Which one is superior?

You're just butthurt that France makes better planes than America.

Weapons efficiency:1 point for f35
Want to bomb the big shit: 1 point for rafale
Nuke: 1 point for rafale
Interoperability : 1 point for f35
Stealth: 1 point for f35 , btw the rafale manage to be very good while not specifically designed for it
Design: 1 point for rafale
Ease of maintaining: -1 for f35 (stealth coating are shit and weather sensitive)
Engine: We'll have to wait to know the reliability of the f35's single engine. If not good rafale wins the game and f35 is kill. If good, f35 gets a point.

>Nuke: 1 point for rafale
what

>Ease of maintaining: -1 for f35 (stealth coating are shit and weather sensitive)
this isn't 1989 anymore, we have weather proof stealth coatings, the F-35C does fine exposed on flight decks

The F-35 will carry nukes. The original plan was for it to be B-61 certified in 2020, but they have fast-tracked it (probably because of north korea)

military.com/defensetech/2017/01/10/f-35-carry-b61-nuclear-warhead-sooner-planned

T-38s have killed raptors in BFM training.

It doesn't mean anything.

F4's have killed Rafales in BFM as well, yet no-one is calling the F4 a better plane

Today? Rafale
In 10 years? F-35

You are implying that a B-61 comes even close as being compared to a ASMPA? What did you smoked this morning m8?

And yet, it cost a gazillion dollar to maintain

One is already in service for over a decade, eh.

>he believes that being "stealth" means that it can't be locked by a radar

Why is Jow Forums so dumb?

There was no implication there. Are you retarded?

>F-22
>got fucked by the Eurofighter and Rafale

That's is also the result if you compromise aerodynamics for stealth.

F-4 > Rafale

Attached: Rafales are shit.jpg (1000x498, 271K)

You were implying that just because the f35 might carry nuke, it'll even things out
Which will not
So fucking not

The F-22 is better than those two in pretty much all metrics kinematicaly.

The F-22 wasn't stealth there, it had a luneberg lens installed.

Also the F-22 isn't a dogfighter. It shoots you down from very high altitude before you know its there.

The rafale carries a nuclear cruise missile because the french don't have bombers to launch them like the US does. The B-61 is a tactical nuke.

>That's is also the result if you compromise aerodynamics for stealth.
what
it has thrust vectoring, it can put it's nose on things better than an F-16 can

>it had a luneberg lens installed.
look, i'm not a fighter pilot, but i'm pretty sure at that range you're going to be getting a lock anyway, either way you don't need a lock to dogfight

>Also the F-22 isn't a dogfighter.
yes it is

>implying only one person is making fun of you

wew

Adorable

The F-22 actually bleeds energy left and right. It shouldn't be a surprise if lacks movable lower lips and inlet ramps.

Attached: 2010-06-11_Eurofighter_Luftwaffe_31+16_EDDB_02.jpg (1920x1280, 321K)

fuck off dashing.

Rafale and Eurofighter are pretty much the aerodynamic peaks in aircraft designs for a fighter.

Rafale with the focus on subsonic performance, while Eurofighter excels in the transsonic/supersonic regime.

You do realize that this photo means absolutely nothing, and pilots stick all kinds of shit in there

>Squared inlets
What retard designed this shitty plane

>look at me! I'm a big idiot!

During supersonic flight, air behaves very differently than air in subsonic flight. A circular intake makes a lot of sense for subsonic flight because then you don't have corners creating turbulence, especially in traditional engine-under-wing configurations. In supersonic flight, however, turbulence is less of a problem than being able to control the shock waves that come off the leading edges. These shock waves, in an improperly designed craft, can cause everything from vibration to catastrophic structural failure.

Therefore, design for supersonic flight is fundamentally different from design for subsonic flight. What the intake looks like is the result of many, many hours of design and testing in order to get the most air with the least side effects for that position on that plane. To say one shape is better than another broadly oversimplifies the efficiency problem.

Squared inlets work just fine.

Attached: typhoon accelerating.gif (330x248, 1.88M)

arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/148721-references-and-inspiration/&page=2
It's the second post here.

The Eurofighter lacks any vortex generating devices and it's literally a fucking delta wing which are the draggiest kind of wing there is under load.

The entire design is a compromise to get the lowest transonic drag possible, it coincidently has pretty good sustained rates but even here F-22s are still better, and everywhere else the F-22 trashes the Eurofighter.

>Eurofighter
>subsonic

Actually, the Eurofighters which are planned as replacement for the German Luftwaffe will come with the AMK, which will improve performance in subsonic regime massively.

They will also put a new revisions of the EJ200 engines with 15% more output. It's gonna be a hell of an aircraft.

Attached: TyphoonNew.jpg (800x533, 97K)

>The Eurofighter lacks any vortex generating devices

This is plain wrong. Like the rest of your post.

>No chines
>No Lerx
>No levcons
>No Close coupled canard
>no vortex generators

Perfect designs don't get retrofitted with a LERX and vortex generators, it's like modern wing fences:

Why does Jow Forums always want to show off how dumb it is?

>AMK

How do you make a swing-role air superiority fighter deadlier and more maneuverable than it already is? The boffins at Airbus Defence and Space have somehow managed to do just that with the Aerodynamic Modification Kit to the Eurofgither Typhoon. The AMK involves the installation of strakes (ridges along the fuselage) and leading-edge root extensions (LERX) where the roots of the delta wings meet the main body of the aircraft, right above its chin intake. Other aircraft that prominently feature such extensions include the F/A-18A-G Hornet/Super Hornet and the Su-27 Flanker; and the benefits of LERX greatly show in their performance! The addition of strakes and LERX gives the Typhoon a higher turn rate, a tighter turning radius and better control characteristics at lower speed, all significantly contributing to the fighter’s air-to-air combat capabilities.

When compared to a standard Eurofighter Typhoon lacking the AMK retrofit, the enhanced Typhoon’s angle of attack (AoA) was 45% greater, with faster roll rates around 100% higher. According to program test pilot Raffaele Beltrame, “The handling qualities appeared to be markedly improved, providing more manoeuvrability, agility and precision while performing tasks representative of in-service operations. And it is extremely interesting to consider the potential benefits in the air-to-surface configuration thanks to the increased variety and flexibility of stores that can be carried.” The AMK test flights included 36 sorties using the IPA7 test model, emanating from Manching, Germany, home to Airbus Group’s Cassidian’s Military Air Systems Centre, first flown by in-house test pilots and then later on by operational pilots drawn from the Royal Air Force, the Luftwaffe and the Italian Air Force. Previous to the AMK upgrades, the IPA7 airframe (GS029) was maintained at the Full Tranche 2 Standard.

Whatever dude, it won't make a shitty aircraft better though

>shitty

Oh, you cute butthurt American.

Such an Eurofighter would be an excellent choice in combination with the F-35 as forward sensor.

The Rafale F4 standard looks also pretty nice - with the planned engines with 20% higher thrust.

Though I guess the Eurofighter has totally more developement potential.

Of course it has potential
It's 15 years behind in technology, might as well end up doing something at some point

You guys don't understand how those "kill" pics got taken. My squadron drilled against the eurofighter, strike eagles and, the rafale.

The pilots said that the rafale was better than the eurofighter, but not as good as the strike when it wasn't carrying air to ground. The only time the 22 "lost" was when the scenario it went up against the rafale was an absolute worst case simulation. Basically the 22 started with the rafale closing on his 6 from above and he was at near stall speed with the lens installed. The pilot was still fucking pissed about it when he landed. Just some good info for the faggs who think they understand.

youtube.com/watch?v=6KBmv6HBltM

youtube.com/watch?v=DycGbEjcHTY

Seriously the euro faggs were so thirsty for a lock on that they tried to target our 22's as they were taking off and landing.

Attached: suprise boss fighter.jpg (1024x683, 441K)

now let's try it again but this time the F-22 won't have a lunemberg lens installed

Inb4 butthurt frenchfags asking for proofs.

All the French ever do is fly around in the rear and sniff friendly emissions, it’s hilarious. Also keep in mind the French Air Force said that their victories didn’t mean anything

Pretty sure France and India have been caught lying about Red Flag. Both claimed to have BTFO the other participating nations and then everyone else was like "uh...no. heres what actually happened...".

>All the French ever do is fly around in the rear and sniff friendly emissions, it’s hilarious.
This and it is hilarious, in a way.

You have actually no idea what you are talking.

The Raptors and Typhoons were both on the Blue side during the actual Red Flag-Alaska exercise; however they participated in a series of exercises prior to the Red Flag called Distant Frontier which included some basic fighter maneuvers encounters with the F-22.

You just pulled out some nonsense.

F-22 and Rafale/Eurofighter were never in different teams in those excercises. But they did basic fighter maneuvers with the known result that the Eurofighter and Rafale were able to shot down the F-22.

>yfw Amerimutts are mad that their expensive """"stealth""""" plane loses to a 4th gen deathtrap built by a country of shitskin muslims

Kek. You can't even defeat the French yet that country is synonymous with military failure, how do you expect to defeat China now?

>how do you expect to defeat China now?
It's all posturing to save face. Americans have already lost and they know it.

kek

I mean it's well-known that the USA doesn't let their F-22 fly against non-American aircraft in such excercises.
And no one is "desperate" in such maneuvers and do anything outside of RoE.

Makes me wonder if that guy is just pulling out nonsense to get some arguments in a silly internet discussion or if he is just a mera security guard or something like that.

>I mean it's well-known that the USA doesn't let their F-22 fly against non-American aircraft in such excercises.
lolwut?

>when your planes are so shit that aircraft 50 years older BTFO of them

Man and I thought Russians were bad at aircraft

It wasn't at red flag. Think oil and camel spiders.

It's quite adorable how desperate Americans are.

If france is so supremely capable why not just go
shit stomp china right now and save us amerifats the trouble?

Attached: wat.jpg (262x246, 25K)

>an aircraft manufactured by Algerians and only purchased by their fellow Arabs and Indian street shitters
>good

Attached: The weeping Frenchman, 1940.jpg (1500x1211, 223K)

Im neither Chinese nor some mosque bound Frenchman. Im Danish

The F-35 actually comes 10 years too late.

What happened in 2007?

You must be absolutely seething then at the 27 f35s the danish AF bought.

Attached: 1406779252812.jpg (480x360, 42K)

>lose a single WVR exercise to a friendly country with active duty pilots and a luneberg lense with a gimped aircraft in a scenario that’s unlikely to occur.
wtf I hate Lockheed now

Americans are sure the most butthurt

Rafale is cuter, therefore it's superior.

The F-35 is maybe the ugliest new aircraft since the Su-25

It's more likely a butthurt Frog desu.

>Homo Sapeiens Amerimutti are allied with a literal muslim nation
>loses to them in air combat
>losing to literal arabs

this is why your country is declining

Su-57

Attached: Su-57.jpg (600x274, 18K)

Which country are you from user?

the upper right picture is from an austrian eurofighter, all 19 of which are faulty or outdated versions and the actual shipping involved a huge scam.
The entire affair is being investigated right now and there are going to be billions in lawsuits.
So Austrian Eurofighters aren't really a good example for anything related to Eurofighters.

Neither are superior to me. I come from the race of creatures that built them. My ancestors dreamed of conquering the skies and have. For generations stretching back to the dawn of time, a single line of fathers, I can see 1 standing behind the other in succession, some wearing uniforms or ancient dress back to the revolution, to the old world, past Rome all the way to the cave, my fathers all before me. All that history. They've bore witness to all of history and helped move the cogs of mankind's greatest dreams. We've conquered the earth, the oceans, the skies and even space and I stand here at the front of that line, which each of my fathers lined up behind me, watching me masturbate alone to internet porn until my death, the last of their line.

>Implying this isn't the greatest aircraft ever created
>stick a huge AESA in there and a couple of amraams
>6th gen fighter

Attached: CAM4935-b.jpg (1260x841, 465K)

Reminder that they built a Phantom that could intercept an SR-71 and the Air Force had it shut down because they were worried it existed would hurt funding for their golden boy F-15.

Attached: F_4X.jpg (620x240, 19K)

F-15s have proved to be the best fighter in the world for their time though. I love the Phantom plenty, but the F-15 has proved its worth a few times over.

the most versatile and A E S T H E T I C combat aircraft vs some chicken shit fighter that can only perform one task

Attached: 1477265376-ccf1e2541d291e7eafb921b79e57a1d7.jpg (1920x1200, 538K)

but has a F-4 ever shot down a satellite?

thats cool as fuck, reminds me of the fact that they treid to put 4 J58's on a Hustler to see if they could

Attached: 071203-F-9999J-029.jpg (2929x2368, 1.87M)

F-5!

Attached: hue.jpg (1600x1074, 178K)

>chicken shit fighter that can only perform one task
The strike eagle performs missions the F-4 could never dream of performing. Range, performance, payload, and sensors all go to the F-15E.

the problem isnt that the f-15 is better, but that the phantom could have been so much more.

Attached: oh wait youre serious.gif (288x198, 1.41M)

F-4 lived into doing some legit wild weasel stuff during gulf war, which is about as far as it could go. Pretty badass mission set for a badass aircraft. Of course you could put new avionics, radar, and powerplant into the machine, but it still would never have the room for improvements that the F-15E could offer in payload and range. F-15E can go out with 5 gbu-31s, 2xAIM-9X, 2xAIM-120, and 31,500lbs of gas. Can be quickly changed out to a 6x2 air to air loadout with the same gas and able to CAP forever. The F-4 doesn't even have room for all of these things. Give the mudhen some respect.

I have a dumb question. Where is it?
>t. doesn't know shit about planes

Round thing poking out on the bottom. Just google F-22 luneberg lense

the one that has a dick growing out of it's face.

There's also the whole airframe wear thing. F4's are old fucking aircraft compared to the F-15 and were made in a different time, so the frame itself is worn, tired, and ready to go home to glorious museum duty. Ahead of their time, sure, but the Phantom was still a product of the 50's. The 15 was the best that 60s air combat and 70s computers could put together, and now they're even more modern.