What's new

RAFALE VS F-16 BLOCK52+

The HAF pilots of the F-16 block52+ and F-4E AUP had the chance to train with the Rafales M of the CHARLES DE GAULLE which visited Greece

4 Rafale M(marine) F1(T1) from the CDG aircraft carrier square-off against 4 F-16 blk 52+. A Greek Erieye was feeding info to the French ACC, and monitoring the simulated battle for the Greeks. The BVR tactics of the Frech were not impressive, and after some succesful and unsuccesful launches, the Greeks were in the "no-escape" zone of their AIM 120's. The Greeks had a high percentage of launches to downings, while the French percentage was lower, but with a higher range. The Rafales can also fire on 4 targets simultaniously, while the F-16 can fire only on 2. The Rafale can track 40 targets, with prioritizing. All in all, any advantages that the Rafale's have were deemed as marginal in this AA batle with the blk 52+.
Also said the French had a fairly serious problem with the mission computer, but that was the only problem. The capabilities of the radar to locate targets, and the ECM and ECCM suites are very impressive, capable of giving a complete view of the operational combat environment without AWACS. It can locate enemy radar signals to their precise location from over 200 miles away. F2 and F3 will have many vast improuvements from experience gained from the F1.

the Rafale has also had a chance to train against US ACC, with F-14's and F-18's, as well as the F-16's. The F-14 and F-18's were easy prey. Afgainst the F-18's, the Rafale's easily out-maneuvred the F-18. The US did not want to engage the French at BVR, not wanting to compare AIM-120's to Mica's.

the aircraft our boys faced were M version F1standard

the major points :

1) The lack of RWRs in the F-16s was a problem; the French fighters aborted when they detected a lockon; the Greek fighters were not able to do that.

2) The F-16's AGP-68(V)9 worked extremely well and gave the HAF the ability to detect the French from quite a long distance and coordinate maneuvers at long range via Link-16

3) Due to its PESA architecture, RBE2 range is inferior to AESA; based on performance in the exercise HAF estimates its range is not superior to the [mechanically scanned] AGP-68(V)9. However the RBE2 was, as expected, more flexible, giving it the ability to track more targets simultaneously.

4) The French requested a second exercise after the conclusion of this one, which speaks well of 115CW and its F-16 Block52+

5) The ECCM of the 52s worked smoothly when the Rafales used their Spectra ECM system. The active jamming on the Rafales was not able to break the lock of the APG-68(V)9s.

6) The French pilots reported all their shots as a shoot-down regardless of range. The HAF improved its performance placing the majority of its shots in the "Noescape" zone of the AMRAAMs. So the French aircraft got more shots, but the HAF's ones were much more likely to result in an actual kill.

7) In all,the Rafale showed a marginal superiority but with a large numbr of low PK shots ow probability of success , unlike the Block 52s which achieved fewer shots but all in their missiles' no escape zone. All in all, the Rafale had only a marginal advantage in this exercise with the blk 52+.


Certainly, the HAF aircraft in no way dominated the Rafales. But the Rafales' performance fell far short of the claims often made about it.

8)one of our EMB-145H worked closely with the CDG carrier,testing its Link16 and Link11...After its take-off from its base,established a connection within 10 mins with the French carrier ...thus certifying its capabilities in net centric ops ,something usefull other co-trainings with the French in the future.
 
Core.jpg


Restructuring of Koreas Defense Aerospace Industry
http://www.bicc.de/uploads/pdf/publications/papers/paper28/paper28.pdf

Korea-2-1.jpg
Agility-1.jpg


http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm
 
The HAF pilots of the F-16 block52+ and F-4E AUP had the chance to train with the Rafales M of the CHARLES DE GAULLE which visited Greece

4 Rafale M(marine) F1(T1) from the CDG aircraft carrier square-off against 4 F-16 blk 52+. A Greek Erieye was feeding info to the French ACC, and monitoring the simulated battle for the Greeks. The BVR tactics of the Frech were not impressive, and after some succesful and unsuccesful launches, the Greeks were in the "no-escape" zone of their AIM 120's. The Greeks had a high percentage of launches to downings, while the French percentage was lower, but with a higher range. The Rafales can also fire on 4 targets simultaniously, while the F-16 can fire only on 2. The Rafale can track 40 targets, with prioritizing. All in all, any advantages that the Rafale's have were deemed as marginal in this AA batle with the blk 52+.
Also said the French had a fairly serious problem with the mission computer, but that was the only problem. The capabilities of the radar to locate targets, and the ECM and ECCM suites are very impressive, capable of giving a complete view of the operational combat environment without AWACS. It can locate enemy radar signals to their precise location from over 200 miles away. F2 and F3 will have many vast improuvements from experience gained from the F1.

the Rafale has also had a chance to train against US ACC, with F-14's and F-18's, as well as the F-16's. The F-14 and F-18's were easy prey. Afgainst the F-18's, the Rafale's easily out-maneuvred the F-18. The US did not want to engage the French at BVR, not wanting to compare AIM-120's to Mica's.

the aircraft our boys faced were M version F1standard

the major points :

1) The lack of RWRs in the F-16s was a problem; the French fighters aborted when they detected a lockon; the Greek fighters were not able to do that.

2) The F-16's AGP-68(V)9 worked extremely well and gave the HAF the ability to detect the French from quite a long distance and coordinate maneuvers at long range via Link-16

3) Due to its PESA architecture, RBE2 range is inferior to AESA; based on performance in the exercise HAF estimates its range is not superior to the [mechanically scanned] AGP-68(V)9. However the RBE2 was, as expected, more flexible, giving it the ability to track more targets simultaneously.

4) The French requested a second exercise after the conclusion of this one, which speaks well of 115CW and its F-16 Block52+

5) The ECCM of the 52s worked smoothly when the Rafales used their Spectra ECM system. The active jamming on the Rafales was not able to break the lock of the APG-68(V)9s.

6) The French pilots reported all their shots as a shoot-down regardless of range. The HAF improved its performance placing the majority of its shots in the "Noescape" zone of the AMRAAMs. So the French aircraft got more shots, but the HAF's ones were much more likely to result in an actual kill.

7) In all,the Rafale showed a marginal superiority but with a large numbr of low PK shots ow probability of success , unlike the Block 52s which achieved fewer shots but all in their missiles' no escape zone. All in all, the Rafale had only a marginal advantage in this exercise with the blk 52+.


Certainly, the HAF aircraft in no way dominated the Rafales. But the Rafales' performance fell far short of the claims often made about it.

8)one of our EMB-145H worked closely with the CDG carrier,testing its Link16 and Link11...After its take-off from its base,established a connection within 10 mins with the French carrier ...thus certifying its capabilities in net centric ops ,something usefull other co-trainings with the French in the future.

Here a similar analysis by another HAF pilot from the very same forum about F-16 Viper and M2000


A good pilot in an M2K will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).

I served in an M2K fighter squadron in HAF. We analyzed tactics and combat scores against HAF F-16 squadrons all the time.

The M2Ks higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rate gives it an advantage during the first pass. The F-16 cannot outturn the Mirage. It has to climb in hopes of avoiding the lock. A good M2K pilot will end it right there (the Magic 2 is a better IR weapon than the AIM-9L/M).

A rookie in the M2K, however, will probably lose the F-16's climb. The more powerful viper will escape and will then gain the advantage because of 1) Altitude 2) Higher SUSTAINABLE turn rate.

As for turn rates, altitude differences are purely theoretical and in practice make no difference EXCEPT for sea level manuevers where the more powerful Viper starts gaining the advantage.
Would you agree with the statement that F-16 is a better choice for multi role missions than Mirage 2000 ?

Absolutely. The M2K is a multi-role fighter also, but its performance varies greatly among roles - whereas the Viper performs almost all missions at a very satisfactory level.

HAF M2Ks are specialized. 331's (where I served) primary role is now TASMO (naval strike with AM-39 Exocet) and 332's primary role will become Deep Strike (with SCALP EG). CAP & Air Supremacy are their secondary roles.

The F-16 sqdns OTOH undertake a number of roles such as SEAD, CAP, CAS, and numerous specialized strike missions (enemy AFBs, enemy C&C centers etc). The Viper is a much more volatile weapons system
 


sorry its in french.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


sorry its in french.


Translation 2nd video , major points:
- "USA air force have invite french pilots to show their skill against them in fake air combat....F-16 vs rafal"
-then the pilot said "we will seperate in zone...1rafale vs 1f-16, and make aeriel manovers"
second pilots said " we know USA is very courius vis a vis rafale, but i think they know who they are facing in the air,, i think we will eat them"
-the journalist said "french want to show a good image of rafal, becauz it's the first time they meet USA air force"
- on the 4 day of exercice, 6f-16 have been shoot down vs 2 rafale."frenchj are proud of their machine"
-"american admit ,they are impress by the power of this fighter air craft, but they have som difficultys to pronouce the name of the aircraft"
-the amrican pilot said"the rafale is a unik aircraft, and more agressiv then F-16,but u know the more important is not the machine but the quality of the pilots and his experience"

ps: sorry guy's for my bad english, cauz i have learn english in france :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
>>>A good pilot in an M2K will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).

Strange that always planes in Indian service are seen as superior to anything else... Blablabakwaas level.
 
>>>A good pilot in an M2K will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).

Strange that always planes in Indian service are seen as superior to anything else... Blablabakwaas level.

i think you did not read the whole post. It is actually quite appreciative of the F-16
 
DBC ... you have to understand that ACM of IAF did say everything was a super jets(including Mig).. he said everything differed hardly in 10-15 parameters... which means in a given test point F-16 was not able to succeed on those 10-15 parameters... ultimately you have to do ranking and choose the best that worked well for Indian conditions.. For sure if it had been a political decision everyone can be pretty sure what would have won...

Secondly and you are aware how US has enforce several agreements with India.. do you think US will be able to provide the offset and ToT?.. that is totaly impossible for US companies nor for US government to provide.. If US government really considered India... it should have been fielded F-35 by LM two years back when Government asked the vendors to submit the proposal.. but LM still fielded F16... if LM felt F-35 wasnt developed so is EFT and Rafale not developed.. similarly the case with Boeing.... The loss of US vendors is surely with vendor itself.. and it has got nothing to do with IAF or the selection.. because it is a transparent one.. and which is going to be patend also

Your ACM has gone on record and said US weapons, sensors, radar and avionics were vastly superior to European systems. These are the words of your ACM after the MMRCA evaluation when questioned about the rejection of US fighters. So if American systems and weapons were vastly superior what was the evaluation criteria that led to the selection of the European fighter based on? So far the IAF has not responded to a US government request for clarification. Oh yes, your ACM is also hoping to integrate American systems and weapons on the IAF's final choice - he can dream, unlikely the US will oblige.

The Air Chief observed that admittedly, the US had the best of the combat radars, weapons and systems. But then, each of the six contenders had given in writing that they would match the IAF requirements, including those for systems to be sourced from the US.

..:: India Strategic ::.. India set to decide big military aircraft deals
 
Your ACM has gone on record and said US weapons, sensors, radar and avionics were vastly superior to European systems. These are the words of your ACM after the MMRCA evaluation when questioned about the rejection of US fighters. So if American systems and weapons were vastly superior what was the evaluation criteria that led to the selection of the European fighter based on? So far the IAF has not responded to a US government request for clarification. Oh yes, your ACM is also hoping to integrate American systems and weapons on the IAF's final choice - he can dream, unlikely the US will oblige.



..:: India Strategic ::.. India set to decide big military aircraft deals

Raytheon said it was eager to supply weapons systems for either two of the fighters shortlisted by India for its MMRCA competition.
MRCA tender: US firm Raytheon locks onto India - India - DNA
 
Your ACM has gone on record and said US weapons, sensors, radar and avionics were vastly superior to European systems. These are the words of your ACM after the MMRCA evaluation when questioned about the rejection of US fighters. So if American systems and weapons were vastly superior what was the evaluation criteria that led to the selection of the European fighter based on? So far the IAF has not responded to a US government request for clarification. Oh yes, your ACM is also hoping to integrate American systems and weapons on the IAF's final choice - he can dream, unlikely the US will oblige.



..:: India Strategic ::.. India set to decide big military aircraft deals

yes American weapons and radar might be superior to Europeans but the jet you offered is not the latest and is inferior to latest European jets which has new air frame design and growth potential. weapons and radar also will be of latest American standard at the delivery time which is 3 -4 years ahead.and the freedom we are getting from Europeans alone is worth going for it.
 

Raytheon can offer what it likes, each sale has to be authorized by the US Government. The mood on Capitol hill has changed, Washington is loosing its patience with India. India has not delivered on its promise to open up its market, it has raised new barriers to US business. The US has already rolled back some of the 'clean' nuclear exemptions made to India in 2008, there is more to come including visa fees of 2,000 dollars aimed specifically at Indian workers.
 
Your ACM has gone on record and said US weapons, sensors, radar and avionics were vastly superior to European systems. These are the words of your ACM after the MMRCA evaluation when questioned about the rejection of US fighters. So if American systems and weapons were vastly superior what was the evaluation criteria that led to the selection of the European fighter based on? So far the IAF has not responded to a US government request for clarification. Oh yes, your ACM is also hoping to integrate American systems and weapons on the IAF's final choice - he can dream, unlikely the US will oblige.
..:: India Strategic ::.. India set to decide big military aircraft deals

what you have said is right.. while the weapons , sensor , avionics is where F-16 and F-18 would have scored.. it hasnt scored much on agility etc... where it has lost to Rafale and EFT.. ACM did accept that it was just a difference of 10-15 parameters... For sure if the American fighters scored it would have made it into the list...

secondly you forgot to understand that there is a base for every point... if the fighter has performed to that extent it scores in it.. the points are not made like this figther is best in this point... so is the difference which you are not able to understand...

secondly even if they get selected do you think they can cover the offset? no not at all.. US never gives any sensitive data even to its close allies like U.K etc void Israel... and India is no where near the radar of allies not until Pakistan level.. how do you expect to win even if you get selected in the final?
 
Raytheon can offer what it likes, each sale has to be authorized by the US Government. The mood on Capitol hill has changed, Washington is loosing its patience with India. India has not delivered on its promise to open up its market, it has raised new barriers to US business. The US has already rolled back some of the 'clean' nuclear exemptions made to India in 2008, there is more to come including visa fees of 2,000 dollars aimed specifically at Indian workers.

Exactly which is what i am highlighting... dont you think it is safe for us to choose what can win wars?
 
Raytheon can offer what it likes, each sale has to be authorized by the US Government. The mood on Capitol hill has changed, Washington is loosing its patience with India. India has not delivered on its promise to open up its market, it has raised new barriers to US business. The US has already rolled back some of the 'clean' nuclear exemptions made to India in 2008, there is more to come including visa fees of 2,000 dollars aimed specifically at Indian workers.
More so the reason that India should be cautious in dealing with the US.
I personally welcome the IAF decision.
The Rafale/typhoon meets OUR requirements and thats what counts.
For the moment C-17, P-8a,C-130j etc will pacify the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom