The International Rafale forum

To kick off this topic, here's some data on the Rafale M & F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, slightly updated from Toan's numbers on F-16.net (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6094.html).

F/A-18E vs RAFALE M

1. Dimensions
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Length: 18.38 m / 15.27 m
B. Span: 13.68 m / 10.80 m (*1)
C. Height: 4.87 m / 5.34 m
D. Wing area: 46.45 m2 / 45.70 m2
*1: The wing span of F/A-18E is 9.32 m with folded outer wings.

2. Weights:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Empty weight: 13,865~14,007 kg / 9,900~10,460 kg
B. Internal fuel: 8,060 litres / 5,937 liters
C. Max. ext. fuel: 9,080 liters / 8,500 liters (9,800 liters with CFT)
D. Max. ext. load: 8,050 kg+ / 9,500 kg
E. Max. take-off weight: 29,937 kg / 24,500 kg (*2)
F. Max. recovery payload: 4,226 kg / 4,804 kg (*3)
G. Max. recovery payload: 2,268 kg / 2,989 kg, night ~ 3,444 kg, day (*4)

*2: Dassault may increase the MTOW of Rafale to 27,200 kg-class after 2010.
*3: External stores + internal fuel
*4: External stores only

3. Flight Performance:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Max. speed, high level: 1.6 Mach+ / 1.8 Mach+
B. Max. speed, low level: < 1.0 Mach / 750 kts (*5)
C. Mini. flying speed: 125 ~ 135 kts / 100 ~ 115 kts
D. Approach speed: 142 kts / 120 kts
E. Max. operating altitude: > 15,240 m / 18,400 m
F. Climb rate, sea level: > 254 m/sec+ / > 305 m/sec
G. Normal G-limit of FCS: -3.0 ~ +7.5G / -3.2 ~ +9.0 G
H. Maximal upper G-limit: +10.0 G / > or = +11.0 G
I. Normal AoA limit: 45~60 degrees / 32 degrees (*6)
J. Wing-load for air combat: 398.3~401.3 kg/m2 / 291.0~303.3 kg/m2 (*7)
K. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 1.05~1.08 / 1.10~1.15 with A/B ( *8 )
L. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 0.67~0.69 / 0.73~0.77 with max. mil. (*9)

*5: F/A-18 E/F's maximal speed is less than 1.0 Mach at the height below 10,000 fts.
*6: Once cancelling the normal restriction of FBWs, Rafale's AoA could reach more than 100 degrees.
*7 ~ *9: The fighter's weight for air combat = empty weight + 50% internal fuel + MRAAM*6 + SRAAM*2 + pilot and gun shells.

4. Ferry range:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Ferry range: 2,346 km / > 2,100 km (*10)
B. Ferry range: 3,054 km / 3,704 km (*11) (*12)

*10: clean fighter with internal fuel only.
*11: Ferry range of F/A-18E with 1,800L tank*3 + AIM-9*2 --> 3,074 km
*12: Ferry range of Rafale M with four tank (6,600 L) + MICA*8 --> 3,704 km

5. Combat radius:
# F/A-18E:
A. 720 km hi-lo-lo-hi attack profile with two 480 gallon tanks and four 1000 lbs bombs plus two Aim-9.
B. 855 km on interdiction mission with three 480 gal tanks.
C. 1230 km hi-hi-hi profile with two AIM-9, four Mk.83 bombs, three tanks, two sensor pods.
D. 800 km for fighter escort with two AIM-9 and two AMRAAMs, internal fuel only.
E. Combat endurance: 2 h 15 min with six AAMs and external tanks, 280 km from the carrier.

# Rafale M:
A. 1,100 km with three tanks (4,300 L), four MICA AAMs, and twelve 1,000 Ib bombs.
B. 1,480 km with three tanks (6,000 L), four MICA AAMs, and four 500 Ib GBU-12 LGBs
C. 1,830 km with two CFTs (2,300 L), three tanks (5,700 L), two SCALP-EG and two MICA AAMs.
D. CAP: More than 2 hours (Rafale M with six AAMs and three 1,250L tanks, 185 km away from the carrier)

6. Others:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Frontal RCS: 0.1 m2 / 0.1 to 0.3 m2 (*13)
B. Pylons: 11 and 5 / 13 and 5, all and wet (*14)
C. Prices: 57 million USDs / 69.5 million USDs (*15)
D. Maintenance: 15 / 7 Man-hours per flight hour.

*13: Dassault declared the frontal RCS of Rafale is 1/10 of Mirage-2000 in 1998~1999.
*14: Wet pylon means the pylon that can carry and use the tank.
*15: The price of F/A-18 E is 57 million USDs per fighter in 2003, while the average price of Rafale F3 during 2008~2012 is 69.5 million USDs per fighter.

Some editorial comments on the data above...

The F/A-18E/F does not have a performance advantage over the Rafale M, even in terms of payload/range, despite being significantly larger. This is largely driven by its less efficient aerodynamic configuration, which has negative consequences on 4 key performance factors: empty weight, thrust, lift and drag:

The F/A-18E/F weighs about 45% more empty than a Rafale. That's about 4t extra weight that it needs to lug around. This is driven partly by its larger size, but also because the F/A-18E/F's conventional wing and twin-tailfins inherently require more structural weight. The Rafale's close coupled canard/delta configuration and single tailfin are more weight efficient.

Most large fighters can compensate for any weight penalty by having more relative thrust/weight, more lift and less relative drag. However, the F/A-18E/F only has 31% more thrust than the Rafale, so its thrust/weight ratio is actually lower. This isn't compensated by more lift, since it has roughly the same wing area. Also, the Rafale's close coupled canards should generate more lift than the Super Hornet's LERXs. Finally, the F/A-18E/F is very draggy, due to the conventional aerodynamic configuration, twin tailfins and the flutter problems that led to canted pylons on the wing.

When you add it all up (45% more empty weight, identical lift, only 31% more thrust), the F/A-18E/F's payload is quite logically smaller relative to its size. In fact, total internal + external payload is only about 7% more than a Rafale (about 1t). The F/A-18E/F's small payload advantage is then mostly wasted on compensating for the extra drag...

PAYLOAD CALCULATION
RAFALE
Empty 22,000lb + Internal Fuel 10,450lb + External Load 20,900lb = 53,350lb (400lb under MTOW)
--> Total internal + external payload = 31,350lb

SUPER HORNET (data from: http://www.ndia.org/Content/ContentG...02_Wallace.ppt)
Empty 31,500lb + Internal Fuel 14,950lb + External Load 18,730lb = 65,180lb (800lb under MTOW)
--> Total internal + external payload = 33,670lb

Well,

Be careful H_K, the title of this forum is "what happened" : i think the baseline of each comparison must be an article showing FACTS.

Thanks anyway. This is still very interesting.

I must find the links with such article...

Yes you're right... But we generally don't know what really happened.

In fact, do we even know whether Rafales and Super Hornets have flown against each other before? They were both on board CVN-75 Harry Truman during JTFEX 08-04 last year, but that's all I know. The Super Hornets were part of VFA-213 and VFA-31. The VFA-213 planes were even Block 2 models with APG-79 AESA radars.

This is exactly why I must find those articles i have in mind.
They were about the dogfights.

I found it (in the Rafale news thread on mp.net)

AFM, 2008/11, Page 34 - 39:



So, to sum it up:

Rafale > F18E (in Dogfight/Close combat anyways)

But the "Super Bug" weapon systems *may* still give it the edge?

Thank you Xav, this is what i was looking for.
This article seems to demonstrate that Rafale has the edge in terms of maneuverability.

That's not really a surprise.
The Super Hornet was initially designed to be as maneuverable as the original Hornet, no more. But the plane became heavier and has a drag far higher than initially planed. And we could add to that the fact that its G limits are beyond those of the Eurocanards.

The commentary on this particular planes were very bad when it first enter service, including from its own pilots (those who came from the Tomcat mostly).

But well, dog-fight abilities is nothing without a good weapon system. And we could argue as long as we want, the Super Hornet has a very good weapon system, better than the Rafale's (at least until she receives her AESA radar ).
The AESA radar and the JHMCS make it a "not so bad" replacement for the Tomcat.

We may find, one of those days, someone who will show very skeptical about that.

That's for sure TMor!!

But well, pilots are always ungry when they receive new toys!
"My Crusader was a REAL fighter, unlike your cyber-Rafale!"
"My Tomcat was a GUY fighter!! Not a g** one!!"
"My Corsair II, THAT was a real light bomber! The Hornet is just a toy for Air Force men!"


The Super Hornet is not a bad fighter. But it suffer a lot of problems, mainly due to the fact that there were no prototype to correct its fluttering issues.
And, more important, it doesn't have the Tomcat "spirit"