-hopping techniques over a broader portion of the spectrum than GaAs.
“Having the wider band allows you to frequency-hop to make sure [you aren’t] staying on one particular frequency, which makes [you] easier to detect,” Ditmars says.
Radio frequency sensor technology will evolve in the next generation of fighters. A network of multifunctional apertures capable of sensing, jamming and communicating will be distributed across a network of fighters instead of a single aircraft.
“As you move to more conforming materials and other technologies that are out there, you can effectively put an antenna anywhere,” Ditmars says. “Beyond that is the ability to actually coordinate separate antennas to work together, so you can have [a radar] on one aircraft as well as maybe on a wingman coordinate a more complex solution. As you start to network those different arrays together, you can do some very interesting things that allow you to both stay undetectable and what we might call ‘sanitize’ the airspace.”
Raytheon’s forward-leaning approach to applying GaN in existing fire-control radars may not be universal. Northrop Grumman—the supplier of the APG-83 radar for F-16s, the APG-77 for the F-22 and the APG-81 for the F-35—does not comment on whether the upgrade road map for existing systems includes a transition to GaN. Greg Simer, Northrop’s vice president of air dominance and strike, says the company is committed to applying GaN where it makes sense. “I don’t know the specifics for those legacy Hornets and what were the design drivers and requirements that led to them going down the GaN path,” Simer says, referring to Raytheon. “But each of the air vehicles have unique restraints and requirements that make it possible in the right place.”
Israel Aerospace Industries’ Elta Systems division, another fire-control radar supplier, confirms that the company has applied GaN to a fighter array but offers no specifics. Israel Lupa, vice president of research, development and innovation, says: “You can say that we are also implementing that technology in airborne [applications], including fighters.”
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
5,474
9,080
Bangalore
Also relevant.


Fighter Radars Poised For Gallium Nitride Breakthrough​

Steve Trimble June 28, 2021
gallium nitride ground-based military radars
Raytheon installed an APG-79(V)4 array with gallium nitride semiconductor material in a Boeing F/A-18C for the first time in April.
Credit: Raytheon
Gallium nitride, the semiconductor of choice for 5G electronics and large search radars, is on the cusp of transitioning into fighter aircraft’s fire-control radar, promising the single largest leap in performance since the active, electronically scanned array revolution in the late 1990s.
A technological shift from traveling-wave tubes to gallium arsenide (GaAs) chips enabled the packaging of active, electronically scanned arrays (AESA) into the cramped nose radomes of fighters two decades ago.
  • Fighter radars poised for gallium nitride breakthrough
  • APG-79(V)4 set for first GaN delivery by December
  • GaN reopens design space for next-gen fighters
Now, far more powerful gallium nitride (GaN) technology is finally approaching critical mass for the same application. Advanced fabrication techniques have increased the hardiness and lowered the cost of GaN semiconductors, paving the way to introduce the monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) chips of a new generation of airborne phased arrays.
In the near term, GaN offers an opportunity to double the detection range of installed AESA radars on several fighter fleets, if power generation and cooling requirements can be met.
Longer term, the shift to GaN opens up design options for a new generation of combat aircraft. Instead of shaping the nose of a fighter around the cross section of the radar antenna, the extra power-added efficiency of GaAs’ powerful replacement may lead to installing a smaller array of transmitter/receiver modules up front and distributing networked, multifunctional apertures around the airframe.
In new fighter radars designed in France, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, the UK and U.S., GaN is already the most promising semiconductor material for the next generation of combat aircraft.
But the first fighter to enter service with a GaN-improved fire-control radar will not be an American Next-Generation Air Dominance, British Tempest, French or German Future Combat Air System, Japanese F-X, Korean KF-21 or Swedish JAS-39E/F Gripen. That distinction will instead belong to the U.S. Marine Corps’ aging Boeing F/A-18A-D fleet, an aircraft type still in service only because of delays with the Lockheed Martin F-35B/C.
In late April, Raytheon revealed that a two-year-old project to upgrade radar on the remaining F/A-18A-Ds to an AESA features the first application of GaN in a fire-control radar. As with most radio frequency (RF) device manufacturers, Raytheon has had more than a decade of experience in manufacturing the fickle GaN material; previous applications ranged from the ground-based Patriot radar to the airborne Next-Generation Jammer Mid-Band. But the APG-79(V)4 upgrade represents the first application of GaN in a fighter’s primary RF sensor.
APG-79(V)4 array
Northrop Grumman began the shift to gallium nitride in ground-based military radars in 2018 with the TPS-80 Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) for the U.S. Marine Corps. Credit: Northrop Grumman
As it was previously understood, the APG-79(V)4 in the F/A-18A-D Hornet represented merely a scaled-down version of the APG-79 AESA installed inside the larger radome of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Radar range is a function of the size and the amount of power transmitted by the array. Although the array of the APG-79(V)4 is smaller than the APG-79, the application of GaN, a significantly more efficient semiconductor than GaAs, means that Raytheon can deliver a radar for the F/A-18A-D fleet with similar performance as the F/A-18E/F’s radar.
“We can bring in the gallium nitride capability onto that platform, and it provides the same detection range and capabilities that you see on the Super Hornet,” says Eric Ditmars, vice president of Secure Sensor Solutions for Raytheon Intelligence and Space. “You couldn’t do that with a standard GaAs chip. You have to go to GaN in order to gain the efficiencies you need in that smaller footprint.”
The transition has not been straightforward. Using internal research and engineering funds, Raytheon has converted the GaAs-based MMICs in the transmit-receive modules of the APG-79 to GaN, which Ditmars describes as a “very challenging technical problem.”
The greater efficiency of an array of GaN-based transmitter/receiver modules means that more power is being transmitted at the aperture face. As power rises, so does the temperature on the face of the array. The extra heat would overwhelm the forced-air cooling system installed in the radome of the F/A-18A-D, so Raytheon has also installed a liquid cooling system.
“You do need to make sure that you’re bringing the right amount of cooling solution into that system to take the heat out so that the circuits perform at their optimal level and keep them at the right temperatures for both performance as well as for reliability,” Ditmars says.
The Marine Corps has ordered 25 APG-79(V)4s, and Raytheon plans to deliver the first radar in December. The F/A-18A-D, however, is only the first step with GaN in Raytheon-designed fighter radars, Ditmars says. The next logical step is to upgrade the APG-79 on the F/A-18E/F with GaN.
“If you take this V4 configuration that’s currently sized for the Marine Corps and then incorporate that on the Super Hornet, for example, and get that array back to that larger size, then we’ll see even more performance improvements,” Ditmars says.
The exact numbers are classified, but in general terms, the greater power-added efficiency of GaN compared with GaAs “roughly doubles the detection range with the same size, same aperture and the same amount of power,” Ditmars says.
In a way, the advent of GaN arrays could make fourth-generation fighters such as the F/A-18E/F more relevant as adversaries deploy ground-based air defenses and air-to-air intercept missiles with longer range. The F/A-18E/F lacks the extent of stealth technology embedded into the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35, so maximizing the range of the fire-control radar may become a priority.
The same principle could also apply to another service using fighters with Raytheon radars. The Air Force is now fielding the Boeing F-15EX with the APG-82 AESA radar but last December issued a request for information seeking a broad range of potential upgrades. Raytheon responded to the solicitation with ideas for applying GaN to the APG-82, Ditmars says. Follow-up discussions with the Air Force about future radar upgrades for the F-15EX began in early June, he adds.
The ultimate prize for radar manufacturers, however, is the next generation of combat aircraft. In the U.S., the Air Force and Navy are developing replacements for the F-22 and F/A-18E/F, respectively. A highly stealthy aircraft should be able to approach a target more closely without being detected, reducing the range advantage of a GaN-enabled radar. GaN-based sensors offer other benefits, though, including the ability to use smaller arrays and employ frequency-hopping techniques over a broader portion of the spectrum than GaAs.
“Having the wider band allows you to frequency-hop to make sure [you aren’t] staying on one particular frequency, which makes [you] easier to detect,” Ditmars says.
Radio frequency sensor technology will evolve in the next generation of fighters. A network of multifunctional apertures capable of sensing, jamming and communicating will be distributed across a network of fighters instead of a single aircraft.
“As you move to more conforming materials and other technologies that are out there, you can effectively put an antenna anywhere,” Ditmars says. “Beyond that is the ability to actually coordinate separate antennas to work together, so you can have [a radar] on one aircraft as well as maybe on a wingman coordinate a more complex solution. As you start to network those different arrays together, you can do some very interesting things that allow you to both stay undetectable and what we might call ‘sanitize’ the airspace.”
Raytheon’s forward-leaning approach to applying GaN in existing fire-control radars may not be universal. Northrop Grumman—the supplier of the APG-83 radar for F-16s, the APG-77 for the F-22 and the APG-81 for the F-35—does not comment on whether the upgrade road map for existing systems includes a transition to GaN. Greg Simer, Northrop’s vice president of air dominance and strike, says the company is committed to applying GaN where it makes sense. “I don’t know the specifics for those legacy Hornets and what were the design drivers and requirements that led to them going down the GaN path,” Simer says, referring to Raytheon. “But each of the air vehicles have unique restraints and requirements that make it possible in the right place.”
Israel Aerospace Industries’ Elta Systems division, another fire-control radar supplier, confirms that the company has applied GaN to a fighter array but offers no specifics. Israel Lupa, vice president of research, development and innovation, says: “You can say that we are also implementing that technology in airborne [applications], including fighters.”
I thought Gripen E already flew with GaN module.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,577
11,326
India
The Rafale can't do Mach 1.4 supercruise with any tank, absolute horsesh!t, I'd need a video to believe that. You're now saying that the Rafale is better at supercruising than a Typhoon, despite having a much lower TWR and inferior supersonic L/D ratio.

I'm afraid that's just stuff you've made up, like much of the Rafale marketing.

The Rafale will need 3 1250L tanks to match an F-35's range.

In that case you should have bought the Typhoon because it's supercruise ability far exceeds the Rafale. That was mentioned in other competitions too.

The Typhoon's supercruise is superior to the Rafale's. It can go faster while carrying 2 tanks. And it can even even pull higher Gs at higher speeds.

Its ability to supercruise, a larger and more powerful radar than the Rafale's and a longer range missile like the C7 is what gave the Typhoon the edge in IAF's MMRCA when it came to A2A. But the IAF is happier with the Rafale because it is capable of SEAD/DEAD, nuclear strike, deep penetration strike, has significantly superior recce capability etc, and with lower costs. All of which gives the Rafale the overall edge, including the fact that the Rafale is better than the Typhoon in the WVR fight.

The first Swiss tender also came to the same conclusions.

The Rafale needs only 1 such tank to match the F-35's range in combat conditions. The Rafale's basic range is 2500Km without any external fuel, which includes taxiing, taking off and climbing to altitude. Just one external tank should easily take care of that and still give the Rafale an extra 10 min of flying time. So with the little fuel left in the tank plus full internal fuel, the Rafale should easily exceed 3000Km. With three tanks, it easily exceeds 4000Km.

Plus you forget that the F-35 is aerodynamically compromised due to its stealth design, which is why it only has a dash speed of mach 1.6. So it suffers from more drag compared to the Rafale. Having a greater fuel fraction has not given it greater range. It is merely comparable.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,577
11,326
India
No The Rafale F4.2 today is where the Rafale F3R was when MODI decided to buy it (except ISE only on paper!) F4.2 capabilities where tested by the Finns and it's F4.2 which is proposed by Dassault.

It doesn't make sense. The F4.1 only flew in April whereas the Swiss evaluations were conducted last year. The F4.2 is yet to fly.

You can propose the F4.2, but it doesn't look like the Swiss flight tested the F4.2 for obvious reasons. Evaluations are conducted based on what's flying at the time of the tests.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,577
11,326
India
I thought Gripen E already flew with GaN module.

Saab offered a GaN radar if India picked the jet, which is a modernisation of Saab's current radar. The Swedish and Brazilians themselves are getting Italy's GaAs based Raven radar. They need numbers to make it economical, hence India as the target.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,832
4,444
74
France
It doesn't make sense. The F4.1 only flew in April whereas the Swiss evaluations were conducted last year. The F4.2 is yet to fly.

You can propose the F4.2, but it doesn't look like the Swiss flight tested the F4.2 for obvious reasons. Evaluations are conducted based on what's flying at the time of the tests.
I didn't say that the finns tested F4.2, I said they tested F4.2 capabilities it's like you tested an AESA prototype during MMRCA tests and not F3R with an AESA. All the F4.2 capabilities are available in flying test in the form of PEA .
Dassault didn't proposed F4.2 to the Swiss, it was irrelevant.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,577
11,326
India
I didn't say that the finns tested F4.2, I said they tested F4.2 capabilities it's like you tested an AESA prototype during MMRCA tests and not F3R with an AESA. All the F4.2 capabilities are available in flying test in the form of PEA .
Dassault didn't proposed F4.2 to the Swiss, it was irrelevant.

Okay, so the F3R in Swiss and F4.2 in Fin?