Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Typhoon was T1, Rafale was L1. We simply got lucky that Rafale won.
No. That was the past. IAF later changed direction to include SH, Rafale and Typhoon. They themselves removed SE jets out of contention.
Here's a quote directly from the horse's mouth.
With respect to the MMRCA, the RFI was signed and sent out in November 2004 under my signature… The fact or the point that you’re raising that the air force didn’t have a contention or consideration about cost factors – that two entrants were late entrants – is not entirely correct. It was a very well thought out process. Why because the first four that were involved and in consideration – except for the Gripen – the others were forty-year-old technologies. And you’re going to be inducting an aircraft which was going to come in late – the first decade of the 2000s originally – and you’d be using it for the next forty years. And it was not – we raised the question that is it was worth looking at three of the contenders – F-16, Mirage 2000 and the MiG-29 – they’re forty-year-old technologies. And that was the reason which was also accepted by MoD. And they raised the same question. That’s how the 20-ton limitation was removed. So the light-weight, medium and heavy aircraft consideration again needs to be looked at in the context – they are irrelevant today. And that’s the argument I put on the file and that was accepted at that point of time. You cannot categorize aircraft anymore as light – categorization can only be differentiated in terms of cost considerations and in terms of usage and quick rotation capabilities.” – Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran
So the IAF itself kicked out the M2000, Gripen and F-16.
“What surprises me – since you’re the author of that RFP (MMRCA) – is that what is the significance of the term medium? Is it weight, is it performance, is it range, is it endurance? A. And B – how did you end up with a bunch of aircraft from single-engined to twin-engined, from 17 tons to 30 tons – I mean why did you stand for it? Make up your mind what you want. Whether it is performance, whether it is weight. So I think this mess, in which we are today has been self-inflicted.” – Admiral (retd.) Arun Prakash
“It’s about operational requirements – you know, meeting a certain spectrum of operational utility. You had to have a mix of both – I’m defending that. And I’m defending it very strongly. We had to actually bring in this Medium Multi Role Combat – because it was originally MRCA – primarily because you had to – although I’d said that weight consideration is no more a relevant issue – to categorize aircraft by weight limitations – we had to keep the Su-30 out because otherwise the Su-30 would have come into the competition, as well. And the question would have been raised, ‘Why can’t you buy more of the Su-30s’. Now you can’t put all your eggs in one basket – strategically, it’s unwise. That’s one of the primary reasons. And therefore you created this Medium Multi role Combat Aircraft (competition) which is 30 tons and below. Okay, so the Su-30 is 34 tons and above – 34 tons category. So the heaviest aircraft in this entire category was the F/A-18, which is 29 tons. The costliest aircraft was the Eurofighter, as per our estimation at that point of time. The cheapest aircraft was – and the lightest aircraft was the Gripen. The F-16 would have been the cheapest. But the point is, you had the original contenders who were there in the fray – you couldn’t have removed them because that process had started off. But you had the new technologies – 4 and half generation aircraft and you also had a spectrum of cost differentials from one end -I would say, averaging about 40 million dollars to almost 100 million dollars – or 85 million dollars.” – Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran
As he said, he couldn't remove the lighter jets from the competition only 'cause of process. The competiton was always between Typhoon, Rafale and SH, and the Typhoon was T1 and Rafale was L1.
And you can see from what he said, there was no bias.
Typhoon winning the tech evals was a given, it has superior supersonic performance and bigger sensors.
In the video interview I posted, Nambiar sir said that IAF found Rafale to be more technically sound than Typhoon. As for booting Mirage-2000 out? Well, IIRC the production line of M-2000 closed in late 2007 too. So, they couldn't buy Mirage-2000 even if they wanted.
Plus, I am not talking about bias here(that was Panzer)but rather 'preference'. IAF doesn't prefer American fighters. It's a known fact.
The Rafale won the IAF's hearts, but not the tech evals. The IAF simply got really lucky that the Rafale turned out to be L1. The technically more sound bit is from the GTG deal, which was for a more modern version of the Rafale tested during MMRCA.
The decision to change MRCA to MMRCA was taken long before the M2000 production line closed. Probably 2002 or 2003, once the sanctions were lifted.
There's no such thing. The US isn't interested in selling us jets, that's all. Did you forget we are already operating Apaches?
As long as the numbers aren't too big, buying American is fine, 'cause they don't provide enough ToT. And the IAF doesn't bother about the political aspects anyway, it's not their mandate.
If we were not comfortable with the US, we wouldn't have chosen the F404 and F414 for LCA. The impact is the same in terms of sanctions. We are planning a large purchase of Apaches. There's even a plan to manufacture C-130Js in India. More Chinooks too.
The US will be taken more seriously if they offer more cutting edge fighter jets. So they had origially planned to offer India the new version of the F-22 in lieu of FGFA, but the USAF cancelled the program in favour of NGAD. They may offer the NGAD, especially since they will also be developing a much more advanced true next gen fighter to replace the F-22. NGAD will be replacing the F-15C.
We will also most likely be going for the B-1B. There's also a C-17 replacement program we might show interest in.
All of the above plus IAF needs complete autonomy in operating its hardware and not dictated by Uncle Sam's political will. Let's see what's in store for Indo-US defence partnership.
I for one am very skeptical regarding us operating any US fighter jet even in future. Engines, attack helos, transport planes and even bombers etc., yes. But fighter jets, nope.
That's the main point. A violation of procedure probably done quiet often can lead to such a crash because the fighter cas enter in an impossible recovery mode ...
You've missed one essential word : "with wake turbulence procedures" In case of turbulence f-35 have to enter in specific procedures ...
"I find by a preponderance of the evidence the cause of the mishap was the MA departed controlled flight due to ADS errors immediately prior to landing in which there was no opportunity to recover to controlled flight."
ADS error is also in cause. ANd the inability of the plane to recover is also in cause.
As said above it is at least the second time.
@randomradio and @vstol Jockey both prefered F/A-18E/F for Indian Navy. Whilst yours truly always stood by Rafale's side. But parrot? Hell no!
It's blown out of proportion because of Jalashwa. The Apaches and B-1Bs are not playing by the same rules. In fact, the Apaches are being bought specifically to deal with Pakistan, so it doesn't look like the Americans mind.
Anyway bombers are a bigger deal than fighters. No one else operates them.
The main issue has always been ToT.
He must have missed my posts praising the F-35 in the conversation too.
They are allergic to facts, with them it's either zombie-level fanaticism or the highway.
Natural lightning - the thing that keeps the F-35 from flying
Ironically, the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, a symbol of American air power, is forbidden from flying close to natural lightning.
bulgarianmilitary.com
Natural lightning – the thing that keeps the F-35 from flying
By Boyko Nikolov On Jul 29, 2023Share
Ironically, the F-35 Lightning II, a symbol of American air power, is forbidden from flying close to natural lightning. Even more troubling is the fact that despite being in development since 1994, the Pentagon has been unable to rectify this issue with the F-35, suggesting a lack of clear direction in its efforts.
Remarkably, a plane intended to underpin American air supremacy has such a glaring vulnerability. This points to significant inefficiencies in our military procurement system, which seems to squander taxpayer money, failing to deliver the necessary weapon systems that would meet our national security needs.
Surprisingly, the F-35, often touted as the “wunder plane” by the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin, is prohibited from flying within a 25-mile radius of a thunderstorm. Over the years, we’ve been promised that this aging aircraft is just one fix away from being ready for full-scale production.
The restriction, so far, has been publicly disclosed as applicable solely to the Air Force’s F-35A. However, considering the F-35 Joint Program Office’s track record of concealing unfavorable news, it wouldn’t be surprising if similar restrictions apply to the Marines’ F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C, but have yet to be announced. The rationale for this undisclosed policy became apparent in July 2021, when two F-35Bs flying from their base in Japan had to make emergency landings due to significant lightning damage, resulting in millions of dollars in repairs.
The lightning proximity restriction is even more debilitating than the F-35’s limitations on supersonic flight. With the inability to fly within 25 miles of potential lightning activity, adversaries could exploit this weakness, using lightning storms as cover for air, ground, and sea operations. They would be aware that F-35s could not be patrolling overhead or scrambled to areas where lightning poses a threat. Given that the F-35 is slated to replace the F-16s, A-10s, AV-8B Harriers, F/A-18E Hornets, and F/A-18F Super Hornets, this decision calls for a thorough reassessment.
Photo by Bartek Bera
At first glance, the task of designing an aircraft capable of withstanding lightning strikes might seem straightforward, given that planes have been performing this feat for decades. Each year, commercial aircraft globally are struck by lightning tens of thousands of times, with each commercial plane averaging one or two strikes annually. Likewise, military aircraft are designed to weather thunderstorms when necessary and complete their missions unscathed, even after lightning strikes. For instance, a single F-106B Delta Dart, a jet fighter from the 1950s, endured over 700 lightning strikes during NASA test flights, yet remained operational. While this is an extraordinary case, it illustrates that a lightning strike does not necessarily spell doom for a fighter aircraft.
This raises the question: why has the most costly airplane/weapon system development project in history failed to produce an aircraft capable of withstanding a phenomenon that most other planes can? The answer to this question remains elusive, as the F-35 Joint Program Office has refrained from disclosing specific details for “operational security reasons”. However, insights into the problem may be gleaned from an examination of the F-35’s design history and the fundamental principles of lightning protection for aircraft.
One possible explanation stems from the fact that aircraft with composite skins, such as the F-35, are more dependent on their onboard inert gas generating system [OBIGGS] for preventing fuel tank explosions than aircraft with metal skins are.
The OBIGGS operates by pumping nitrogen into the aircraft’s fuel tanks as they empty, ensuring the oxygen content within the tanks never reaches the 9 percent threshold required for combustion. Consequently, even if lightning does cause an arc through the fuel tanks, the fuel vapor will lack the necessary oxygen to ignite, thereby preventing an
The F-35’s OBIGGS system, which generates and distributes nitrogen throughout the aircraft’s fuel tanks, is crucial in protecting the plane from lightning strikes. One might assume that accurately sizing this unit would be straightforward for the aircraft’s designers. Yet, the F-35 is far from an ordinary aircraft. It has grappled with significant weight issues since its inception, culminating in a drastic weight reduction exercise in 2004.
The F-35’s design team faced a daunting task: ensuring the OBIGGS system could handle a plane with extensive fuel tanks and a substantial fuel fraction. They had to consider the increase in oxygen forced out of the fuel when it heated up, providing cooling for electronics, avionics, and radar equipment—far beyond its initial specifications. While this could be one explanation for the present issues, another potential reason is even more concerning.
This alternative explanation suggests that the F-35, brimming with sensitive electronics, may have a composite skin with an embedded foil/mesh that is too thin to effectively conduct lightning strikes around the plane’s exterior. Consequently, a lightning strike could potentially harm the delicate electronics housed within the aircraft.
This vulnerability might have originated from a design process where every ounce counted. The weight of metal embedded in the F-35’s skin to conduct lightning might have been insufficient for the task of safeguarding an unprecedented amount of electronics in a single-engine fighter, or any fighter, for that matter.
The recent incident in which F-35Bs sustained significant damage from a lightning strike aligns with the hypothesis that lightning could potentially pose a severe threat. After the lightning strike, the F-35Bs did not explode, but they suffered enough damage to necessitate an immediate landing. The exact nature of the damage remains undisclosed. However, if the electronics were compromised, the situation could be dire due to the prohibitive cost of repairs.
Several theories may explain why the F-35 must steer clear of lightning. The possibilities include one, both, or even none of the aforementioned scenarios. Given that the Pentagon has yet to disclose the specifics, certainty remains elusive. Regardless, it is unequivocally unacceptable for our primary future airpower to be incapable of navigating harsh weather conditions. Unless this crucial issue is addressed, persisting with the F-35 could detrimentally impact our national security, rather than strengthening it.
And yet its nick name is "Lightning 2", lmfaoNatural lightning - the thing that keeps the F-35 from flying
Ironically, the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, a symbol of American air power, is forbidden from flying close to natural lightning.Natural lightning – the thing that keeps the F-35 from flying
By Boyko Nikolov On Jul 29, 2023
Share
Ironically, the F-35 Lightning II, a symbol of American air power, is forbidden from flying close to natural lightning. Even more troubling is the fact that despite being in development since 1994, the Pentagon has been unable to rectify this issue with the F-35, suggesting a lack of clear direction in its efforts.
Remarkably, a plane intended to underpin American air supremacy has such a glaring vulnerability. This points to significant inefficiencies in our military procurement system, which seems to squander taxpayer money, failing to deliver the necessary weapon systems that would meet our national security needs.
Surprisingly, the F-35, often touted as the “wunder plane” by the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin, is prohibited from flying within a 25-mile radius of a thunderstorm. Over the years, we’ve been promised that this aging aircraft is just one fix away from being ready for full-scale production.
The restriction, so far, has been publicly disclosed as applicable solely to the Air Force’s F-35A. However, considering the F-35 Joint Program Office’s track record of concealing unfavorable news, it wouldn’t be surprising if similar restrictions apply to the Marines’ F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C, but have yet to be announced. The rationale for this undisclosed policy became apparent in July 2021, when two F-35Bs flying from their base in Japan had to make emergency landings due to significant lightning damage, resulting in millions of dollars in repairs.
The lightning proximity restriction is even more debilitating than the F-35’s limitations on supersonic flight. With the inability to fly within 25 miles of potential lightning activity, adversaries could exploit this weakness, using lightning storms as cover for air, ground, and sea operations. They would be aware that F-35s could not be patrolling overhead or scrambled to areas where lightning poses a threat. Given that the F-35 is slated to replace the F-16s, A-10s, AV-8B Harriers, F/A-18E Hornets, and F/A-18F Super Hornets, this decision calls for a thorough reassessment.
Photo by Bartek Bera
At first glance, the task of designing an aircraft capable of withstanding lightning strikes might seem straightforward, given that planes have been performing this feat for decades. Each year, commercial aircraft globally are struck by lightning tens of thousands of times, with each commercial plane averaging one or two strikes annually. Likewise, military aircraft are designed to weather thunderstorms when necessary and complete their missions unscathed, even after lightning strikes. For instance, a single F-106B Delta Dart, a jet fighter from the 1950s, endured over 700 lightning strikes during NASA test flights, yet remained operational. While this is an extraordinary case, it illustrates that a lightning strike does not necessarily spell doom for a fighter aircraft.
This raises the question: why has the most costly airplane/weapon system development project in history failed to produce an aircraft capable of withstanding a phenomenon that most other planes can? The answer to this question remains elusive, as the F-35 Joint Program Office has refrained from disclosing specific details for “operational security reasons”. However, insights into the problem may be gleaned from an examination of the F-35’s design history and the fundamental principles of lightning protection for aircraft.
One possible explanation stems from the fact that aircraft with composite skins, such as the F-35, are more dependent on their onboard inert gas generating system [OBIGGS] for preventing fuel tank explosions than aircraft with metal skins are.
The OBIGGS operates by pumping nitrogen into the aircraft’s fuel tanks as they empty, ensuring the oxygen content within the tanks never reaches the 9 percent threshold required for combustion. Consequently, even if lightning does cause an arc through the fuel tanks, the fuel vapor will lack the necessary oxygen to ignite, thereby preventing an
The F-35’s OBIGGS system, which generates and distributes nitrogen throughout the aircraft’s fuel tanks, is crucial in protecting the plane from lightning strikes. One might assume that accurately sizing this unit would be straightforward for the aircraft’s designers. Yet, the F-35 is far from an ordinary aircraft. It has grappled with significant weight issues since its inception, culminating in a drastic weight reduction exercise in 2004.
The F-35’s design team faced a daunting task: ensuring the OBIGGS system could handle a plane with extensive fuel tanks and a substantial fuel fraction. They had to consider the increase in oxygen forced out of the fuel when it heated up, providing cooling for electronics, avionics, and radar equipment—far beyond its initial specifications. While this could be one explanation for the present issues, another potential reason is even more concerning.
This alternative explanation suggests that the F-35, brimming with sensitive electronics, may have a composite skin with an embedded foil/mesh that is too thin to effectively conduct lightning strikes around the plane’s exterior. Consequently, a lightning strike could potentially harm the delicate electronics housed within the aircraft.
This vulnerability might have originated from a design process where every ounce counted. The weight of metal embedded in the F-35’s skin to conduct lightning might have been insufficient for the task of safeguarding an unprecedented amount of electronics in a single-engine fighter, or any fighter, for that matter.
The recent incident in which F-35Bs sustained significant damage from a lightning strike aligns with the hypothesis that lightning could potentially pose a severe threat. After the lightning strike, the F-35Bs did not explode, but they suffered enough damage to necessitate an immediate landing. The exact nature of the damage remains undisclosed. However, if the electronics were compromised, the situation could be dire due to the prohibitive cost of repairs.
Several theories may explain why the F-35 must steer clear of lightning. The possibilities include one, both, or even none of the aforementioned scenarios. Given that the Pentagon has yet to disclose the specifics, certainty remains elusive. Regardless, it is unequivocally unacceptable for our primary future airpower to be incapable of navigating harsh weather conditions. Unless this crucial issue is addressed, persisting with the F-35 could detrimentally impact our national security, rather than strengthening it.
very true! yes and that is true of all aircraft now and forever. One could write "A violation of procedure probably done quiet often can lead to such a crash because the fighter cas {sic} enter in an impossible recovery mode" at the top and bottom of every page of every fighter flight manual in the entire world. very true my friend! well said! not unique to any one fighter, but to every fighter! we can even change the word "fighter" to "aircraft" and it can be expanded into all of aviation lexicon!
hahah my brother! The very report you posted for us explains that the aircraft was too low for any kind of recovery! I would encourage you to learn to read my friend. Adult illiteracy is a tragedy, but the good news is that it can be fixed with some help. I am sure in France there are people who can not only teach you to read, but teach you to read whole reports and not just the small parts you want to believe while ignoring everything else! A report should educate my friend! not cause you to get frustrated and simply make up your own crazy stories that contradict what is written on the very page you are hoping to read!
Do not get discouraged my friend for there is hope!
"The F-35 enterprise has over 600,000 flight hours and this is the first known occurrence where wake turbulence had this impact on the air data system"
it is ok my friend. your reading will improve with time. I myself am always still learning.
Top English Tutors in France | Hire a Tutor Today - MyPrivateTutor
Find top English tutors in France. Get personalized one-on-one instruction, Test Prep, and Homework help for academic success.
I am proud that you try so hard, even if you can't do it. Desire is the first step!
with the proper help, you will be able to read your own posts like the one above! I think everyone here will be better for it, not just yourself! and thus with that in mind I think I can safely say that we are all rooting for you here on this board, and hope that you improve. Perhaps when your reading improves you can begin to learn more about the exciting world of aviation, and the even more amazing world of science in general!
I shall try to help you (in a simple way for you.) Imagine the Fly by Wire system as a "brain" and "central nervous system." like you have! So you are walking and then Oh no! You walk into a street sign! You are momentarily blinded and stunned this causes your nervous system and brain to try and recover and understand what just happened, you begin to stumble as you attempt to regain your balance. if you were in a nice empty field you would probably be fine, but in a city (like low altitude there is less room to make mistakes) you stumble into the street where you are run over a car! Oh no! you are trying to blame your brain, but procedure should tell you not to walk into street signs so hard!
Last edited:
my friend you must forgive us, your narrative changes from post to post and often contradict because you clearly make things up and then your imagination fills in the blanks. one moment you say "its not me saying it or the French-- but the USAF!" And then when I say "yes, brother but the USAF also says this" ---- and here I must remind you, that it is not me saying it, but the USAF---- and then you suddenly say "Yes but the USAF says things that are not true" clearly they can't be trusted unless you have tossed a coin and decided what is believable and what is not.
you can understand our confusion yes? many of your posts are not factual too and often immeasurable. the USAF site I sent is even called FACT sheet and you called it advertising, and now you say "they are allergic to facts!"
You do not even seem to read your own previous posts but instead cause very much confusion by introducing new posts that do not connect and even say the opposite of previous posts. This points to a desire to simply "win" rather than play by any established rules including your own posts. There are many bizarre leaps of logic that do not really hold up to any basic scrutiny like that India is "unbiased" that Rafale is somehow indicative of a more "warlike" military or a higher probability of conflict. There are questionable leaps of logic abounding that when looked at for even a small second don't connect with reality.
your posts are confusing and don't even make sense in their own realm. randomradio posts do not even agree with randomradio posts! it is as if there are 3 or 4 of you and none of you can decide what is true! even you are often confused it seems. and it is only natural for that confusion to spread and you must forgive us. Even if I was an ardent believer in everything you post and everything you believe I would quickly find myself confused by all the "black is white, until I say white is black" styles. For Allah's sake, you actually tried to argue that "Robbery" is different from "Stealing". madness. please pick an argument and stick to it or at least consider medication. I say this as a friend trying to explain why so many are having a hard time keeping up with your "logic" and then you get upset with them when even you cannot keep track
As we all know bad things can happen when procedures and safety is ignored and when airplanes fly too close together:
clearly faulty engineering is at work here! pilots should be able to ignore proper safety and slam into one another without fear that their airplanes come apart! and sadly my friend this is not the first case of Rafales crashing into one another pilots should be able to fly as recklessly as possible without fear! anything less is a fault of the aircraft and poor engineering! much like when Rafales hit powerlines or Run off the ends of Runways! Clearly the airplanes should have been equipped with wire cutters and off road tires! the above picture is proof of a lack of armoured tail fins.
I do not want to imagine a world where pilots can not just fly into powerlines, off runways, and even into each other, and would have to be restricted by "procedure" from doing such things!
When it comes to the F-35 he has the majority of almost all Indians and all the French in here believing his BS which is why he does this and those that challenge his BS, which are 3-5 of us, it doesn't matter to him because we're very few. All he has to do is stick to his guns until you get tired of responding to his BS and he'll call it a win. That's his M.O and his believers will clap like monkeys thinking he won the argument not really understanding that he is full of it.
I found this article which shows a certain interest of the US for the Indian market which pushes them to propose the F-35. Formally they do not offer it but indicate that if the Indians request it (and if they are serious about buying it) they will respond favorably.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2...-rafalef-35les-us-a-disposition-de-l-inde.php
Posted on 02/01/2012 at 08:32, updated on 02/01/2012 at 08:35
The United States Department of Defense today reaffirmed that it is ready to share information with India on the F-35, the fighter jet built by Lockheed Martin, as long as New Delhi shows up interested in its purchase.
India has "selected" the Rafale from French Dassault Aviation and opened exclusive negotiations for a contract for 126 fighters which would mark the first export sale of this program launched more than 20 years ago. The Rafale and the Typhoon of the Eurofighter consortium, made up of EADS, BAE Systems and Finmeccanica, were the two finalists for this contract, which, according to a source from the Indian Ministry of Defense, would reach 15 billion dollars (11 billion euros ) including training and maintenance.
India had rejected US, Russian and Swedish proposals in April, but a source familiar with the negotiations told Reuters on Tuesday that the country was considering buying 80 more aircraft and that this new market could eventually be opened up to these other countries.
Pentagon spokesman Leslie Hull-Ryde said there had been no offer to sell the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to India but added that Washington could provide India with information on the infrastructure and the security specifications of the device if it so wishes.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2...-rafalef-35les-us-a-disposition-de-l-inde.php
Rafale/F-35:les US à disposition de l'Inde
Rafale/F-35: the US at India's disposal
By ReutersPosted on 02/01/2012 at 08:32, updated on 02/01/2012 at 08:35
The United States Department of Defense today reaffirmed that it is ready to share information with India on the F-35, the fighter jet built by Lockheed Martin, as long as New Delhi shows up interested in its purchase.
India has "selected" the Rafale from French Dassault Aviation and opened exclusive negotiations for a contract for 126 fighters which would mark the first export sale of this program launched more than 20 years ago. The Rafale and the Typhoon of the Eurofighter consortium, made up of EADS, BAE Systems and Finmeccanica, were the two finalists for this contract, which, according to a source from the Indian Ministry of Defense, would reach 15 billion dollars (11 billion euros ) including training and maintenance.
India had rejected US, Russian and Swedish proposals in April, but a source familiar with the negotiations told Reuters on Tuesday that the country was considering buying 80 more aircraft and that this new market could eventually be opened up to these other countries.
Pentagon spokesman Leslie Hull-Ryde said there had been no offer to sell the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to India but added that Washington could provide India with information on the infrastructure and the security specifications of the device if it so wishes.
anyway there has only ever been one "Lightening": the only the true the unique the splendid:And yet its nick name is "Lightning 2", lmfao
I found this article which shows a certain interest of the US for the Indian market which pushes them to propose the F-35. Formally they do not offer it but indicate that if the Indians request it (and if they are serious about buying it) they will respond favorably.
Rafale/F-35:les US à disposition de l'Inde
Rafale/F-35:les US à disposition de l'Inde
Rafale/F-35: the US at India's disposal
By Reuters
Posted on 02/01/2012 at 08:32, updated on 02/01/2012 at 08:35
The United States Department of Defense today reaffirmed that it is ready to share information with India on the F-35, the fighter jet built by Lockheed Martin, as long as New Delhi shows up interested in its purchase.
India has "selected" the Rafale from French Dassault Aviation and opened exclusive negotiations for a contract for 126 fighters which would mark the first export sale of this program launched more than 20 years ago. The Rafale and the Typhoon of the Eurofighter consortium, made up of EADS, BAE Systems and Finmeccanica, were the two finalists for this contract, which, according to a source from the Indian Ministry of Defense, would reach 15 billion dollars (11 billion euros ) including training and maintenance.
India had rejected US, Russian and Swedish proposals in April, but a source familiar with the negotiations told Reuters on Tuesday that the country was considering buying 80 more aircraft and that this new market could eventually be opened up to these other countries.
Pentagon spokesman Leslie Hull-Ryde said there had been no offer to sell the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to India but added that Washington could provide India with information on the infrastructure and the security specifications of the device if it so wishes.
I had forgotten about the 126 Rafales! whatever happened with that?one could arrive at such conclusions via comparison. which is typically how we arrive at conclusions of what is "best" . we compare them. If I am going too fast for you my friend, I can find ways to help.
I do not know how you can say things like:
How do you measure "seriousness" again? is that somehow quantifiable? not only is it a stupid emotional appeal, it simply does hold up under its own logic. The Greeks are buying F-35s and Rafales. The Israeli's don't operate any Rafales, nor do the Pakistans for that matter so I guess they are not a serious threat. the UAE is buying 80 Rafales to India's 36 Rafales (excluding the navy for a moment) so I guess the UAE is just more serious compared to India? What if the Indian navy had bought Super Hornet? would the Indian air force be more "serious" than the Indian Navy? Rafale is still a small fleet in a big Indian air force so are they not serious? shouldn't they be replacing the Flanker MKIs? or are Flankers serious too?
Speaking of serious, if one wanted to actually look at what aircraft operated to a real war it would probably be F-16s, Mig-29s and Flankers. The last 2 especially recently, and I will note India has more Mig-29s and Flankers.
If one wants to make some kind of scale of "seriousness" then they are welcome to it but the scale should at least make some sense. UAE is more likely to go war than Pakistan? I hate to tell you this my friend but a lot of middle eastern air forces are not all that serious. they exist so the princes can have a hobby and they can show off once or twice a year. It is simply not believable that buying Rafales suddenly means an air force is serious or makes an air force serious and I notice that many air forces rarely rely on the Rafale alone. do you actually believe that the years long struggle to get the Rafale to India meant the Indian Air Force was not serious in the meanwhile?
attributes are quantifiable as well, you seem to "forget" that part. and more to the point its not a matter of 1 or 0. System with bugs don't mean "doesn't work" and the Rafale has bugs too darling, don't let them fool you. No system is perfect. The engine has to be replaced more often than was hoped, its annoying but its not the end of the world and a small price to pay for what is offered. I hate to tell you this my friend, but everyone poops. all aircraft have problems even Gripens, the idea is to have fewer problems. The Rafale has 2 engines, so you get to replace engines more often. Twin engine fighters are like that. its what is called a "trade off" rather than declaring that the Rafale "doesn't work" for example we understand that each aircraft has its own unique issues.
My friend you can not keep using this excuse however it is a bankrupt model. Imagine i had a friend from India and she said "The Indian air force is the worst thing ever, I served in it for 10 years and its a joke. its a mistake"
Could I then take what she says, post it here on this forum and then step back and say "its not me saying it! already admitted by the Indians"
this is much like your previous "USAF says, but its not me saying it, but the USAF is lying when they say it this time because I say so" incident from earlier
The F-35 production opinions vary widely. you are again taking one sample and applying it to the whole. Some say production was too fast, some say too slow, some say it was a good pace but needed more spares support. It can go on forever because there are pros and cons. some say it has created too many "mistake jets" others say that the "mistake jets" were critical to getting the production going to get to the rate things are now and operational squadrons needed to be begin transitioning sooner rather than later.
its pretty clear that with the F-35 one can seek and find just about any opinion they please from world beating ultra-fighter, to the greatest boondoggle in human history and every example in between, to say nothing of US politics in the F-35 which is of course highly political. even Donald Trump had opinions on the F-35. You can "shop around" and find what you need easily enough.
I agree on this for the most part which is exactly what I am saying; The US has insisted on endless computer solutions. once upon a time declared aircraft operationally ready in various ways without the JSE for decades and will do so with the F-15EX, and we will not require any other aircraft already in service to pass JSE. , but someone had the "bright idea" that the F-35 should be tested in a simulation that is so complicated they can't even make it capable enough to test the F-35 so we are now stuck harvesting the seeds we have sown. The Australians are just declaring Full operational capability. The US is more stuffy and bureaucratic.
my point is that if the F-35 was held to the same operational standards as the Rafale and nearly every other aircraft out there (including the Gripen) it would have been cleared operationally long ago and we wouldn't have to hear people crying about "prototype" jets and "still in development" here we should have done it like the French! the second the F-35 could take off and fire an AAM we declare it operational (Rafale F1) and then spend the next 20 years fixing it, instead of spending 20 years fixing it and the declaring F-35 operational. I am saying my friend that again here is just a matter of perception. The perception of the Rafale early on was that it was struggling to get sales and some had given up on it entirely in terms of exports.
this is how we get into a strange world where you keep telling me we won't have a real F-35 until 2030, but the Rafale works, it just needs basic SEAD/DEAD and should get it by 2030. meanwhile the "broken" and "not working" and "Prototype" F-35 has SEAD/DEAD from the start.
the US created very high standards for the F-35. everytime it fails to meet them its declared a "failure" but then when compared to other aircraft it does very well often much better. The F-35 has better readiness numbers than a lot of other aircraft. Not Gripen of course, but you understand.
it wasn't a glitch in the FBW. herciv posted the report and then tried to say the failure was in the FBW without knowing how to read. (we are hoping herciv learns to read soon, the report was simple and straightforward, but he struggles) F-35 already flying in "real world" conditions and has been for years.
I hope you can read.
The report itself says this is the first time in over 600,000 hours of flight that such a thing has occurred. if the pilot stays further back and avoids the wake turbulence the entire crash is avoided. that is not a FBW problem, or an aircraft problem. that is a pilot problem. When the way the pilot handles an aircraft leads to a crash, we do not blame the aircraft. A working aircraft does what the pilot says, for better or worse. Rafales crash too my brother.
all aircraft fly with restrictions the F-35 is no different. Growlers are not supposed to fly in lightning either. most aircraft are advised to avoid lightning when possible as it is especially those with sophisticated electronics. a Rafale can pull 13G but they are still operationally restricted to much less for longevity and safety reasons. All aircraft are like that. the game at play here is taking things that all aircraft struggle with and then painting them as unique to the F-35. The Rafale has operational restrictions I can assure you, ask any of the pilots who decided to take the Rafale "off roading" because they failed to keep the Rafale within its landing limits or worse.
Confidence, another intangible emotional appeal from Mr. Merit. it would seem that mass producing prototypes and the huge list of 17 buyers means there is actually a lot of confidence in the aircraft. 150 built a year is "low confidence" I would be interested to see what "high confidence" looks like. its funny how you decide to interpret things. before you say "but America!" most of the competitions featured other American options to pick from besides F-35s so they could still buy American, and not buy F-35s, yet they always bought F-35s?
what happened to the 126 Rafales that were supposed to be ordered BTW? loss of confidence?
Neither the Rafale of the F-35 are exactly world beating in terms of readiness and ease of matinatince compared to things like Gripen. The numbers for both don't look all that dissimilar from here in fact once one actually dives into the various numbers. the difference is the F-35 has a reputation of being difficult and the French simply don't mention it:
This is much like the "Expensive" F-35
yes let us compare.
36 F-35 6.25 billion dollars (swiss)
36 gripen E 4.7 billion dollars (brasil)
36 Rafale 8.7 billion dollars (india)
The great thing that I learned about the Rafale after the cancelation of the MMRCA contract is that the F-35 was the bad kind of massive cost overruns and broken promises and the Rafale was the good kind of massive cost overruns and broken promises.
At my little friend Herciv.
SpazSinbad
From the USAF Mishap Report: “e. Understanding Wake Turbulence - Every aircraft generates wake turbulence while in flight. Wake turbulence is a function of an aircraft producing lift, resulting in the formation of two counter-rotating vortices trailing behind the aircraft. Wake turbulence from an aircraft can affect other aircraft due to the strength, duration, and direction of the vortices. Pilots should always be aware of the possibility of a wake turbulence encounter when flying through the wake of another aircraft and adjust the flight path accordingly.
Wake turbulence procedures at Hill AFB are intended to reduce the likelihood of following aircraft from entering wake turbulence vortices with the primary danger being an unexpected rolling motion close to the ground due to flight within the vortex, not because of an impact to the air data system of the F-35. Most F-35 pilots interviewed for this investigation and the accident investigation board’s F-35A Pilot Member, regularly experience wake turbulence while flying the aircraft. The F-35 has over 600,000 flight hours and this is the first known occurrence of wake turbulence having a catastrophic impact on the Air Data System.” https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/...B%20Report.pdf (3.2Mb)
your are a funny guy Herciv
What is even funnier is when a fellow Frenchman calls you out for posting rubbish.Natural lightning - the thing that keeps the F-35 from flying
Ironically, the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, a symbol of American air power, is forbidden from flying close to natural lightning.Natural lightning – the thing that keeps the F-35 from flying
By Boyko Nikolov On Jul 29, 2023
Share
Ironically, the F-35 Lightning II, a symbol of American air power, is forbidden from flying close to natural lightning. Even more troubling is the fact that despite being in development since 1994, the Pentagon has been unable to rectify this issue with the F-35, suggesting a lack of clear direction in its efforts.
Remarkably, a plane intended to underpin American air supremacy has such a glaring vulnerability. This points to significant inefficiencies in our military procurement system, which seems to squander taxpayer money, failing to deliver the necessary weapon systems that would meet our national security needs.
Surprisingly, the F-35, often touted as the “wunder plane” by the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin, is prohibited from flying within a 25-mile radius of a thunderstorm. Over the years, we’ve been promised that this aging aircraft is just one fix away from being ready for full-scale production.
The restriction, so far, has been publicly disclosed as applicable solely to the Air Force’s F-35A. However, considering the F-35 Joint Program Office’s track record of concealing unfavorable news, it wouldn’t be surprising if similar restrictions apply to the Marines’ F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C, but have yet to be announced. The rationale for this undisclosed policy became apparent in July 2021, when two F-35Bs flying from their base in Japan had to make emergency landings due to significant lightning damage, resulting in millions of dollars in repairs.
The lightning proximity restriction is even more debilitating than the F-35’s limitations on supersonic flight. With the inability to fly within 25 miles of potential lightning activity, adversaries could exploit this weakness, using lightning storms as cover for air, ground, and sea operations. They would be aware that F-35s could not be patrolling overhead or scrambled to areas where lightning poses a threat. Given that the F-35 is slated to replace the F-16s, A-10s, AV-8B Harriers, F/A-18E Hornets, and F/A-18F Super Hornets, this decision calls for a thorough reassessment.
Photo by Bartek Bera
At first glance, the task of designing an aircraft capable of withstanding lightning strikes might seem straightforward, given that planes have been performing this feat for decades. Each year, commercial aircraft globally are struck by lightning tens of thousands of times, with each commercial plane averaging one or two strikes annually. Likewise, military aircraft are designed to weather thunderstorms when necessary and complete their missions unscathed, even after lightning strikes. For instance, a single F-106B Delta Dart, a jet fighter from the 1950s, endured over 700 lightning strikes during NASA test flights, yet remained operational. While this is an extraordinary case, it illustrates that a lightning strike does not necessarily spell doom for a fighter aircraft.
This raises the question: why has the most costly airplane/weapon system development project in history failed to produce an aircraft capable of withstanding a phenomenon that most other planes can? The answer to this question remains elusive, as the F-35 Joint Program Office has refrained from disclosing specific details for “operational security reasons”. However, insights into the problem may be gleaned from an examination of the F-35’s design history and the fundamental principles of lightning protection for aircraft.
One possible explanation stems from the fact that aircraft with composite skins, such as the F-35, are more dependent on their onboard inert gas generating system [OBIGGS] for preventing fuel tank explosions than aircraft with metal skins are.
The OBIGGS operates by pumping nitrogen into the aircraft’s fuel tanks as they empty, ensuring the oxygen content within the tanks never reaches the 9 percent threshold required for combustion. Consequently, even if lightning does cause an arc through the fuel tanks, the fuel vapor will lack the necessary oxygen to ignite, thereby preventing an
The F-35’s OBIGGS system, which generates and distributes nitrogen throughout the aircraft’s fuel tanks, is crucial in protecting the plane from lightning strikes. One might assume that accurately sizing this unit would be straightforward for the aircraft’s designers. Yet, the F-35 is far from an ordinary aircraft. It has grappled with significant weight issues since its inception, culminating in a drastic weight reduction exercise in 2004.
The F-35’s design team faced a daunting task: ensuring the OBIGGS system could handle a plane with extensive fuel tanks and a substantial fuel fraction. They had to consider the increase in oxygen forced out of the fuel when it heated up, providing cooling for electronics, avionics, and radar equipment—far beyond its initial specifications. While this could be one explanation for the present issues, another potential reason is even more concerning.
This alternative explanation suggests that the F-35, brimming with sensitive electronics, may have a composite skin with an embedded foil/mesh that is too thin to effectively conduct lightning strikes around the plane’s exterior. Consequently, a lightning strike could potentially harm the delicate electronics housed within the aircraft.
This vulnerability might have originated from a design process where every ounce counted. The weight of metal embedded in the F-35’s skin to conduct lightning might have been insufficient for the task of safeguarding an unprecedented amount of electronics in a single-engine fighter, or any fighter, for that matter.
The recent incident in which F-35Bs sustained significant damage from a lightning strike aligns with the hypothesis that lightning could potentially pose a severe threat. After the lightning strike, the F-35Bs did not explode, but they suffered enough damage to necessitate an immediate landing. The exact nature of the damage remains undisclosed. However, if the electronics were compromised, the situation could be dire due to the prohibitive cost of repairs.
Several theories may explain why the F-35 must steer clear of lightning. The possibilities include one, both, or even none of the aforementioned scenarios. Given that the Pentagon has yet to disclose the specifics, certainty remains elusive. Regardless, it is unequivocally unacceptable for our primary future airpower to be incapable of navigating harsh weather conditions. Unless this crucial issue is addressed, persisting with the F-35 could detrimentally impact our national security, rather than strengthening it.