Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
The F-35, yes. But the EF doesn't have active cancellation. That's ok, no one has active cancellation. It's a bill Sweetman inspired myth.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
During tests on Theodore Roosevelt CVN, Rafale was able to carry 1 more ton compare to F-18 SH, the difference will be even greater in STOBAR mode.Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
The F-35, yes. But the EF doesn't have active cancellation. That's ok, no one has active cancellation. It's a bill Sweetman inspired myth.www.strategicfront.org
It was a long time ago, when the SH had only 98KN engines. Now it's got 116KN engines. Still not the point I was making. The new SH with new engines is cheaper than the Hornet to operate, so it could comfortably meet the Finnish requirement for €250M per year, while the Rafale failed. So cost isn't likely in Rafale's favour.
Yes, the cost is in favour of the Mig 29 but it does not increase its chances.
I think that eventually we all have forgotten what is commercial and how a price is done. There are no fixed prices.
When the rafale failed to meet the finnish price threshold, everyone was in the fog of HX, no one know what the rafale price could be. Then all the candidate had tm make the best price possible. The US did but it was such a good price that all the former customers had to look their own price to compare.
the f-35 price in UAE is probably 2 times bigger than in Finland. Could the US offer the price in FInland to all the other prospects ? That's for sure something to follow. But for sure also EAU has been taken not as seriuosly as finnish by the US.
S-400 is officially not compatible with F-35 :
“The S-400 is incompatible with the F-35 and Turkey has been suspended from the programme,” Jessica Maxwell, a US Department of Defense spokesperson, said in an email.
The SH meets IN requirements, that's the news out there. So the competition is gonna be based on cost now.
Furthermore, the benefit of using the SH is full interoperability with the USN, even RAAF. This will allow the jets to tap into US intelligence and comm systems in the SCS than what a single jet is capable of. We do not have AWACS-capable carriers after all. The advantages with the SH are different.
PS: Jokes aside, cost isn't in Mig-29's favour either, it costs more than the SH. You forget that Mig sustainment is carried out in India.
It's pretty much the same reason why the IAF doesn't want to do a GTG for Rafales without a competition.
Tenders are the best way to get the lowest price. The IN is asking for carrier compatibility tests before starting the tender, so that takes care of a big problem right from the start. So the RFP to shortlist will be significantly quicker than the MMRCA/MRFA tender, which helps to further control price escalation.
I don't think the Rafale was eliminated in Finland because of the price. It was certainly more expensive but you could present less aircraft if necessary and everyone knew what the limit was. Besides, Dassault's announcements of 9000 h of operational life of 1000 h of flight per year or 350 h per month were certainly intended to compensate for a lower volume of aircraft offered. I think that the Rafale (and also the Typhoon) was eliminated on the logistical criteria in case of war. France is not the USA and is not a neighbour like Sweden.
BAE Gets $493 Million Contract to Upgrade F-35’s Electronic Warfare Suite | Air & Space Forces Magazine
BAE Systems will upgrade the F-35’s electronic warfare system for the jet’s Block 4 upgrade under a $493 million contract.
www.airforcemag.com
Perhaps we have given the USA a performance like the one they gave us in the AUKUS case.
There should have been a threshold to the number of units you can reduce to. Assuming the unit cost alone, €73.5M versus 95+M will give us a pretty wide gap in numbers, it won't be just a few. The Finnish are getting 64 F-35s for €4.7B, whereas the same would have cost upwards of €6B for the Rafale. There's no contest in unit price alone. The same price would get you only 50 Rafales. You can't argue about logistics when there's a difference of 14 jets.
When I knew the rules of the Finnish tender I argued on a French forum that Dassault should submit a bid with only 43 Rafales.
Armée de l'air Finlandaise - Ilmavoimat
I don't think it's happening. Su-75 might actually be an export reality if this is true. This also ends chances of f-35 being procured by the IAF
I also think that the UAE was very offended by the price of the Finnish contract compared to the offer they got. They really felt that they were taken for fools.
When I knew the rules of the Finnish tender I argued on a French forum that Dassault should submit a bid with only 43 Rafales.
Armée de l'air Finlandaise - Ilmavoimat
www.air-defense.net
Yeah, but that doesn't work out very well since it doesn't cater to battle attrition.
64 jets is already too less. With 43, if you lose even 15 jets, you are done. 'Cause with just 28 jets, you can't run all the missions you want from two bases. You need 36 jets at the minimum. But with 64, you are still at 49 and still ready to go down by 13 more.
Truncating numbers is only for large air forces.
They are not going to go against the US by buying Russian. It's still way too early for anyone in the American camp in the ME to go for Russian at this time. Once EVs come in and the oil industry starts going down, that's when Russia's going to become more important in the ME.
This is only a negotiation tactic.
Defence Analysis; posted Nov. 29, 2021
By Francis Tusa
This analysis of the cost of F-35 procurement compares the real-world figures contained in the Norwegian Ministry of Defence’s budget, as submitted to, and approved by, the Storting, Norway’s parliament.
The author, who is also the editor of the noted Defence Analysis newsletter, then compares Norway’s real-world costs to those officially presented by Swiss defense minister Viola Amherd, and approved by the Swiss Cabinet, and those submitted by Lockheed Martin in its bid for Finland’s HX fighter competition.
As described below, the discrepancies are very significant, to the point of casting serious doubts on the validity of the Swiss and Finnish cost estimates (…)
(Sharp!
)
But yes, you can, the number of sorties depends only on the number of maintenance technicians at your disposal and not on the number of aircraft, as long as the rate of flight hours is less than 1000 per year (crisis) or 350 per month (war) and that the number of technicians working on the aircraft at the same time is at a possible level. And the Rafale, which only needs 8 hours of maintenance per flight hour, has a lot of room for improvement in this respect.
64-15 = 49
43-15 = 28
Remove 5 from 49 and 4 from 28. We get 11 groups of 4 aircraft each for the F-35 and merely 6 groups of 4 jets each for the Rafale. No chance for the Finnish to fight the Russians with just 6 groups of jets. You almost literally can't do anything except air defence with 6 groups, and this is considering you won't lose more jets beyond that. With the F-35, you get 6 groups for air defence and 5 groups for other missions. And all this at a cheaper cost. Totally incomparable.
Battle attrition is far too important to be compared to what you've stated. Also it doesn't seem like the F-35 will do worse.
Turns out the F-35's maintenance per flight hour is 5 hours.
Five Ways The Air Force’s F-35A Fighter Is Becoming More Affordable To Operate
The Air Force's biggest program is making steady progress in meeting its sustainment objectives.
www.forbes.com
It appears that as information is slowly released, the F-35 is actually ahead of the Rafale in a lot of important metrics.
The F-35s may have to work in groups of four, but the Rafales can work in groups of two, and they will still carry more weapons than the four F-35s unless the latter give up their stealth.64-15 = 49
43-15 = 28
Remove 5 from 49 and 4 from 28. We get 11 groups of 4 aircraft each for the F-35 and merely 6 groups of 4 jets each for the Rafale. No chance for the Finnish to fight the Russians with just 6 groups of jets. You almost literally can't do anything except air defence with 6 groups, and this is considering you won't lose more jets beyond that. With the F-35, you get 6 groups for air defence and 5 groups for other missions. And all this at a cheaper cost. Totally incomparable.
Battle attrition is far too important to be compared to what you've stated. Also it doesn't seem like the F-35 will do worse.
Turns out the F-35's maintenance per flight hour is 5 hours.
The Air Force’s stated requirement for F-35A is no more than nine hours and the actual is five hours, making it the most easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet.Five Ways The Air Force’s F-35A Fighter Is Becoming More Affordable To Operate
The Air Force's biggest program is making steady progress in meeting its sustainment objectives.
It appears that as information is slowly released, the F-35 is actually ahead of the Rafale in a lot of important metrics.
As for the number of hours needed to get the planes back in the air, there are many contradictions on the F-35 side where officially everything is going well, but where we are learning of major engine problems with repair times that can be counted in months if not years and paint that blisters, which requires very long repairs because it is necessary to wait for the repair to dry, and these are just examples.
It doesn't matter how you calculate. The numbers I put forth is meant to split the groups into just 2 jets each.
You need 2 groups of 2 each to cover an area, so you still end up with 8 jets flying at once in an area the size of Finland. In Kashmir, we had 2 groups of 2 jets each along the LoC. Finland's thrice the length, even more including the water, so the minimum numbers needed is still 8 flying at any one time.
With 8 on patrol, 8 in transit and 8 being prepared, you need a minimum of 24 jets to protect all of Finland. So 8 for each leg forms 2 groups of 4, ie 6 groups in total. Any loss from here on out means Finland's air battle is over. In fact, I may still be underestimating the minimum numbers needed, 'cause Finland is pretty big. So 43 is simply an impossible number.
As for the F-35's engine troubles, it's not gonna matter to Finland because they can get spares from a number of other F-35 operators, including the US. You yourself pointed out they have a logistics advantage over the Rafale.
A Chinese perspective:
A+-
By Ding Long
A few days ago, the UAE halted the negotiations on a package arms deal including 50 F-35 fighter jets with the US. The bullying US has made UAE, a traditional ally of the US in the Middle East, have no choice but to take a clear-cut stand against the US hegemonism.
UAE has been a victim of US' politicization of the arms deal. This time, the Biden administration threaten UAE to downgrade its strategic cooperation with China and dismantle the installed Huawei 5G network devices in the next four years, citing the same old tune of protecting fighters from the so-called Chinese “espionage”. However, the US would neither bear the expenses involved nor provide alternative devices. That’s equivalent to asking the UAE to spend a huge amount of money pulling itself from the 5G age back to the 4G age, which is absolutely unacceptable.
In fact, the US is fully aware that Huawei’s 5G network is a commercial and completely different system from the military communication system. The untenable excuse given by the US and its eagerness to "protect" UAE's security is driven by some deeper considerations.
First, the US wants to keep China from filling the strategic vacuum it leaves in the Middle East. Even though Washington has hastened its steps of retracting from the Middle East, it still wishes to maintain its regional influence. In order to prevent Beijing to expand influence in the region, the US always forces its allies to pick sides and requests them to stop strategic cooperation with China in military, high-tech and other areas. Because of America’s unreasonable pressuring, the UAE is forced to choose between the two major powers – Huawei’s 5G or F-35 fighter jets?
In recent years, China and UAE have enjoyed fruitful cooperation in energy, tech, medical and other areas within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. The buoyant cooperation makes the US green with envy, and UAE, therefore, gets picked on most by it for the flourishing cooperation with China.
Second, the US wants to cripple China’s sci-tech advantages. China’s rapid progress in such areas as 5G network, new energy and AI has broken America’s technological monopoly. Being unable to catch up technologically, Washington, seriously disgruntled, has resorted to administrative means to coerce its allies into stopping the tech cooperation with China, asking them to consider the nonexistent cost of doing otherwise. This is now happening with its Middle Eastern allies.
Third, the US is politicizing the arms deal to re-confirm the relation with allies. The US is creating all sorts of obstacles for UAE because it wants to take the arms deal as a touchstone of their alliance. Deals will be made only when allies serve US' anti-China and anti-Russia strategic goals. Otherwise, the US would call off the deal and their alliance will be at stake.
Many critics interpreted UAE’s move as a tactical concession aimed at future advances. Most of its weapons and equipment are American style, so it’s uneasy to turn to other sources, but its refusal still stands for an attitude currently prevalent in the region – the Middle Eastern countries don’t want to submit to American pressure, take sides between China and the US, or fall prey to the so-called major-power struggle. The recent halt of the negotiations clearly conveyed the position of UAE, a representative country in the region.
Middle Eastern countries are adopting a multi-directional diplomatic strategy. This is a golden rule for small countries to avoid risks and stay safe on the international stage. No matter how much pressure the US imposes, countries like UAE cannot choose one over the other. UAE knows perfectly well that for a long time in the future, it will depend on the US for security and on China for economy. Especially as it sees the economic, trade and tech cooperation with China as the key engine for the country’s future development, it would never take sides as America asked, so much so that it was forced to take a countermeasure at America’s ultimatum.
The US is no longer a reliable ally for Middle Eastern countries. “Arab Spring”, the attack at Saudi Aramco’s oilfields, and the Afghan situation have made Middle Eastern countries extremely distrustful of their alliance with the US and doubtful about the security protection it provides. Biden’s “value diplomacy” has put great pressure on them and made them the target of America on human rights issues. The US invited only one Arab country – Iraq – to its recent Summit for Democracy. To make things worse, the US and the Middle East are in competition in the energy sector – the former imports only 70,000 barrels of oil from the latter per day, 12 percent of its total import. Therefore, judging from their national interests and the future international landscape, Middle Eastern countries decide to no longer follow America’s lead unconditionally.
Third, UAE has alternatives. An important reason why UAE dares to say no to the US is that the age of American technological monopoly is gone. Now UAE can lay its hands on similar weapons, equipment and advanced technologies from other countries. Just days ago, it signed a huge arms contract with France planning to buy 80 F-4 Rafale fighters and 12 attack helicopters. Although UAE claimed the two deals were independent from each other, it’s apparent that the existence of alternative options has given it the nerve and confidence to fight back against America’s bullying and salt prices.
UAE’s abrupt suspension of the arms deal negotiations has taken the American side aback, and it has already softened with several officials expressing hope that the negotiations would be restarted down the road.
Given America’s domineering and peremptory attitude toward the UAE on the arms deal, it’s clear that some American politicians are still busking in their Cold War dream while remaining callous to the changes happening around the world. UAE’s flat refusal has sounded an alarm telling them that their attempt to put up a Cold-War-style anti-China alliance in either the Middle East or elsewhere is doomed to fail.
(The author is a professor at the Middle East Studies Instituteof Shanghai International Studies University)
America's anti-China instigation in Middle East will backfire
Source China Military Online EditorChen ZhuoTime 2021-12-17 17:37:31A+-
By Ding Long
A few days ago, the UAE halted the negotiations on a package arms deal including 50 F-35 fighter jets with the US. The bullying US has made UAE, a traditional ally of the US in the Middle East, have no choice but to take a clear-cut stand against the US hegemonism.
UAE has been a victim of US' politicization of the arms deal. This time, the Biden administration threaten UAE to downgrade its strategic cooperation with China and dismantle the installed Huawei 5G network devices in the next four years, citing the same old tune of protecting fighters from the so-called Chinese “espionage”. However, the US would neither bear the expenses involved nor provide alternative devices. That’s equivalent to asking the UAE to spend a huge amount of money pulling itself from the 5G age back to the 4G age, which is absolutely unacceptable.
In fact, the US is fully aware that Huawei’s 5G network is a commercial and completely different system from the military communication system. The untenable excuse given by the US and its eagerness to "protect" UAE's security is driven by some deeper considerations.
First, the US wants to keep China from filling the strategic vacuum it leaves in the Middle East. Even though Washington has hastened its steps of retracting from the Middle East, it still wishes to maintain its regional influence. In order to prevent Beijing to expand influence in the region, the US always forces its allies to pick sides and requests them to stop strategic cooperation with China in military, high-tech and other areas. Because of America’s unreasonable pressuring, the UAE is forced to choose between the two major powers – Huawei’s 5G or F-35 fighter jets?
In recent years, China and UAE have enjoyed fruitful cooperation in energy, tech, medical and other areas within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. The buoyant cooperation makes the US green with envy, and UAE, therefore, gets picked on most by it for the flourishing cooperation with China.
Second, the US wants to cripple China’s sci-tech advantages. China’s rapid progress in such areas as 5G network, new energy and AI has broken America’s technological monopoly. Being unable to catch up technologically, Washington, seriously disgruntled, has resorted to administrative means to coerce its allies into stopping the tech cooperation with China, asking them to consider the nonexistent cost of doing otherwise. This is now happening with its Middle Eastern allies.
Third, the US is politicizing the arms deal to re-confirm the relation with allies. The US is creating all sorts of obstacles for UAE because it wants to take the arms deal as a touchstone of their alliance. Deals will be made only when allies serve US' anti-China and anti-Russia strategic goals. Otherwise, the US would call off the deal and their alliance will be at stake.
Many critics interpreted UAE’s move as a tactical concession aimed at future advances. Most of its weapons and equipment are American style, so it’s uneasy to turn to other sources, but its refusal still stands for an attitude currently prevalent in the region – the Middle Eastern countries don’t want to submit to American pressure, take sides between China and the US, or fall prey to the so-called major-power struggle. The recent halt of the negotiations clearly conveyed the position of UAE, a representative country in the region.
Middle Eastern countries are adopting a multi-directional diplomatic strategy. This is a golden rule for small countries to avoid risks and stay safe on the international stage. No matter how much pressure the US imposes, countries like UAE cannot choose one over the other. UAE knows perfectly well that for a long time in the future, it will depend on the US for security and on China for economy. Especially as it sees the economic, trade and tech cooperation with China as the key engine for the country’s future development, it would never take sides as America asked, so much so that it was forced to take a countermeasure at America’s ultimatum.
The US is no longer a reliable ally for Middle Eastern countries. “Arab Spring”, the attack at Saudi Aramco’s oilfields, and the Afghan situation have made Middle Eastern countries extremely distrustful of their alliance with the US and doubtful about the security protection it provides. Biden’s “value diplomacy” has put great pressure on them and made them the target of America on human rights issues. The US invited only one Arab country – Iraq – to its recent Summit for Democracy. To make things worse, the US and the Middle East are in competition in the energy sector – the former imports only 70,000 barrels of oil from the latter per day, 12 percent of its total import. Therefore, judging from their national interests and the future international landscape, Middle Eastern countries decide to no longer follow America’s lead unconditionally.
Third, UAE has alternatives. An important reason why UAE dares to say no to the US is that the age of American technological monopoly is gone. Now UAE can lay its hands on similar weapons, equipment and advanced technologies from other countries. Just days ago, it signed a huge arms contract with France planning to buy 80 F-4 Rafale fighters and 12 attack helicopters. Although UAE claimed the two deals were independent from each other, it’s apparent that the existence of alternative options has given it the nerve and confidence to fight back against America’s bullying and salt prices.
UAE’s abrupt suspension of the arms deal negotiations has taken the American side aback, and it has already softened with several officials expressing hope that the negotiations would be restarted down the road.
Given America’s domineering and peremptory attitude toward the UAE on the arms deal, it’s clear that some American politicians are still busking in their Cold War dream while remaining callous to the changes happening around the world. UAE’s flat refusal has sounded an alarm telling them that their attempt to put up a Cold-War-style anti-China alliance in either the Middle East or elsewhere is doomed to fail.
(The author is a professor at the Middle East Studies Instituteof Shanghai International Studies University)
