Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/27/2025 7:25:37 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I scored a simulated kill of a Rafale this morning when I took my wet constitutional.
Wasn’t the F35 not really designed for a dogfight, supposed to engage beyond visual range?
Not an aircraft guy, so just curious.
features of Rafale make it more than a match for these US aircraft within the visual range part of the engagement envelope
The Rafale would be dead before it even got within visual range.
“...within the visual range part of the engagement envelope.”............................
Your blog is trash.
You are pimping trash.
USAF often allows this stuff to happen when they need funding for a new aircraft. That’s how we got the F35. They were faking like some other aircraft took out the F22.
No enemy fighter should get close enough to an F35 to ‘see’ it visually or with radar. The F35 shoots missiles beyond visual range and vacates the area. This article says as much.
What the article should say is: “in this singular, very controlled, randomly picked, instance, the Rafale was able to score a kill against the F35.
And a Zero could take out a Hellcat in low-speed, horizontal dogfight. So what?
The question is not how well the F-35 is against and old French Jet, but how well is stands up to a Mig 41 in combat.
“Wasn’t the F35 not really designed for a dogfight, supposed to engage beyond visual range?”
That’s what I thought too. Of course this may be a push for billions in new aircraft.
When you're reduced to talking about how it was the "first" to have something, it means you're relying on past glory days when the technology gap has closed even for that radar.
For a long time now, airplanes have been a great deal less important than the missiles they fire.
Others in the thread have jumped on the Beyond Visual Range stuff. They are right. F-35 is not a great airplane. It’s a stealth weapons platform. If you could have a C-130 with missile pylons and the same radar cross-section (you can’t, but if you could) you would not need to spend on the F-35. The C-130 could sit out at 20 miles and shoot missiles.
In this instance, I suspect they got in close and used missiles with infrared seekers in their simulation. Perfectly legit simulation.
As has always been true with our stealth aircraft, they don’t shoot backwards. So an F-35 has to bore in at some swarm of enemy vehicles, manned or otherwise, to close range, maintain radar lock for the missile’s seeker, and start shooting. At some point one of those enemy vehicles will get into heat-seeker range and get a kill.
Dassault had to hide the “Se Rendre” button in the cockpit for the simulation.
The F-35 had everything enabled to let it be seen via radar. There’s specific flaps that can be added/opened, etc.
This was a “F-35 at its WORST” vs “Rafale at its best” test.
As has always been true with our stealth aircraft, they don’t shoot backwards
Apparently, the F-22 can.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TgAKJ5wzefk
Cripple Fat Amy until the Frenchie can get a hit on her...
Ok... Now let’s go full force-on-force and see if the Rafale can even SEE the F-35 before a missile takes it apart.
I guess they got the hands-free upgrade, since you couldn’t fly one with your hands up in the surrender position...
I guess they got the hands-free upgrade, since you couldn’t fly one with your hands up in the surrender position...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.