What's new

RAFALE VS F-16 BLOCK52+

Dear All,

If anyone is really interested in a professional and sensible comparison of aircrafts that were contending for MMRCA competition, i really recommend reading this ...

dogfight ! India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision [PDF-File]

The fact of the matter is that Mirage2000 always fell short of F16's later blocks, because the basic airframe was based on Mirage 3/5 series, which was itself a 60's era technology. Mirage2000 tried to come close to F16s performance, but everything in it fell short, because the design just didn't allow it.

Tabulated below are few things that Mirage2000 was never able to compete when compared to F16 ...

1. Thrust to weight ratio (Much Less than the desired unity for Mirage2000). Top speed for Mirage2000 is marginally higher than F16 at high altitude, but lower than F16 in mid/low altitude.
2. Relaxed Stability Design (Positive G-assist during pitch up and level for F16, as opposed to Negative in Mirage3/5/2000), thus F16 was able to sustain much higher sustained turn rate in almost all regimes, only the instantaneous turn rate of Mirage2000 was slightly better in some regimes.
3. Dedicated Pitch control surface (Canard-less design of Mirage2000)
4. Too few Hardpoints (9 of Mirage2000, vs 11 of F16C), also the fact that the 4 fuselage stations are space and load restrictive. Lack of dedicated hardpoints for mission pods.
5. Larger Radar Array for F16.
6. Larger fairings for EW equipment for F16.
7. Larger weapons carrying capability for F16.
8. Extended range option with dorsal Conformal Fuel Tanks for F16s.
9. Better range for two seat versions due to Dorsal Spine.
10. Much Much Better cockpit ergonomics and All-around-view Bubble canopy for F16.

Now to rectify all this, Rafale was designed to compete and surpass all of above mentioned F16's parameters that could not be satisfied with Mirage2000. But F16 also underwent continued development and by early 2000s both F16 and Rafale were neck&neck once again. Then F16 moved slightly ahead with F16E/F deploying AESA as well as dedicated IRST. Now Rafale is again playing catchup with their F3+ version, ten years later. Rafale is eventually geared up to overtake F16 in coming years, as the project upgrades for F16 have almost seized up.

Rafale was ofcoarse Designed to be 4+ generation aircraft, while F16 had to undergo upgrades to come in same class, but nevertheless it falls in the same class. Besides Rafale has slight edge over F16 in almost all paramters (except costs), but not enough to make a fuss about. The gap will eventually increase overtime since Rafale will continue to be upgraded for the next 30 or so years.

Regards,
Sapper
 
^^^

If you pick each and every point, F-16 is slightly better than M2k in most of the parameters.

But the latest M2000-9 can 'match' Block 52 in most of the roles. It is not it should always the best in all parameters.

French can easily add AESA into M2000-9 like F-16IN. But that was not economical for them to do so.

Both F-16 & M2000 can hardly be upgradable looking at the economical prospective too at this point.
 
F16 is still far more agile than M2k9 or what ever ........ In its class of Jets it is still the best ... In its Class ... Now dont rush and start comparing with MKI and BS .. How MKIs perform will be told after the next wars... To date have no actual kill on there account
 
F16 is still far more agile than M2k9 or what ever ........ In its class of Jets it is still the best ... In its Class ... Now dont rush and start comparing with MKI and BS .. How MKIs perform will be told after the next wars... To date have no actual kill on there account

In fact Su-27/30 series did kill in A2A , google for it.
 
In fact Su-27/30 series did kill in A2A , google for it.


....and the F-16A/B took on Typhoons and nailed them........and F-16s beat F-15s in dogfights?

What's the point of your argument? India has best planes? Seriously, troll elsewhere.
 
....and the F-16A/B took on Typhoons and nailed them........and F-16s beat F-15s in dogfights?

What's the point of your argument? India has best planes? Seriously, troll elsewhere.

I just replied to him on his post, and read my post again what I did reply damn then cry.
 
F16 is still far more agile than M2k9 or what ever ........ In its class of Jets it is still the best ... In its Class ... Now dont rush and start comparing with MKI and BS .. How MKIs perform will be told after the next wars... To date have no actual kill on there account

In fact Su-27/30 series did kill in A2A , google for it.

Where? In Africa? Shooting down a Georgian drone? The Gulf War?

The Su-27 scored at least five to seven kills in the 1998-2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In that same war, Eritrean MiG-29s scored four kills of their own. None of which were Su-27s.

One Tornado was killed by an Iraqi MiG-29 during the Gulf War.

Since its inception in 1974, the F-16 has seen combat in at least four theaters of war.

Since 1973, Western made fighters have been engaged in air combat at least 154 times in different parts of the world. The F-16 has accumulated 72 air-to-air kills with no air-to-air losses except for one fratricide loss by the Pakistani Air Force when an AIM-9L switched-lock onto a wingman. Engagements and Kills were recorded throughout more than 30,000 world-wide air-to-air and air-to-ground combat sorties.

Overall, for any Western fighter - The 154 engagements resulted in at least 210 confirmed kills with two combat losses. That 72 F-16 kills represents 47% of that number.

The F-16 has far more kills than any Flanker out there. Although, the Su-27 has commanded respect from the Americans and other traditional operators of Western equipment. Not to be underestimated. Especially the MKI.

But generally speaking, Western equipment are superior, even though they are a bit more expensive. And that is one of the reasons why the Rafale won over the MiG-35 during the MMRCA competition.

http://www.f-16.net/varia_article3.html
4th generation jet fighter at AllExperts
Air Aces Homepage
Air Aces Homepage
 
....and the F-16A/B took on Typhoons and nailed them........and F-16s beat F-15s in dogfights?

What's the point of your argument? India has best planes? Seriously, troll elsewhere.
excuse me man india had not chosen typhoon ,but india had chosen rafale & u see this how rafale nailed f16
3)RAFALE'S SUPERB PERFORMANCE IN AERIAL EXERCISE WITH MIRAGE 2000 & f16:
RAFALESSUPERBPERFORMANCEINAERIALEXERCISEWITHMIRAGE2000f16.jpg

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fi...resse/lbg07/defense/rafale/foxThree_nr_10.pdf
 
Dear All,

If anyone is really interested in a professional and sensible comparison of aircrafts that were contending for MMRCA competition, i really recommend reading this ...

dogfight ! India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision [PDF-File]

The fact of the matter is that Mirage2000 always fell short of F16's later blocks, because the basic airframe was based on Mirage 3/5 series, which was itself a 60's era technology. Mirage2000 tried to come close to F16s performance, but everything in it fell short, because the design just didn't allow it.

Tabulated below are few things that Mirage2000 was never able to compete when compared to F16 ...

1. Thrust to weight ratio (Much Less than the desired unity for Mirage2000). Top speed for Mirage2000 is marginally higher than F16 at high altitude, but lower than F16 in mid/low altitude.
2. Relaxed Stability Design (Positive G-assist during pitch up and level for F16, as opposed to Negative in Mirage3/5/2000), thus F16 was able to sustain much higher sustained turn rate in almost all regimes, only the instantaneous turn rate of Mirage2000 was slightly better in some regimes.
3. Dedicated Pitch control surface (Canard-less design of Mirage2000)
4. Too few Hardpoints (9 of Mirage2000, vs 11 of F16C), also the fact that the 4 fuselage stations are space and load restrictive. Lack of dedicated hardpoints for mission pods.
5. Larger Radar Array for F16.
6. Larger fairings for EW equipment for F16.
7. Larger weapons carrying capability for F16.
8. Extended range option with dorsal Conformal Fuel Tanks for F16s.
9. Better range for two seat versions due to Dorsal Spine.
10. Much Much Better cockpit ergonomics and All-around-view Bubble canopy for F16.

Now to rectify all this, Rafale was designed to compete and surpass all of above mentioned F16's parameters that could not be satisfied with Mirage2000. But F16 also underwent continued development and by early 2000s both F16 and Rafale were neck&neck once again. Then F16 moved slightly ahead with F16E/F deploying AESA as well as dedicated IRST. Now Rafale is again playing catchup with their F3+ version, ten years later. Rafale is eventually geared up to overtake F16 in coming years, as the project upgrades for F16 have almost seized up.

Rafale was ofcoarse Designed to be 4+ generation aircraft, while F16 had to undergo upgrades to come in same class, but nevertheless it falls in the same class. Besides Rafale has slight edge over F16 in almost all paramters (except costs), but not enough to make a fuss about. The gap will eventually increase overtime since Rafale will continue to be upgraded for the next 30 or so years.

Regards,
Sapper
Jesus Christ
We have here a discussion about Rafale, not Mirage 2000/5/3.
Though I have to say that your frivolous attempt to make Rafale look poor in front of the F16 and only sligthly better being newer- was a masterpiece.
Rafale beats the F16, not only blk 52 but also blk 70/IN in all aspects. It has better potential and even it's current form is better than the Viper, as it was amply shown in MMRCA where F16 couldn't even qualify. [And please don't talk about MiG 35 here]
the most important aspect where the Rafale beats the F16 is on the Inside. The presence of 5th generation avionics like Spectra,FSO[which are also there on the F22] viz. passive detection capability alone wins the fight for it. Now if someone is talking about an Indo-Pak theatre, there are a lot more variables to be added, but Rafale would still easily maintain it's superiority over F16 -courtesy better weapons package, AESA radar[removing the possibility of it being jammed], better support staff [Phalcon AWACS, Migs, Su's and a lot more].
 
It'd be more fair to compare the Rafale to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet if you ask me :P

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:25 PM ----------

Jesus Christ
We have here a discussion about Rafale, not Mirage 2000/5/3.
Though I have to say that your frivolous attempt to make Rafale look poor in front of the F16 and only sligthly better being newer- was a masterpiece.
Rafale beats the F16, not only blk 52 but also blk 70/IN in all aspects. It has better potential and even it's current form is better than the Viper, as it was amply shown in MMRCA where F16 couldn't even qualify. [And please don't talk about MiG 35 here]
the most important aspect where the Rafale beats the F16 is on the Inside. The presence of 5th generation avionics like Spectra,FSO[which are also there on the F22] viz. passive detection capability alone wins the fight for it. Now if someone is talking about an Indo-Pak theatre, there are a lot more variables to be added, but Rafale would still easily maintain it's superiority over F16 -courtesy better weapons package, AESA radar[removing the possibility of it being jammed], better support staff [Phalcon AWACS, Migs, Su's and a lot more].

He did talk about the Rafale.
 
Where? In Africa? Shooting down a Georgian drone? The Gulf War?

The Su-27 scored at least five to seven kills in the 1998-2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In that same war, Eritrean MiG-29s scored four kills of their own. None of which were Su-27s.

One Tornado was killed by an Iraqi MiG-29 during the Gulf War.

Since its inception in 1974, the F-16 has seen combat in at least four theaters of war.

Since 1973, Western made fighters have been engaged in air combat at least 154 times in different parts of the world. The F-16 has accumulated 72 air-to-air kills with no air-to-air losses except for one fratricide loss by the Pakistani Air Force when an AIM-9L switched-lock onto a wingman. Engagements and Kills were recorded throughout more than 30,000 world-wide air-to-air and air-to-ground combat sorties.

Overall, for any Western fighter - The 154 engagements resulted in at least 210 confirmed kills with two combat losses. That 72 F-16 kills represents 47% of that number.

The F-16 has far more kills than any Flanker out there. Although, the Su-27 has commanded respect from the Americans and other traditional operators of Western equipment. Not to be underestimated. Especially the MKI.

But generally speaking, Western equipment are superior, even though they are a bit more expensive. And that is one of the reasons why the Rafale won over the MiG-35 during the MMRCA competition.

http://www.f-16.net/varia_article3.html
4th generation jet fighter at AllExperts
Air Aces Homepage
Air Aces Homepage

I did mean the 1998-2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

That is the only war in the air to air war history where both the forces were BVR equipped and engaged each other.

There is one F-16 loss to Greek Mirage-2000 in engagements, though accidentally.

And about flanker, it hardly went to war zone for A2A except very few occasions. You can't judge it by actual performance but only thru mock battle results.
 
I did mean the 1998-2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

That is the only war in the air to air war history where both the forces were BVR equipped and engaged each other.

There is one F-16 loss to Greek Mirage-2000 in engagements, though accidentally.

And about flanker, it hardly went to war zone for A2A except very few occasions. You can't judge it by actual performance but only thru mock battle results.

Mock battles aren't everything mate. It's the real battle that counts.
 

Back
Top Bottom