So I've been running sims with CMANO (anyone who just dismisses this as "hurr durr just a vidyagame is an idiot), running 4 F-35B's against 4 Rafale C's. The setup is both flights starting way out of range of each other, set to perform an AAW patrol within a box over the Baltic Sea. Perfectly parallel setup. F-35B's have internal only standard-CAP loadout (4 AIM-120D's), and the Rafale's have a standard CAP loadout of 2 Meteors, 2 MICA EM, and 2 MICA IR.
The F-35 has a consistent advantage. The Rafale has superior radar range, but it's only nominal. The stealth of the F-35B means that the Rafale's will only detect the F-35 from much closer than the F-35 can detect the Rafale's. Missile performance seems about equal, with the Meteor and AMRAAM both performing well.
Some recent results of this test:
F-35's and Rafale's both end up head-on in their patrols. F-35's detect Rafale's first, launch salvos of missiles, Rafale's only detect missiles at the last minute, begin evasive maneuvering, and maybe 2/4 will be destroyed. Second salvo of AMRAAMS is now on its way and the Rafale's are lucky to get off any missiles if they even have detected the F-35's.
Result: 4 dead Rafale's, 0-1 dead F-35's.
F-35's patrol takes them in a path where their radars are directed away from the Rafale's. Rafale's get the drop on the F-35's, detect them, launch Meteors. Usually 2 of the F-35's will be destroyed. F-35's will usually detect the Rafale's by this point as they are being locked by the Rafale's radar. They'll usually get a couple missiles off in response.
Result: 4 destroyed F-35's, 2 destroyed Rafale's.
One fun instant was where it was down to two F-35's with only gun ammo left, and 1-2 Rafale's. The rafale shot down one of the F-35's on a head-on gun pass, and then got into a turning fight with the remaining F-35. The F-35 ended up getting the kill shot.
Just some fun food for thought. If you've never tried Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations, I'd highly recommend it.
>>28605221
Are you that same faggot who stacked CMANO games in the favor if the chinks to say that CBGs are basically useless against the chinks?
>>28605253
no.
I'm pretty sure this setup isn't stacked either way. I was impressed by how well the Rafale performed, but like suspected, it came down to detection, and in that, the F-35 had the advantage. Also, what I found interesting was that if the F-35 detected a Rafale, it almost immediately identified it and got a missile lock and fired. With the Rafale, it would detect something, and then it would take a bit more to get a lock.
OP, you know just as well as I do that this experiment literally has zero value in terms of accuracy. F35 is a meme.
>>28605370
I wouldn't say it has ZERO value. Obviously it's not a perfectly realistic simulator, nothing is. But the amount of detail and level of realism in especially the sensor and detection simulation is impressive.
Not sure what "F35 is a meme" means....
>>28605370
I bet your one of those faggots that thinks the Rafael is better than the F-22 because it got a lock on it during an exercise, and then proceed to dismiss OP for this shit.
>>28605434
>Not sure what "F35 is a meme" means....
Calling anything you don't like a meme now is a meme. In other worlds he's a 12 year old trying to fit in.
>>28605
>two f-35bs with only gun ammo left
>f35bs with internal guns
>meteor performance being anything other than a guess
>performance of most of this being anything other than a guess
>>28605496
disagree.
I'm not interested in discussing the videogame. I'm interested in discussion the F-35 and other military technology.
>>28605221
The reason I'm skeptical about this is the real performance of the F-35 is not known, so someone just had to make up stats out of thin air and plug them into your simulation.
Even if we know the stats of planes exactly, it is very difficult to make an accurate simulation of their behavior in a combat scenario. Imagine how much inaccuracy we add to this by using imaginary stats for the F-35...
>>28605512
>>28605523
dismissing this as "just a guess" is kinda silly. This simulator is made with a very deep level of detail in the real performance of systems. Obviously there's going to be less data for something like the Meteor, or the F-35, but it's still an extremely educated guess.
I mean, this simulator has a version that was developed more the US military to use. So it's obviously "good enough".
You know, since most air to air confrontations will be beyond visual range and technology-reliant, I have faith in the F-35 and its capabilities. To develop an aircraft that can turn tighter or go higher is easy relative to making it invisible to radar. When it comes down to it, radar (and countermeasures) and missile technology (and countermeasures) are really where it counts. Bashing the F-35 because it can't win in a gun fight with an F-16C is petty.
>>28605545
>deep level of detail
It really isn't. They dont have access to classified data and they'be made basic errors like the B model having a cannon. It's a video game.
>>28605370
>calling anything a "meme"
>>>/trash/
>>28605545
>Obviously there's going to be less data for something like the Meteor, or the F-35, but it's still an extremely educated guess.
Yes obviously two of the major components of this simulated combat are complete fantasy but uh.... the uh guesses are educated.... uh because the classified data was totally made available to the game dev... so the output is valid.
>>28605561
Tell that the the Australian Defense Department. They use it as a simulation tool.
Why do you think you know better than them?
>>28605602
Well, they did lose a war against birds.
>>28605593
You do realize that there are published specs on these systems, right?
What data do you think they would need to know that does not have a published version?
>>28605602
I'd be willing to bet they use the program with their own data, not the base stuff.
>>28605662
>You do realize that there are published specs on these systems, right?
Oh well please link me to the published performance specs of the F-35! You should send a copy of that link to the DoD as well because they'll want to know about the massive security breach.
I'm sure you also have super accurate data regarding the essential details of the Meteor's ability to maneuver against an adversary and it's Pk against a fighter it has never been tested against.
Can't wait to read all of these classified documents you're about to leak for me!
>MUH SIMULATORS
>>28605662
>published specs are totally accurate guys!
>>28605602
The Aussies also have sprey as an advisor.
>>28605602
>why do you think you know better than them?
Because I'm not Australian.
>>28605619
Kek
>>28605221
wait I thought the APG81 has >1600 modules while the rafale only has 840 on it's radar. How is the APG81 being outranged?
>>28605221
Put down the dang vidyagame son.
Guys, I think the question we all want answered is the F-35 versus the cost equivalent of a F-35 in P-51 Mustangs.
>>28605221
CMANO obviously isn't shit and it's as realistic as it can get but it isn't good for contemporary analysis. They simply lack the data.
But if you wanna see how would Soviet bomber raid on Scotland look like in 1970, it's pretty cool.
>>28605221
Granted, it's pretty easy to get CMANO to confirm just about anything you want (just see the 50 center threads from a while back "proving" that carriers were useless), but the scenario you've run seems to emphasize the real advantage of stealth.
The F-35 is far from invisible, but the range at which it can be detected is far shorter compared to a conventional aircraft. That means that they're more likely to see the enemy before they're spotted themselves, giving them the chance to get the first shot off in the engagement. And as fighter engagements since Vietnam have shown, it usually only takes a single missile to end an engagement - usually, the enemy turns and runs, and occasionally a hit is scored.
Of course, your scenario does have its problems. A completely even matching with two flights of fighters meeting in some neutral zone never happens. More realistic engagements would involve AWACS or ground control of some sort, with one side escorting a strike package (or being the strike package themselves) over a hostile area, possibly while having to contend with ground-based air defenses.
>>28605561
meh, there will be a gun pod for the 35B. Either way, it was just an interesting incident that happened in one sim. I mean, I could have run it with the 35A instead, but I figured I'd choose the model that everyone bitches about as being the worst.
>>28605593
>muh classified
I don't think you understand how this works.
There's enough information out there, combined with extrapolating from things we do know.
if you have an issue, maybe go ask the devs of this simulator. I'm sure they'd be happy to answer your questions.
>>28605789
educated guesses using known data combined with extrapolations is a hell of a lot better than some idiot here on /k/ going "but muh rafale shits on the F-35 lololol"
Sims like this are literally all we have right now. That, and obviously any training exercises they've done like sending the F-22's to Red Flag, where they proceeded to rape everyone. The F-22's performance at Red Flag is probably part of what helped sell the F-35 to other countries. They saw what the improved avionics could really do.
>>28605906
so how would you go about simulating this kind of scenario?
>>28605978
I'm only citing the radar cone as depicted in the sim. The Rafale's was longer-ranged. In actual fact, the F-35 had way better detection range on the Rafale, with the Rafale only detecting the F-35 at around 30-35 nm.
>>28606077
obviously sims can be stacked.
and obviously more realistic scenarios could be formed. But my goal was to just sit there for a half hour screwing around and see what the F-35 could do. The less variables, the less ways people could bitch and moan about things not being fair.
re: the rafale outranging the f35 - Are you sure you had both sides at co-altitude?
Are you sure the F-35 radar was on and not just the IRST?
>>28605221
Everyone knows the F-35 is fucking great, Russia even paid people like Sprey to slander it because it's great for all US allies purchasing it.
Now Russiaboos are 30 years behind the curve again.
>>28605434
It's a shit craft. It is shittons slower than the SR-71 Blackbird (which was made in '64!), built for stealth but that doesn't matter because in daylight it can always be seen with the naked eye, and the gun performance is worse than that of the A-10 Thunderbolt (from bloody '72!). For a modern craft it's pretty good at being outclassed by ancient pieces of history.
Pic related. He might as well design aircraft if this is all it takes.
>>28606163
Even then the Barracuda should be picking up the Rafale's radar, making the range difference in the radar meaningless.
>>28606174
>>28606174
you're getting really lazy senpai, try harder next time, I believe in you.
>>28606252
can barracuda detect aesa radars?
>>28606174
you're trolling, right?
Either you're trolling, which would make you retarded, or you're serious, which also makes you retarded. congrats.
@everyone else: just ran some more with the F-35B's switched out for F-22's. Was interesting. The F-22 again had a major advantage in detection, and consistently got the drop on the Rafale's. But the Rafale's were quite good at avoiding missiles, and as the F-22's were launching salvos, if the Rafale's managed to detect the F-22's and launch a salvo of their own, the F-22's had a harder time avoiding the missiles than the F-35 did. One time it ended with all 4 aircraft destroyed on both sides because the last Rafale launched a salvo at the last two F-22's. This test more than anything is showing me that the Rafale is indeed an impressive aircraft.
>>28606252
>>28606163
yes, F-35 radar was on. And I did notice that the Rafale's were slightly lower altitude. But 50k feet vs 36k feet shouldn't make a huge difference in radar range, and not in the direction of the 36k ft aircraft having more range. I mean both are high enough that the horizon is further than the radar's max range anyways I'm pretty sure.
>>28606294
It'd be kind of pointless if it couldn't.
>>28606307
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4#.haudt5jmg
I think something's off in your settings, the Rafale shouldn't be able to get Radar lock at BVR on a stealth plane.
>>28606321
well to be fair for some reason op's rafaele's have fuck huge radar range despite having a significantly weaker radar than the f35. could be part of the problem
>>28606321
it doesn't???
when I said the Rafale had better radar range, as I mentioned, it was the nominal radar range. As in, the white range cone was larger. But the actual range where the Rafale would detect the F-35 or F-22 was much much smaller than vice versa.
>>28606307
You shouldn't be drawing any conclusions at all from a video game
>>28606341
like I said in the OP, anyone who just dismisses this as "hurr durr vidyagaem" is an idiot.
Everyone is well aware that a simulator is never a perfect simulation of reality and is never perfect. But it's closer than just random assertions and guessing, and a fuck ton better than some anon going "hurr durr rafale is better"
Do you have a better source to draw conclusions from?
Also, tested the F-35 against the Typhoon. Typhoon performed similar to the Rafale. Massive disadvantage in detection, but if it did detect the F-35 it could kill a few with a salvo.
>>28606447
Run a F-35 vs Rafale or Typhoon scenario where there are AWACs active.
>>28606447
>But it's closer than just random assertions and guessing
No retard, this game IS just random assertions and guessing. You don't fucking know the real radar capabilities of a Rafale, you don't fucking know the real radar capabilities of an F-35, you don't know the real RCS of either plane, you don't know the real Pk of a Meteor vs. F-35, you don't know the real Pk of AIM-120 vs. Rafale. Your simulation here uses FANTASY NUMBERS and gives you a FANTASY result. You are so fucking dumb it's making me mad. This information is all highly protected and the armed forces go to great length to obscure and not divulge this information. When these planes go to exercises and airshows they attach modules to modify the RCS of the plane, they configure the radar so it doesn't emit like it would in a real scenario. A missile's Pk can only be determined by testing real world performance, and we have never tested these missiles and these aircraft together. How do you not know any of this? On LockheedMartin.com they will list some stats like weight, thrust, etc. but those are not accurate ON PURPOSE and they are aren't the most important information needed in this scenario.
The figures this simulation is based upon are invented, pure fantasy, no different than someone on here talking out their ass. So please just fucking stop.
>>28605221
>>28606710
see, not this is better bait
>>28606669
CMANO works based off of official data as reported by the manufacturers/military. There may be some lying and a degree of guesswork in there, but it's as accurate as it can get.
As OP was saying, the point of the scenario he ran wasn't to really demonstrate anything but the advantage behind the F-35's stealth. It doesn't prove anything, but it's an interesting demonstration that's far more informative than the source-less shitposting we normally see in F-35 threads.
>>28606474
running it now.
Set E-3's far enough back but so that their radar range covers the entire patrol area.
As soon as the Rafale's entered range of the US AWACS, they got detected as unknown contacts. Shortly after, they were identified as hostile. The F-35's are already vectoring in on them while the Rafale's are still just patrolling. The F-35's are only now being detected by AWACS.
Pausing it and checking the ranges that they got detected, interestingly enough, the Rafale's and F-35's got detected at pretty much the same range by the respective AWACS planes.
As soon as the Rafale's got within the F-35's radar range, they were fully detected, at which point, they also detected the F-35's. Both sides launched max range low pk salvos of missiles, one F-35 died. At which point, the F-35's running on only 4 internal missiles each were down to 2 missiles, the Rafale's launched another salvo. in the end Rafale's won 4 kills to 2.
Ran it again, this time F-35's came out 4-3.
AWACS ends up levelling the playing field. It seems to become a game of which fighters leave their radar inactive the longest.
>>28606824
>It doesn't prove anything, but it's an interesting demonstration that's far more informative than the source-less shitposting
Respectfully I totally disagree, this simulation is 99% guesswork, it is basically a shitpost. The essential information required to make this simulation function is not known. Look at the example and count along with me how many steps are total guess: radar detection range of each fighter for the other (needs RCS and radar performance data, neither of which are known even remotely), firing range for lock of missiles vs. each target (unknown), Pk of missile against each target (totally unknown, we have no idea the real flight envelopes of these aircraft or the missiles, so good luck guessing how they win a maneuverability contest, additionally we also have zero idea how their countermeasures would work).
There is zero information in this post, it's an absolute joke.
>>28606849
>China spams cheap AWACs
>Negates most of the advantage F-35 has
rip lockheed
>>28606849
Just to clarify, you have literally no idea how these radars perform and this is just a shitpost.
thought something was fishy so I tested detection ranges with the AWACS. sat an E-3F down and put an F-22, an F-35, an F-15, a Rafale C, and a Typhoon F3 outside of its range all with radars inactive, set them all to fly towards it. The F-15 was detected as an unknown at 346.9nm, identified at 174nm. Rafale detected at 228.3nm, identified at 175nm. Typhoon at 231nm, identifed at 74nm.
The F-22 and F-35? 100% undetected the entire time. I had to order them to move even closer. F-35 got detected at 45nm identified at 44nm. F-22 was detected at 36.9nm identified at 36nm.
It shows how much of a difference it makes when they are radar-active. With radar active, they were all being detected by AWACS at around 300nm.
>>28606946
not really. Like I said, as long as the F-35 keeps its radar inactive, it's invisible up until 40nm. The Chinese AWACS would be detected by US AWACS from very long range and the F-35's could be vectored in to attack it without going active. And any enemy fighters trying to find the F-35's by using active radar would get lit up by AWACS as well.
>>28606949
I don't, but the guys who made the sim do.
>>28607069
>I don't, but the guys who made the sim do.
They would be sitting in Guantanamo Bay if that were true. They don't have this information because it's classified and no one does. This is the cutting edge of air combat, why are you so convinced this info is available freely online? You keep laboring under this intense delusion and it's physically uncomfortable for me to watch you plow ahead ignorantly.
>>28607109
Like I said earlier, feel free to contact the developers and ask them where they get their information. If you had half a brain, you'd know that the simulator includes a database. The database gives pretty much all the information on the aircraft and systems. Obviously it's not uber-secret classified crap, it's whatever is publicly available, combined with extrapolating from what we do know.
You're literally retarded. Dismissing well-researched sources of information is autistic.
>>28607202
>Obviously it's not uber-secret classified crap, it's whatever is publicly available
This information IS NOT publicly available and the fact that you think it EVEN COULD BE shows how uninformed you are.
>>28606474
That shouldn't even be necessary, since as the WiB F-35 v Su-35 test showed the passives + datalinks make the F-35 mostly render AWACS obsolete.
>>28606849
>Pausing it and checking the ranges that they got detected, interestingly enough, the Rafale's and F-35's got detected at pretty much the same range by the respective AWACS planes.
Something's really fucky here.
>>28607692
Thats 100% bullshit for a start
secondly, its more of a factor of it AWACs assets make the VLO/LO and sensor advantage of the F-35 less important. Which it does.
>>28607753
>make the VLO/LO and sensor advantage of the F-35 less important.
>>28607792
It entirely depends on exactly how far the F-35 gets detected from an AWACs compared to legacy or opfor aircraft.
If its not so far that F-35s can recieve targeting information, lock, fire missiles, and begin evading before they're detected themselves, the advantage becomes far less than if they can do all that without being detected at all.
>>28607844
You keep saying this as if the F-35 fights the same way as legacy or contemporary aircraft. 90% of the time it can purely use enemy transmissions as ID and targeting source, and if it does go loud only needs to do LPI bursts at that. What I've gotten from the sim results the OP is posting so far is that he's just mashing two groups of fighters together without any kind of mission or tactics and saying "see what happens?!"
>>28605561
Gun pods are a thing. Supposedly stealthy. That's the only thing that'd be put on that centerline mount thus far.
>>28607069
>It shows how much of a difference it makes when they are radar-active. With radar active, they were all being detected by AWACS at around 300nm.
That's the radar warning receiver. Simply put, a fighter generally avoids turning on its radar for that exact purpose. Because, like a flashlight, a radiating radar will make you show up easily.
>>28607710
>Video game made using 100% fantasy data
>Gives unrealistic results
Utterly shocking turn of events, this.
>>28607069
>set them all to fly towards it.
>I had to order them to move even closer.
Why do you need to order them when they were already set to fly towards it?
>>28606710
It's always pretty funny how mad Eurotrash and Slavs get when Americans talk about the F-35 at all.
>>28605253
CMANO actually nerfs F-35s; their radar detection range for example should be far superior to the Rafale's, being an AESA with almost twice as many transmitter elements. The radar is also incapable of performing electronic warfare, despite being roughly as capable as an EA-6B.
The EOTS is also nerfed to only work at 20NM (which is valid if you had to use your laser to rangefind the target, but not for detecting jets and cueing the radar to range-find) and the EODAS doesn't detect jets.
If you don't believe me you can use a program like SQLite Browser to see the specs and capabilities put in for the jet.
I edited one of the databases to reflect more realistic data and they (obviously) dominated even harder. Unfortunately though there's something that prevents newer versions of CMANO from seeing edited databases (some checksum / hash) and the support forums are useless.
>>28608651
Also the F-35's stealth was roughly *on par* with the PAK-FAs, despite the obvious and the F-35 being supposedly stealthier than the F-22.
>>28608371
You set waypoints for units; if they reach them, they just loiter there, turning in circles.
>>28607844
Just FYI, besides the passive detection stuff >>28607930 said, the range you can detect a jet halves every time you go down an order of magnitude in radar cross section. An old-school Su-27 has an RCS of roughly 10m^2. A 4.5th gen like the Rafale has an RCS of about 0.5m^2. The F-35 / F-22 have an RCS roughly around the order of 0.0001m^2. You can do the maths from there.
>>28605370
>>28605523
>>28605545
Qualitative comparisons aren't useless. Even if you don't know the "exact stats" of each plane (whatever the hell that phrase even means in this context), you can make guesses based on relative ability and get pretty close.
>>28607930
Passive detection is not a feature unique to the F-35 and is perfectly possible on basically anything with an AESA, as is LPI emission.
Are people actually stupid enough to believe this publicly available simulator is based on highly classified data?
Were you dropped on your fucking head as a baby?
Why the fuck would China spend billions on military espionage when all they need to do is buy a $50 video game?
Really?
Are you 12 years old?
>>28608983
I didn't think anyone claimed that it used classified data.
>>28605221
Wanna know how I know the AWP is the greatest sniper rifle ever made?
>>28609104
FYI; CMANO is a spiritual successor to software that think tanks like RAND sometimes use in their analyses. BAE is even teaming up with the developers to use CMANO industrially.
>>28608964
The F-35 is the only plane with as extensive a passive EWO suite and near-complete ability to operate fully passive, so no, you're wrong.
>>28609104
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Harrison_%28sniper%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_International_AWM
Is it because it's the rifle with the current sniper distance record?
>>28609140
To be fair, it's better than some older stuff that modeled planes as blobs of stats and did stuff like launch missiles directly aft, but you can't just dick around with it and expect good results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out
>>28609164
No it's not.
>>28609338
It's a barely different variant.
So, does the scenario stand?
>>28609381
What, OP's?
It's the CMANO equivalent of a kid smashing his toy cars together.
