What's new

RAFALE VS F-16 BLOCK52+

The biggest advantage f16blk52 brings to the table as @Oscar said which is comparable to "say about 80-85% of the Rafale's effectiveness" is the price which is nearly half of rafales. Apart from that, if buyer usually gets good relations with USA.

As stated, the difference is much higher, when you not only look at the loads, but how the advantages of the available weapons and how the same mission would be done. Moreover if you consider that you need different versions or load configs of/for F16 to do certain roles like SEAD for example, while Rafale do all missions with the same base version.

In theory a single Rafale could be configured with...

2 x 2000l fuel tanks
1 x Reco NG pod
3 x AASM
3 x GBU 12
2 x MICA EM/Meteor
2 x MICA IR

...and while doing it's reconnaissance role, could do a SEAD strike attack with AASM at ground radars, take out the SAM missiles with GBU 12 guided by the Reco NG pod and engage 4 x air targets at BVR ranges without changing the mission config by returing to the base!
And don't get me wrong, this is not only a matter of carrying different weapons or pods, but that everything is build in Rafale and developed with a highly balanced multi role capability in mind, that's what Dassault means with Omni role capability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In theory a single Rafale could be configured with...

2 x 2000l fuel tanks
1 x Reco NG pod
3 x AASM
3 x GBU 12
2 x MICA EM/Meteor
2 x MICA IR

...and while doing it's reconnaissance role, could do a SEAD strike attack with AASM at ground radars, take out the SAM missiles with GBU 12 guided by the Reco NG pod and engage 4 x air targets at BVR ranges without changing the mission config by returing to the base!

In the configuration you suggest air-to-air missiles are purely for self defense. In theory a Rafale carrying sub sonic fuel tanks, GBU's and assorted glide munitions can engage fighters and SAMs but in the real world fighters while on a penetration mission are at a disadvantage due to altitude, 'G' budget and AoA limit imposed by ordnance and extra fuel or asymmetric load. In this configuration G limit can be as low as 3G and AoA limit as low as 10 under such conditions pilots don't go looking for a fight (BVR /WVR) and stay well away from SAM batteries. Omni role capability is useful when you have established air superiority and destroyed all enemy air defense but if this is the case a lumbering B-52 carrying thousands of pounds of destructive bombs, is cheaper and far more effective. Of course if India is at war with Libya or Mali omni role is very useful.
 
One point that has come up is that rafale while being in the same generation is superior due to spectra thus has an edge over f16s... however f16s are more cost effective... so if you are able to get more f16s in the same budget, which option should countries go for? Can more f16s than probable lesser number of rafale overwhelm the capabilities? Does fighter attrition/destruction effect the progress of a mission.. so if some rafales are lost, will it effect that airforce more than if that country had higher f16s at its disposal to carry out the same misson?
 
In the configuration you suggest air-to-air missiles are purely for self defense. In theory a Rafale carrying sub sonic fuel tanks, GBU's and assorted glide munitions can engage fighters and SAMs but in the real world fighters while on a penetration mission are at a disadvantage due to altitude, 'G' budget and AoA limit imposed by ordnance and extra fuel or asymmetric load. In this configuration G limit can be as low as 3G and AoA limit as low as 10 under such conditions pilots don't go looking for a fight (BVR /WVR) and stay well away from SAM batteries. Omni role capability is useful when you have established air superiority and destroyed all enemy air defense but if this is the case a lumbering B-52 carrying thousands of pounds of destructive bombs, is cheaper and far more effective. Of course if India is at war with Libya or Mali omni role is very useful.
well sir as always your makin fun of Rafale and IAf for the Sake of PR for your countries F16

well no issues now about the bolded part dear sir rafale wich is a omny role fighter in any mission (SEAD, Ground attack or antiship or rcon along with all the wepon load & extra feul load will always carry 4 BVR's + an ASEA radar+ Spectra which both comined give it a far better situational awareness, suriveability & an ability to engage both AIR & ground targets simontaneousli which in turn the current F 16's dont have ) which i dont think Either PLAAF or PAF has an edge right now ya US & NATO forces might have & we are not fighting them so whats your issue SIR ????????
 
One point that has come up is that rafale while being in the same generation is superior due to spectra thus has an edge over f16s... however f16s are more cost effective... so if you are able to get more f16s in the same budget, which option should countries go for? Can more f16s than probable lesser number of rafale overwhelm the capabilities? Does fighter attrition/destruction effect the progress of a plan.. so if some rafales are lost, will it effect that airforce more than if that country had higher f16s at its disposal to carry out the same misson?

That imo is hard to determine, because you can come up with same scenarios with F16 to J10/mig29M, F/A18 to Mig 29K, and f15 to Su 30. You will always have cheaper alternatives that bring you percentage of capabilities of similar high end product.
 
GURU DUTT, Dont make it a paf vs iaf thread -- I will delete /warn/infract if people go down that road

DBC's argument regarding aoa limit/rcs increase is valid , so dont try to derail the thread by calling him biased

Use turkey/greece/poland/isreal as examples -- they operate latest f16s with awacs cover just like pakistan

Turkey just received a new batch of blk52s
 
Turkey & Israel are already decide to repalce them by f-35 & place order to USA.

Greece, PAK & Poland are the country who has real economic problem.

So f16 is now just a low end-low cost fighter while most of air forces are going tor retire them some airforces are trying very hard to induct them even ready for 2nd hand fighters.:whistle:

That still doesn't discount F16 as a very capable agile multirole platform
 
That's not correct, Rafale and EF were operated in mixed groupes of Red and Blue forces and faced the same RoE limitations too. Moreover, the difference between the usual unofficial chestbeating of some pilots during unofficial side interviews with the media (PAF F16 pilot beating EF ;)), but this was stated at an official French forces press meeting.




In strike the Rafale carry 2000l subsonic fuel tanks and you are right to say that the F16 can carry similar load capabilities, but it's not correct that the Rafale can't to anything better.
As you already stated, AASM provides Rafale to attack 6 different targets at a single flypass . During this attack it uses SPECTRAs and FSOs passive detection capabilities for air defence and to provide MICA with necessary target data as well and that at a distance of around 60 Km.

An F16 with similar ammount of fuel and GBU 12 must get 3 times closer to the tartgets and has to strike them at several attacks. To remain capable in air defence it needs to activate it's radar, or remain limited to AIM 9 in close combat only. All this makes the F16 way more vulnerable of beeing engaged by ground or air defence!

The more capable EW system of Rafale adds even more to the advantage of beeing less vulnerable, besides that this overall means higher mission raters compared to the F16 too.

Rafale and F16 are basically very similar multi role fighters with similar advantages, because they were design not only for good A2A capabilities, but also to carry large payloads to long ranges. The difference is, that Rafale was developed later, therefor is designe with more modern capabilities and advantages in mind an brings it to the next level.
If you want a medium class fighter that is excellent in A2A and A2G, the F16 was and still is a good choice, but today if you can afford it, the Rafale is a class apart, especially the latest F3+ standards!

The ATLC setup was clearly outlined in the AFM issue.. where one force was allowed to act in its own platform and then simulate.
Hence when it mentioned both platforms working as blue air and red air.. both platforms would then end up at the receiving end of red air.. and here the French have conveniently managed to excuse their scores.
So presented a one sided score story officially or unofficially is still chest beating.;)

As for the Rafale's capability, you are mentioning a AASM attack..which is more weapon orientated.. if you replace the F-16's GBU-12 with a JSOW you too have an aircraft able to attack 6 targets simultaneously after it ha acquired the targets using a SAR picture.. and can remain in A2A search mode to look for targets and engage them.

The advantage Rafale has is that it can guide AASM's or MICAs to the set coordinates using onboard sensors while slaving the radar to ground mode. Hence my contention that the electronics of the Rafale mean that the F-16 will only operate within 80-85% effectiveness of the current Rafale.

Unlike the Rafale, the F-16 has reached the limit of its growth and cannot go any further.
 
In the configuration you suggest air-to-air missiles are purely for self defense. In theory a Rafale carrying sub sonic fuel tanks, GBU's and assorted glide munitions can engage fighters and SAMs but in the real world fighters while on a penetration mission are at a disadvantage due to altitude, 'G' budget and AoA limit imposed by ordnance and extra fuel or asymmetric load. In this configuration G limit can be as low as 3G and AoA limit as low as 10 under such conditions pilots don't go looking for a fight (BVR /WVR) and stay well away from SAM batteries. Omni role capability is useful when you have established air superiority and destroyed all enemy air defense but if this is the case a lumbering B-52 carrying thousands of pounds of destructive bombs, is cheaper and far more effective. Of course if India is at war with Libya or Mali omni role is very useful.

The G Limit is only an issue if you go into close combat and obviously no Rafale will do it with bombs and fuel tanks, but as said, it could engage air targets in BVR ranges.
The main point however was, that it's a fighter developed with all necessary techs and systems build in, which makes it simpler to switch between roles, unlike older generation of fighters. An F16 or F18SH for excample needs a dedicated SEAD version, with special sensors and jamming pods to do the mission. These are not available every time and in lower numbers, which means more time is needed till the mission could be completed. For Rafale however, that is no issue since any Rafale comes with the same SPECTRA capabilities and any Rafale loaded with AASM could be used in this role.

One point that has come up is that rafale while being in the same generation is superior due to spectra thus has an edge over f16s... however f16s are more cost effective... so if you are able to get more f16s in the same budget, which option should countries go for? Can more f16s than probable lesser number of rafale overwhelm the capabilities? Does fighter attrition/destruction effect the progress of a mission.. so if some rafales are lost, will it effect that airforce more than if that country had higher f16s at its disposal to carry out the same misson?

More expensive, because it is more capable of course, so you get what you paid for! Twice the number, means also more costs to operate! That's the reason why modern air forces are switching from single role A2A and A2G fighters, to multi role fighters that can do both, because that increases capability of the fleet, while reducing overall costs.
Wrt which fighter a country should take question, that depends on if the country can afford to buy an operate an advanced twin engine fighter and if it has the requirement for it?

Most advanced air forces use bigger twin engine fighters for the air superiority, or important strike roles, since light single engine fighters often are less suitable for them.
Countries that are smaller, with less range/endurance requirements, or that simply can't afford them, will opt for smaller fighters instead.
Switzerland is a good example, they neither have the requirement to do more than air policing roles, nor can they afford mordern twin engine fighters anymore. The Gripen was the best choice for their needs, although the evaluation clearly showed the superiority of EF and Rafale.


The ATLC setup was clearly outlined in the AFM issue.. where one force was allowed to act in its own platform and then simulate.
Hence when it mentioned both platforms working as blue air and red air.. both platforms would then end up at the receiving end of red air.. and here the French have conveniently managed to excuse their scores.
So presented a one sided score story officially or unofficially is still chest beating.;)

Not at all, since they cleared things up by explaining that Rafale also were used in red forces simulating Russian Migs with Russian missiles, while they shot down EFs. The Brits on the other sides, claimed they were the only one which were on red and limited in capability, but didn't refused the kills either.
Same goes for the F22 pilots that engaged the Rafale in close combats back then, all they said was, that they wasn't killed a single time, but they couldn't refuse that the combats went into draws as stated by the French.

However, both showed the capability of the fighter in A2A combats, especially since Rafale often is considered as a strike fighter like the Super Hornet only, but as I said earlier, it is way more comparable in it's capability to the F16, only more advanced.


which is more weapon orientated.. if you replace the F-16's GBU-12 with a JSOW you too have an aircraft able to attack 6 targets simultaneously

True, it is the capability of the weapon, but also because Rafale has it as an alternative to LGB in this class and is able to provide target data even after take off gathered by it's internal systems. Btw, JSOWs are stand of weapons and can't be carried in such large numbers by F16, afaik it can carry only 4 at max and that only without wing fuel tanks.
 
Not at all, since they cleared things up by explaining that Rafale also were used in red forces simulating Russian Migs with Russian missiles, while they shot down EFs. The Brits on the other sides, claimed they were the only one which were on red and limited in capability, but didn't refused the kills either.
Same goes for the F22 pilots that engaged the Rafale in close combats back then, all they said was, that they wasn't killed a single time, but they couldn't refuse that the combats went into draws as stated by the French.

However, both showed the capability of the fighter in A2A combats, especially since Rafale often is considered as a strike fighter like the Super Hornet only, but as I said earlier, it is way more comparable in it's capability to the F16, only more advanced.




True, it is the capability of the weapon, but also because Rafale has it as an alternative to LGB in this class and is able to provide target data even after take off gathered by it's internal systems. Btw, JSOWs are stand of weapons and can't be carried in such large numbers by F16, afaik it can carry only 4 at max and that only without wing fuel tanks.

I am not sure where this was claimed. Since the Brits made no statement(as is professional and agreed by forces). The french are the only ones talking so we cant take this single word over the other's silence.


The F-16 block-52 has the advantage of CFTs..hence it does have its wing clean to be able to carry those weapons..along with A2A ordinance..
 
I am not sure where this was claimed. Since the Brits made no statement(as is professional and agreed by forces). The french are the only ones talking so we cant take this single word over the other's silence

Hehe, the same brits that bragged about how their EFs trashing US F15s? Or how 2 spanish EFs defeated 8 US F15s, or the latest about German EFs and F22s (all reported on the Eurofighter sight, while Dassault didn't take up the ATLC results)?
They all do it, but as I said, it makes a big difference when you give just an interview, without mentioning your name and all, or if it's stated on an official press conference, by the leading officer that was present at the excercise.


The F-16 block-52 has the advantage of CFTs..hence it does have its wing clean to be able to carry those weapons..along with A2A ordinance..

Doesn't matter, since it still can't carry more than 4 of them and from operational terms, they are more comparable to Scalp cruise missile in deep strikes against high value targets and not to AASM in CAS against smaller vehicles.
 
Hehe, the same brits that bragged about how their EFs trashing US F15s? Or how 2 spanish EFs defeated 8 US F15s, or the latest about German EFs and F22s (all reported on the Eurofighter sight, while Dassault didn't take up the ATLC results)?
They all do it, but as I said, it makes a big difference when you give just an interview, without mentioning your name and all, or if it's stated on an official press conference, by the leading officer that was present at the excercise.




Doesn't matter, since it still can't carry more than 4 of them and from operational terms, they are more comparable to Scalp cruise missile in deep strikes against high value targets and not to AASM in CAS against smaller vehicles.

it does, because then you are officially going against our professional standard by revealing what are under an "understooD" clause undeclared results.
All the braggings about the EF have come mostly from EF consortium and not by the RAF. .. here a professional service is violating the understanding that results will not be disclosed just to beat its chest.
Its a just a matter of compromising on professionalism for military rankings or commercial ones.


The JSOW is fairly capable in CAS as well, and even in the CAS role.. both the JDAM and SDB can perform similar roles .
both the AASM and LJDAM have similar ranges at low altitudes.
 
here a professional service is violating the understanding that results will not be disclosed just to beat its chest.
Its a just a matter of compromising on professionalism for military rankings or commercial ones.

But doesn't make the source unrealiable like those of the other claims and that was my point.

The JSOW is fairly capable in CAS as well, and even in the CAS role.. both the JDAM and SDB can perform similar roles .
both the AASM and LJDAM have similar ranges at low altitudes.

Doubtful, because AASM benefits from it's own propulsion to gain altitude and extend range, while a normal JDAM can't, the coming JDAM-ER with retractable wings will be more comparable, but also at high altitudes again.
And JSOW against a small target is a waste, especially with the bigger warhead and the collateral damage that is possible. SDBs are more similar for the CAS role and with extended range from high altitudes.
Anyway, back to the fighters!
 
F -16 IN >>>>>>> F- 16 Block 52+
F -18 >>>>>>>>> F -16 IN
And India rejected both on the left side and choose Rafale, hence Rafale > F 18 >>F 16 Block 52+
Was that so tough to understand????:what:

Obviously it is very hard.

It took close to a decade for MMRCA contract allotment;
oh yeah ... still not signed is it ?
 
Recently , the USAF invited some Rafale F2s to do some advanced dogfighting against some F-16s Blk 52 . It was a one v one confrontation repeated multiple times . The drill did last 3 days . The French and the Americans pilots had to find each other in a big portion of sky (100x100 km/square), then close in and go dogfighting . The French Airforce only released the results of the first day : 6-2 in favor of the Rafale . It has been on the French news on the main TV channel TF1 . Video : h*tp://videos.tf1.fr/video/news/0,,3931177,00-contre-rafale-vrai-faux-combat-.html Quick translation of the video (the good bits): French pilot : " we 're going to separate in the zone and then try to find each other , one Rafale and one F-16 , then go do WVR . We feel that the USAF is very curious about the Rafale and we think that they know what they are up against , so I think that we 're going to bluff them " Second French Pilot talk : " It went well , the F-16s were very cool to fight against and we managed to shootdown them from time to time , it was good " Commentator : "The Americans admit that they have been impressed by the French fighter " The USAF pilot : " The Rafale is an aircraft with unique capabilities which can be flown in a very aggressive manner , more than the F-16 . But you know , the most important is the capabilities of the pilot (!)" ***************** I think that sums up a lot , BUT I remind you that the Rafale pilots are not allowed to use active jamming during drills with Allies (SPECTRA and OSF have only been used to find the opponent). It also shows that the APG-68(v9) radar (with a quoted range of 300km )doesn 't give an adge to the Falcon against the PESA RBE2 and the "discret" RCS of the Rafale . It also shows that MICA is a very good dogfighting missile and does its job and it also shows that Rafale is more manoeuvrable than the F-16 Blk52 (which is the best dogfighther that the USAF has) . I dare to say that if SPECTRA was used to its full extent (active jamming), the result would have been 6-0 . Cheers .

just imagine what an AESA equipped F3 rafale would do especially with meteore BVR
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom