So these are the numbers I told you. The range is not double.
56%. Not 100%.
Nope. You melt multiple things. There is Radius Range and Ferry range, but also combat range.
The only thing we can compare between fighter jets is ferry range. Why ? Because in combat, because plane, payload and mission profile are different, it is impossible to compare.
Ferry range for Rafale is 3700km, not 3000 (with external tanks)
F-35 with internal fuel is 2300 km. (source is USAF website
here)
Here, by trying to get right, you minimise the number of the Rafale and maximise the one of the F-35. Both the number you gave are wrong.
The ferry range without external tanks is 2500Km for Rafale and 3000Km for F-35A.
You don't enter enemy airspace with fuel tanks. And once you drop it, the Rafale has a range of 2500Km and F-35 has 3900Km. How is this difficult to get?
If you want to compare range with full fuel tanks, then the F-35's is more than 4000Km. It surpasses the F-16 in ferry range.
And the 2300Km for F-35 also has the words "more than" in it. Even the 30% range upgrade is "more than".
Let's see when the XA100 will be operational. If this engine reach the expectation at 100%, it will be the first time in the full programm we have a promise kept
The Americans are good on the hardware side of things, especially the engine.
You are confusing between power and speed. Look at any aerial demonstration (F35, Rafale, F22, Typhoon or wathever) The planes will almost alway use the full afterburner and never go supersonic.
They are not allowed to during airshows. You can turn on the AB without going supersonic.
If, during a strike mission, you are catched by an ennemy, you have to defend yoursellf. F-35 have only 2 Amraam Missiles to do it, and not even close range missile. If a plane is approaching it, basically... It will be dead.
Sure, which is why it needs escorts. But 2 AAMs are also enough for the purpose. Most strike fighters also carried just 2 missiles.
Because you can have this :
transformed in few second by jetisson the heavy load. But it will remain with 6 deadly A2A missiles and an agility the the F35 will NEVER reach.
Also, even without the advantage of the IWB, the Rafale can be transformed from a deadly bomber to a pure fighter.
The F35 in both case will have the payload of a poor strike aircraft (2 bombs and 2 missiles) and a poor fighter (2 missiles)
This is my point too. The Rafale is a better A2A fighter, but has to lose its payload to become one.
So if the Rafale is able to jetisson its huge payload, maybe it will loose some amunition, but it will have much more better chances to survive by itself.
The F-35 can do the same without losing its payload.
I never said the F35 is not impressive. but compare them the way you are doing it remind me endless discussions with fanboys. F35 have its own advantages, but the ones your are trying to argues with here are really not relevants and no realistics at all.
You have been listening far too much to diehard F-35 fanboys and very little to F-35 experts.
Sorry, it's yes and yes to both. You are starting with the wrong numbers.
Rafale's ferry range will always remain 2500Km without a brand new engine, whereas F-35A's ferry range will increase by 30% to 3900Km by 2030.
Do you believe 2500Km vs 3900Km is not a generation difference?
The F-35 by using its IWB only, have a really poor payload. But it is normal, it is done to enter in a verry dangerous area during the first phases of a conflict. Then, it will use hardpoint under wings, and here also, the payload is better, it is not impressive anyway. (I don't like to use the word "impressive" by the way)
The F-35's internal payload is adequate, it can carry 2 large bombs or 8 SDBs, it's enough for such a role. FCAS will also not be any different. AMCA is also the same, in fact slightly inferior in terms of heavier payloads. Its external payload is more than the Rafale's, it can carry 6 1000Kg bombs in total.
LOL. Do you have at least a source to this comic joke ? Or are you trying to convince some simple minds with this lie just to not recognised that you told a fool ?
Do you have aldeary, once in your life, saw from your eyes a strike mission preparation ? It takes hours ! You need to thing with a map, to rely on intelligence. Once the first shot is done, the cards have changes. You have to restart the intelligence collect from the begining. So, please...
The F-35 changes that. Even the Rafale is said to be able to perform mission planning in-flight.
The F-35 can do its own intelligence collection, said to be superior to traditional ISR like AWACS and JSTARs, and its touchscreen display can display a map. I don't see the problem here. Rafale can do the same. It is just supported by a weaker intelligence backbone when not using American ISR.
Pretty much all modern cockpits can handle in-flight mission planning.
The entire point of 5th generation avionics and sensor fusion is to be able to plan a mission quickly due to the impermanence of the threat environment. For example, only 2 F-22s are necessary to complate a SEAD/DEAD assignment in a matter of minutes compared to 16 4th gen aircraft that takes hours.
You mix everything.
Awacs are used during combat mission, (I will speak about COMAO because we are talking about strike missions). If the Awacs will not be useful at all, tell me why the USAF is replacing them by the E7 ?
Rivet Joint have been almost abandonned because operational expectation have never been met. RC135 collect EM Intelligence and Compass call deceive the ennemy communication, two roles have nothing to do with F-35 roles.
The E7 purchase is a stopgap measure. Their main ISR capabilities will come via satellites.
Nothing to do with that. If you work at DRDO, please ask one time to speak with pilot and ask them the huge workload they have to properly prepare a strike mission. It is not possible to do that in flight, even if you have a really comfortable seat, huge sreen, chips and frech coke.
Based on US pilots, they can plan a SEAD/DEAD mission with only 2 F-22s and JDAMs. They can find a target while flying, assign bombs to targets, scan the air for enemy DCA, then engage the enemy air, supercruise towards the SAM site, drop bombs at assigned targets and supercruise on egress.
IAF pilots cannot experience that because they barely have any 5th gen capabilities yet. Only the USAF can do this reliably today.
June 13, 2006 The U.S. Air Force F-22 Combined Test Force team of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Air Force pilots continued to successfully push the F-22 Raptor's capability last week when it released a Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) munition at supersonic speed, high altitude and standoff range.…
newatlas.com
Flying at an altitude of 50,000 feet and a speed of Mach 1.5, the F-22 released a GPS-aided, 1,000-pound JDAM from a range of 24 nautical miles, destroying a ground target in the aircraft's fastest and highest JDAM delivery to date.
And:
Because of its stealth technology, the Raptor has been able to venture into the battlespace unnoticed and help support the AWACS and Rivet Joint during exercises such as Northern Edge. The F-22s communicated Red Force surface and air threat information to the entire OCA package. The SEAD assets were then able to use that information fused with information from other sources to target the threats.
The F-22 could do that back then, the F-35 will eventually do even better.
This is come from your mind ? Or do you have a source for that too ?
Mission planning time drops when number of assets used drops. The F-22 needs 2 jets to perform a mission that requires 8 F-35s or 16 F-16s. How much mission planning do you think 2 pilots need? In the future too, MUM-T means only a few people will plan missions and use drones as secondary enablers instead of 16 F-16s.
IWB is not necessary for standoff missiles.
lower, from a longer distance, with better A2A missiles to defend itself.
It has the option to adapt given the threat. The Rafale has no such option, has to fly low.
You dream about that, but no. I already told you why it will be stupid to keep bombs internally.
Not even Dassault thinks that.
But it will have way better chances of survive. That's the point. In death danger, the most important is to survive. Not to keep bombs with you.
Dropping bombs that are in IWB will slow down the escape.
You won. I can't compete with that level of bad faith.
So LCA can't carry Brahmos?
I bet this image is also in bad faith.
Will have, will have... But when ?!! You have a lot of expectations with the LCA, the truth is that this program is made to help the India to build a full defense industrie through a real fighter programm. But don't have too much expectations if no you will be really desapointed.
LCA is maybe a good aircraft (I don't know it very well) MK1 is very limited, and MK2 is not here. And when it come to discuss about HAL, the only thing you can be sure off, is the delay.
In terms of standoff capabilities, the LCA Mk1A will surpass the Rafale due to weapons options in just 1-1.5 more years.
Both Brahmos and SCALP are options for Mk1A.
Sure, Mk2 will take time, but we are not talking about which aircraft is better. The point I'm making is 4th gen aircraft are all similar in standoff capabilities. Even LCA Mk2 matches Rafale. So it's not a big deal. You are the one arguing in bad faith.
F35 is "ON PAPER" a generation ahead. But for me it is not due to the IWB. It helps, but that's it.
F-35 is a generation ahead compared to Rafale in some areas (passive stealth, IWB), below a generation in some areas (supercruise, agility), on par in some areas (avionics, weapons). You have to be specific. But IWB is most definitely a next gen feature. It's a very serious capability upgrade.
I will stop the discussion here, because you talk with a lot of confidence in some topic that obviously you don't understand. False numbers, lies, false argument or invented ones, just to be right. You can think I'm arrogant, but for me it is enough. It was a festival of fanboy attitude I never saw from a long time.
Okay.
You are just in denial. And this is coming from a Rafale supporter.
I think I have better qualifications to be objective compared to a Frenchman or American on this subject.
Cheers.
