RAFALE VS F-16 BLOCK52+

[Manticore]

@ANTIBODY sir, with all due respect, i don't find any reason in this comparison, IAF had accessed to both F-16 Block 52 (infact block 60) & Rafale in MMRCA competition. They have tested both platforms on 640+ technical parameters & down selected Rafale (F-16 couldn't even made it to final two). I am sure that you'll agree that IAF is a professional enough a force to have a good reason to select Rafale over F-16s, this itself proves that Rafale was way ahead of F-16s in all technical parameters.

--- it should be noted that ive posted exercise results of an older rafale and blk52s -- i havent 'dumped' any fighter and i would not allow offtopic / oneliners from teenagers on this thread

F-16 blk-52 vs Rafale is truly a case of which pilot exploits his aircraft better. Rafale is definitely a very good platform and any Air Force flying it would find it to be very good, but so is the case with the F-16. In almost every Air force where the F-16 has been inducted, it has been found to be a better all rounder than most other dedicated platforms. There is no significant "generational" gap here to be talked about between these two platforms contrary to what some post here. Obviously in the Pakistan-India case, the quantity of the two platforms in use is a factor as well.

this thread was started before rafale was finalized by india-- the nterviews ive posted are also of western pilots... its members on this board who have made it into an iaf vs paf scenario --- if you notice ive posted polish/isreali info in my latest post so that we have an healthy discussion rather than a biased one which would again result in closure of vs threads

 

[arp2041]

Even if they had selected F-16..Pakistan still had remained ahead as PAF has many years of Experience with the plain..and India could never had the element of surprise as Pakistan knows the plain inside out..
But PAF doesn't know about Rafale. This may be one of the top most factors in MMRCA competition rather than pure technical specifications.

Dude, are u seriously implying that IAF rejected a much better (If that was the case) F-16s & selected Rafales just b'coz PAF operates them, for that matter it could have selected any of the remaining 5 contenders.

Actually your statement doesn't makes sense as IAF currently operates nearly 50-60% (su-30s & migs) of fighters which are already operate by it's another rival PLAAF, so what does that mean?? IAF shouldn't even think about facing PLAAF since that will only result in a sure defeat.

 

[Paan Singh]

Dude, are u seriously implying that IAF rejected a much better (If that was the case) F-16s & selected Rafales just b'coz PAF operates them, for that matter it could have selected any of the remaining 5 contenders.

Actually your statement doesn't makes sense as IAF currently operates nearly 50-60% (su-30s & migs) of fighters which are already operate by it's another rival PLAAF, so what does that mean?? IAF shouldn't even think about facing PLAAF since that will only result in a sure defeat.

India rejected f-16's coz


1) No future,max upto 2025.
2) PAF has mastered this air craft like we have mastered flankers.
3)American strings attached.
4)It failed to take off from leh ladakh under cold weather.
5)Its single engine and india wanted twin engined AC.

 

[arp2041]

this thread was started before rafale was finalized by india-- the nterviews ive posted are also of western pilots... its members on this board who have made it into an iaf vs paf scenario --- if you notice ive posted polish/isreali info in my latest post so that we have an healthy discussion rather than a biased one which would again result in closing of vs threads

No sir, i had never implied it as a PAF vs IAF affair, but what i wanted to say is that this comparison doesn't make sense anymore (no offense) after the MMRCA down selection as a professional force like IAF itself has compared the two on all technical parameters & have come to a conclusion, so what contribution a rookie like me can give to this thread??

 

[Manticore]

IAF itself has compared the two on all technical parameters & have come to a conclusion,

IAF itself has compared the two on all technical parameters based on its requirements and doctrine

Instead of RAFALE VS F-16 BLOCK52+, this thread should be f-16blk52+ & MIRAJ-2000-9. That can give a healthy conversation.

.

this is the title of the interview that i posted here

 

[ANPP]

^^^^
but in real you just gave invitation to trollers in your thread.

 

[Manticore]

^^^^
but in real you just gave invitation to trollers in your thread.

It were the indian members who requested us to open vs threads -- if members troll again then we will close vsthreads once again....anyways you are free to contribute in the mig29 vs su30 threads or mig35 vs su30 thread .. interviews/requirements/design concepts difference between the 2 bureaus etc would be welcome

 

[SQ8]

No sir, i had never implied it as a PAF vs IAF affair, but what i wanted to say is that this comparison doesn't make sense anymore (no offense) after the MMRCA down selection as a professional force like IAF itself has compared the two on all technical parameters & have come to a conclusion, so what contribution a rookie like me can give to this thread??

Think about that,
technical parameters that included logistical ones, operational ones(lifecycle costs).. etc.

NOT JUST the combat capability or effectiveness.
Hence if only that parameter is to be looked at, there is something to discuss.
The MMRCA competition had the Block-60(which incidentally blew a tyre) which is the ultimate evolution of a F-16 in terms of avionics but not maneuverability because it sacrificed some of it for all that equipment and fuel. In an air to air engagement this consideration must be taken into effect.

Depending on the weapon setup, and the fight setup.. the results may be very varied.
for eg.. the EF was beaten 7:1 as per french reports.
only later it dawned that those EF were constrained by RoE in their roles as "red air" at ATLC in Dubai.
So a lot of the chest beating about the Rafale has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

That being said, the Rafale has excellent nose authority.. it can point its nose anywhere down to below 150 knots..
which gives it excellent dogfighting ability. Combine this with SPECTRA and it is a formidable A2A opponent and holds an edge over the F-16 block-52 because of SPECTRA. In terms of weapon systems, the MICA EM/IR combo is slightly bested by the AIM-120/9x combo.. but it depends on whether the F-16 can employ its weapons at its range and envelope advantage.

As a strike fighter, the Rafale is excellent as well.. being able to attack both ground and air targets simultaneously..
However this trend has already been set by the current generation of F-16s. so it does nothing better than being able to carry more than the F-16.
A typical long range strike for the Rafale is 2x1250 tanks, 6xSBU-58's,4x Mica-EMs,2xMica IR,1x LP/TGP.. that is the potential to engage 6x A2A targets and 6 ground targets(with self guidance).

The F-16 may carry (2x CFTs, 1x Centreline, 1x Sniper or litening, 4 x GBU-38 or 6x GBU-12, 4x AIM-120, 2xAIM-9X)
Being able to engage and attack 6 air targets and 4 or 6 ground targets.

Electronic survivability against modern threats has been helped on the block-52 by systems such as ALQ-211 with DRFM..

so overall, as a system.. the F-16 can match the rafale .. say about 80-85% of the Rafale's effectiveness.

 

[illusion8]

No sir, i had never implied it as a PAF vs IAF affair, but what i wanted to say is that this comparison doesn't make sense anymore (no offense) after the MMRCA down selection as a professional force like IAF itself has compared the two on all technical parameters & have come to a conclusion, so what contribution a rookie like me can give to this thread??

If the whole rigmarole of buying fighter jets from the US was not an hindrance plus added fear of sanctions and TOT, I bet the F16 IN or the F18 would have been a preferred choice going by the sheer amount of versatility the platforms bring with it. Owing to Geopolitical's and other constraints both the US jets and the Eurofighter were dropped.

 

[rockstarIN]

so overall, as a system.. the F-16 can match the rafale .. say about 80-85% of the Rafale's effectiveness.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/106105-rafale-vs-f-16-block52-54.html#ixzz2IdY0LzaP

If that is the case, why did French went for the costly Rafale over M2k-9. Only for Spectra?

 

[rockstarIN]

Think about that,
technical parameters that included logistical ones, operational ones(lifecycle costs).. etc.

NOT JUST the combat capability or effectiveness.
Hence if only that parameter is to be looked at, there is something to discuss.
The MMRCA competition had the Block-60(which incidentally blew a tyre) which is the ultimate evolution of a F-16 in terms of avionics but not maneuverability because it sacrificed some of it for all that equipment and fuel. In an air to air engagement this consideration must be taken into effect.

Depending on the weapon setup, and the fight setup.. the results may be very varied.
for eg.. the EF was beaten 7:1 as per french reports.
only later it dawned that those EF were constrained by RoE in their roles as "red air" at ATLC in Dubai.
So a lot of the chest beating about the Rafale has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

That being said, the Rafale has excellent nose authority.. it can point its nose anywhere down to below 150 knots..
which gives it excellent dogfighting ability. Combine this with SPECTRA and it is a formidable A2A opponent and holds an edge over the F-16 block-52 because of SPECTRA. In terms of weapon systems, the MICA EM/IR combo is slightly bested by the AIM-120/9x combo.. but it depends on whether the F-16 can employ its weapons at its range and envelope advantage.

As a strike fighter, the Rafale is excellent as well.. being able to attack both ground and air targets simultaneously..
However this trend has already been set by the current generation of F-16s. so it does nothing better than being able to carry more than the F-16.
A typical long range strike for the Rafale is 2x1250 tanks, 6xSBU-58's,4x Mica-EMs,2xMica IR,1x LP/TGP.. that is the potential to engage 6x A2A targets and 6 ground targets(with self guidance).

The F-16 may carry (2x CFTs, 1x Centreline, 1x Sniper or litening, 4 x GBU-38 or 6x GBU-12, 4x AIM-120, 2xAIM-9X)
Being able to engage and attack 6 air targets and 4 or 6 ground targets.

Electronic survivability against modern threats has been helped on the block-52 by systems such as ALQ-211 with DRFM..

so overall, as a system.. the F-16 can match the rafale .. say about 80-85% of the Rafale's effectiveness.

l Air Marshal PK Barbora, Ex Vice Chief of Air Staff said, "The Air Force is not looking at price. That's not our area of concern. What we want is QRs are focussed on technical aspects, latest technology. Lot is available in the market and there is potential for future growth.

IAF set to seal $ 10 bn combat aircraft deal - India - IBNLive

 

[DARKY]

so overall, as a system.. the F-16 can match the rafale .. say about 80-85% of the Rafale's effectiveness.

1. While taking about rafale you must be clear about the variant you are considering here... like you did for F-16[block 52].

2. Talking of the variant which IAF gets... have many advantages over the block 52 variant of F-16.... a rough account which I can recall.
* AESA.[much better scan rate.. greater no of target tracked and engaged, simultaneous tracking on ground, sea and air.. etc..etc.]
* Passive IR and EOTS.[ IRST absent on block 52... the one on Rafale is said to be better or on par with OLS-35 of Su-35BM.. perhaps more light can be put here by other members]
* SPECTRA.[Certainly much-much better situational awareness and use of passive electronic system]
* METEOR.[ A BVR whose No-escape zone is the greatest.. more than Aim120D or RVV-SD off course we don't know about the Russian ramjet RVV]
* MICA.[ A BVR which comes with two different seekers]

Off course there are many more points which rafale fans can put here.
Now considering only the 5 which I've mentioned Rafale stand out against block 52... and even If block 52 is like 80-85% as per your assessment[considering you were comparing the one which IAF gets].. Rafale would kill 8-9 F-16block52 in every 10 engagements consider one for engine fail on rafale..

 

[MilSpec]

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.

 

[sancho]

Depending on the weapon setup, and the fight setup.. the results may be very varied.
for eg.. the EF was beaten 7:1 as per french reports.
only later it dawned that those EF were constrained by RoE in their roles as "red air" at ATLC in Dubai.
So a lot of the chest beating about the Rafale has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

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.

As a strike fighter, the Rafale is excellent as well.. being able to attack both ground and air targets simultaneously..
However this trend has already been set by the current generation of F-16s. so it does nothing better than being able to carry more than the F-16.
A typical long range strike for the Rafale is 2x1250 tanks, 6xSBU-58's,4x Mica-EMs,2xMica IR,1x LP/TGP.. that is the potential to engage 6x A2A targets and 6 ground targets(with self guidance).

The F-16 may carry (2x CFTs, 1x Centreline, 1x Sniper or litening, 4 x GBU-38 or 6x GBU-12, 4x AIM-120, 2xAIM-9X)
Being able to engage and attack 6 air targets and 4 or 6 ground targets.

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!

 

[sancho]

If that is the case, why did French went for the costly Rafale over M2k-9. Only for Spectra?

Because the Mirage 2000 was not designed as multi role as the F16, especially wrt to the hardpoint layouts. It is more geared for A2A and as an interceptor, wit 3 wet/heavy stations only, while the main focus was on carrying as many AAMs as possible. That is the same disadvantage the EF has, since it uses a similar hadpoint layout.
Rafale on the other hand is technically based on the Mirage 2000, but for operational terms is more similar to F16 and it's advantages (low speed, low level maneuverability, 5 wet points, different weapon configs, high payload...).

1. While taking about rafale you must be clear about the variant you are considering here... like you did for F-16[block 52].

2. Talking of the variant which IAF gets... have many advantages over the block 52 variant of F-16.... a rough account which I can recall.

Darky, you are right that in a IAF/PAF relation the versions and procured capababilities are important as well, but lets not go that way and compare the fighters in general!