Nah, I'd rather get proper opinions for discussion than something you just wanna read for fun.
Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
- Thread starter Herciv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
Nah, I'd rather get proper opinions for discussion than something you just wanna read for fun.
Well opinion without facts is fiction. I am sure as hell we can talk about fiction elsewhere.
Cross posting form another forum. It is posted by johnq.
Much of what you are saying comes directly from CCP propaganda talking points in their psy ops warfare, so ahem, not very reliable. The J-20 is a paper dlagon with its own issues including being underpowered by weak (for its weight) unreliable 3rd generation engines (copied from Russian engines, but even more unreliable than them) which only last 80 hours before needing overhaul, a radar whose back end programming is still limited mostly to PESA level technology from the 1990s (due to export restrictions on China by both west and Russia), optronics which are also still based off of Russian 1990's level technology (and quite inferior to what is available in the west in terms of range and reliability), and weapons whose seekers are also obsolete in terms of programming, and hence can be jammed. CCP military has its strengths and weaknesses, and while they may be able to show fancy T/R modules in the front end of its radars, it is still lagging in the actual programming of these radars, including weapons radars. Otherwise, why did the CCP military buy SU-35s and S-400, if not to copy their programming? If the CCP military radar technology is as advanced as they claim, there would be no need to purchase SU-35 and the S-400, which have Russian radar technology from 2 decades ago. So please, stop reciting data points from a CCP military propaganda handbook. The Indian military is well aware of CCP military's strengths and weaknesses, and they are not stupid: They know that the Rafale's avionics and sensors are ahead of what is available to the CCP military, and the Rafale is way better in terms of load capacity, engine reliability, and operating from high altitude airfields, while J-20 fails in these regards. As far as J-20s overhyped RCS reduction, the CCP military has still not figured out a foolproof way to hide the radar/radome from being tracked by modern wideband radars even in x band, so there goes your RCS out the window. And there are serious design deficiencies with regards to RCS reduction in the J-20, including canards and their joints which are radar resonance hotspots, among others. The Americans are not stupid for avoiding the canards altogether because they are the leaders in RCS reduction, and well aware of what works and what doesn't. It is also not a trivial thing to create lasting RAM paint which is reliable throughout the flight envelope of a supersonic jet: The Americans have struggled with this for several decades, and the CCP military is several decades behind the Americans.
Much of J-20 is hype without evidence, as part of CCP military's propaganda parade for their psy ops.
Rafale, on the other hand, has proven itself time and again in terms of reliability of its sensors, weapons and engine reliability.
1) Is it really the PL15 that urges the AIM260 dev? maybe Meteor...
2) AMRAAM is now a old horse, even after some upgrades. Nothing surprising they studied a completely new missile.
NO.“With 336 points, [the F-35A] showed the highest overall benefit and was the clear winner with a lead of 95 points or more over the other candidates,” the council’s report stated, although it didn’t provide points for the other fighters in the competition.
Switzerland Chooses F-35 As Its Next Fighter Jet
The Swiss say the Joint Strike Fighter emerged as the most capable and cheapest option after a competitive evaluation.www.thedrive.com
That's 40%.
This is assuming the Rafale is at second place, which it likely is.
If the maximum points available is for exemple 1000.
F35 has 33.8%
The second has 24.1%
Not the same result......
We don't know about the max possible, but if F35 wins in 3 of 4 categories, the maximum is higher than 336. And even if it is the best in a categorie, that doesn't means it has reach 100% in it.
Remember the Dutch eval... F35 wins with a paper only supercruise, a FOC in 2016... Just for exemple.
The most important aspect that differentiates Finland from Switzerland is the evaluation methodology:
The official US reports show a lot of concerns about the F-35, for example about logistics or cybersecurity being flawed and on these areas the Swiss response seems to me very different from the Finnish response:
- The Swiss response is that these reports have been ignored. Indeed, much of the praise for the F-35 is copy and paste from LM's marketing material.
- The opposite is true for the Finns: it has been said publicly that the principle of evaluation is not to trust what the manufacturers say and very complex data correction systems are in place.
The Swiss found the F-35 to be the most advantageous in LCC over 30 years and yesterday the US released this report:
JUST IN: Watchdog Calls Projected F-35 Sustainment Costs ‘Unaffordable’
A lot of that has been discredited. The Chinese have made their own stuff without any input from Russian tech. And I doubt we know the problems they are facing. The Chinese only report successes. So whether the J-20 is facing RCS issues due to the radar RAM or other structures, all that's conjecture. And the Chinese stealing source codes from the Su-35 and S-400 is nonsense.
I agree with the engine, but that's not going to be such a big problem as long as the new engine completes development. The new engine is the main threat.
Yeah, the French tech is far more mature and stuff, but when it comes to air defence and OCA, a lot of the avionics requirement is reduced due to stealth since there's no equivalent for the Rafale. If given a choice between Rafale and J-20, I'd choose the Rafale over it. The Rafale is a far more complete aircraft than the J-20 is. But that's not the point I'm making. You don't need a far more complete aircraft to kill another aircraft. The basic point is the J-20C has the ability to kill the Rafale because Rafale's main advantages against stealth aircraft are still WIP, ie multiship passive tracking capabilities. The Rafale needs the ability to hunt in a pack. It can't do it alone. And by the time all that becomes available after 2025, the J-20C would also have matured.
Another problem is the J-20 successor that's being worked on now. Obviously the Rafale is not enough.
The Swiss obviously don't seem to care much for costs. They seem to have considered procurement costs in making their judgement anyway. Plus they have another $2.5B to manoeuvre in when it comes to sustainment costs before a competitor gets to play. They seem to have covered all their bases.
$2.5B for 36 jets over 30 years = $2.3M per jet per year. At 180/year, that's an additional $12000 as CPFH. Even with current rates the sustainment cost is still lesser than its nearest competitor.
Finland may look at it differently. But if they consider passive stealth to be a more important feature, then that's how it will play out again.
From a Finnish paper, Turun Sanomat:
"Kovin pulina käy juuri tällä hetkellä tulevien hävittäjien elinkaarikustannuksista. Siinä hankintahinnan päälle lisätään vielä koneiden huolto- ja käyttökustannukset niiden koko elinkaaren ajalta.
Tässäkin asiassa valtioneuvosto on asettanut HX-hankkeelle tiukan reunaehdon: uuden hävittäjän huolto- ja käyttökustannukset saavat olla korkeintaan kymmenen prosenttia Suomen puolustusbudjetista eli noin 250 miljoonaa euroa vuodessa. Siinä tapauksessa hävittäjähankinnan elinkaarikustannukset olisivat rahan nykyarvolla mitaten noin 20 miljardia euroa koneiden elinkaaren päässä vuonna 2060.
Asia puhuttaa, koska maailmalta tihkuvien tietojen valossa moni ulkopuolinen kommentoija on sitä mieltä, että HX-tarjouskilpailun ennakkosuosikkina pidetyn F-35:n huolto- ja käyttökustannukset eivät mahdu annettuihin raameihin, jos ja kun Lockheed Martinin lopullinen tarjous sisältää 64 hävittäjää kuten se on julkisuudessa vahvistanut.
Viime tammikuussa myös Valtiontalouden tarkastusvirasto VTV varoitti HX-hankejohtoa, että hävittäjien elinkaarikustannuksiin liittyy suuria epävarmuuksia. VTV arvioi, että pahimmassa tapauksessa elinkaarikustannukset saattaisivat jopa tuplaantua 20 miljardiin euroon. Kiljusen kirjassa HX-hankkeen arvostelijat puhuvat F-35:n kohdalla jopa 30 miljardin huolto- ja käyttökustannuksista vuoteen 2060 mennessä.
Puranen tuntuu suhtautuvan näihin spekulaatioihin tyynesti.
Hän sanoo uskovansa, että HX-hankkeessa kyetään Hornet-hävittäjien käytön tuottaman datan pohjalta hyvin tarkasti haarukoimaan Suomen tulevan hävittäjän elinkaarikustannukset. Hän sanoo, että tilanne oli sen suhteen paljon epävarmempi vielä tammikuussa, jolloin VTV antoi asiasta arvionsa.
‒ VTV oli tarkastuksensa jälkeen hyvin tyytyväinen HX-hankkeen läpinäkyvyyteen. Tuo elinkaarikustannusten epävarmuus oli ainoa asia, josta se huomautti. Tammikuussa me emme kuitenkaan olleet saaneet tarjoajilta vielä heidän lopullisia tarjouksiaan. Siitä syystä me emme silloin osanneet varmuudella sanoa hankinnan elinkaarikustannuksia, Puranen kertoo.
Nyt Puranen on tarkentuneiden tietojen pohjalta vakuuttunut, että huolto- ja käyttökustannukset saadaan pysymään valtioneuvoston asettamissa rajoissa. Purasen mukaan kustannuskuri on myös Puolustusvoimien omissa intresseissä.
‒ Valtioneuvosto on linjannut, että hävittäjien käytön ja huollon vaatimat rahat otetaan puolustusbudjetista, jos asetettu katto ylittyy. Meidän ei ole siis järkeä ottaa konetta, johon meillä ei ole varaa, koska se raha olisi pois budjetistamme jostain muualta, Puranen toteaa.
Ja jos jätetty tarjous ei kohtaa kustannuksille asetettuja ehtoja, niin silloin kandidaatti putoaa Purasen mukaan kisasta ulos.
‒ Tässä hankkeessa pakolliset vaatimukset ovat oikeasti pakollisia vaatimuksia, Puranen linjaa."
You can use google translate to get a readable version in your own language. I will quicky paraphrase the main points:
-Flying and using th HX fighter is allowed only ten percent of yearly defence budget. If cost of use is more, then the Army and Navy will be paying. This is because total defense budget shall remain unchanged regardless of what HX fighters will cost in actual use.
-The biggest public concern is that F-35 will cost more to use. Puranen, the HX boss, is saying that they will keep costs in control.
-Article mentions VTV. VTV is a similar Finnish institution to GAO in USA.
-If some candidate does not meet requirements for cost, it will be disqualified.
-RULES WILL NOT BE BENT. This is a cultural thing. If a Finnish general like Puranen says that rules will be bent, you can be assured that rules will NOT be bent.
"Kovin pulina käy juuri tällä hetkellä tulevien hävittäjien elinkaarikustannuksista. Siinä hankintahinnan päälle lisätään vielä koneiden huolto- ja käyttökustannukset niiden koko elinkaaren ajalta.
Tässäkin asiassa valtioneuvosto on asettanut HX-hankkeelle tiukan reunaehdon: uuden hävittäjän huolto- ja käyttökustannukset saavat olla korkeintaan kymmenen prosenttia Suomen puolustusbudjetista eli noin 250 miljoonaa euroa vuodessa. Siinä tapauksessa hävittäjähankinnan elinkaarikustannukset olisivat rahan nykyarvolla mitaten noin 20 miljardia euroa koneiden elinkaaren päässä vuonna 2060.
Asia puhuttaa, koska maailmalta tihkuvien tietojen valossa moni ulkopuolinen kommentoija on sitä mieltä, että HX-tarjouskilpailun ennakkosuosikkina pidetyn F-35:n huolto- ja käyttökustannukset eivät mahdu annettuihin raameihin, jos ja kun Lockheed Martinin lopullinen tarjous sisältää 64 hävittäjää kuten se on julkisuudessa vahvistanut.
Viime tammikuussa myös Valtiontalouden tarkastusvirasto VTV varoitti HX-hankejohtoa, että hävittäjien elinkaarikustannuksiin liittyy suuria epävarmuuksia. VTV arvioi, että pahimmassa tapauksessa elinkaarikustannukset saattaisivat jopa tuplaantua 20 miljardiin euroon. Kiljusen kirjassa HX-hankkeen arvostelijat puhuvat F-35:n kohdalla jopa 30 miljardin huolto- ja käyttökustannuksista vuoteen 2060 mennessä.
Puranen tuntuu suhtautuvan näihin spekulaatioihin tyynesti.
Hän sanoo uskovansa, että HX-hankkeessa kyetään Hornet-hävittäjien käytön tuottaman datan pohjalta hyvin tarkasti haarukoimaan Suomen tulevan hävittäjän elinkaarikustannukset. Hän sanoo, että tilanne oli sen suhteen paljon epävarmempi vielä tammikuussa, jolloin VTV antoi asiasta arvionsa.
‒ VTV oli tarkastuksensa jälkeen hyvin tyytyväinen HX-hankkeen läpinäkyvyyteen. Tuo elinkaarikustannusten epävarmuus oli ainoa asia, josta se huomautti. Tammikuussa me emme kuitenkaan olleet saaneet tarjoajilta vielä heidän lopullisia tarjouksiaan. Siitä syystä me emme silloin osanneet varmuudella sanoa hankinnan elinkaarikustannuksia, Puranen kertoo.
Nyt Puranen on tarkentuneiden tietojen pohjalta vakuuttunut, että huolto- ja käyttökustannukset saadaan pysymään valtioneuvoston asettamissa rajoissa. Purasen mukaan kustannuskuri on myös Puolustusvoimien omissa intresseissä.
‒ Valtioneuvosto on linjannut, että hävittäjien käytön ja huollon vaatimat rahat otetaan puolustusbudjetista, jos asetettu katto ylittyy. Meidän ei ole siis järkeä ottaa konetta, johon meillä ei ole varaa, koska se raha olisi pois budjetistamme jostain muualta, Puranen toteaa.
Ja jos jätetty tarjous ei kohtaa kustannuksille asetettuja ehtoja, niin silloin kandidaatti putoaa Purasen mukaan kisasta ulos.
‒ Tässä hankkeessa pakolliset vaatimukset ovat oikeasti pakollisia vaatimuksia, Puranen linjaa."
You can use google translate to get a readable version in your own language. I will quicky paraphrase the main points:
-Flying and using th HX fighter is allowed only ten percent of yearly defence budget. If cost of use is more, then the Army and Navy will be paying. This is because total defense budget shall remain unchanged regardless of what HX fighters will cost in actual use.
-The biggest public concern is that F-35 will cost more to use. Puranen, the HX boss, is saying that they will keep costs in control.
-Article mentions VTV. VTV is a similar Finnish institution to GAO in USA.
-If some candidate does not meet requirements for cost, it will be disqualified.
-RULES WILL NOT BE BENT. This is a cultural thing. If a Finnish general like Puranen says that rules will be bent, you can be assured that rules will NOT be bent.
In light of what was said above, it is hard to understand how 64 F-35's could be operated with the same budget as the current Hornets.
It is of course possible that the idea is to maximize simulator use.
The same LM salesman is running both the Swiss deal and the Finnish deal for LM. I am not really impressed by this guy. Once again, this is a cultural thing: Finns are not impressed by salesmen who talk much. Finns might be gullible if they have no experience, but the military will have a fair amount of experts to analyze this stuff.
Eurofighter and Dassault basically have to offer smaller numbers of planes to fit in the given budget. Neither party has said in public how many aircraft are in the offer. But this is no problem, if the planes perform better. If the Finns see that LM is offering too many planes for the given operating budget, they will be unimpressed. It would just be a bad mistake for LM.
It is of course possible that the idea is to maximize simulator use.
The same LM salesman is running both the Swiss deal and the Finnish deal for LM. I am not really impressed by this guy. Once again, this is a cultural thing: Finns are not impressed by salesmen who talk much. Finns might be gullible if they have no experience, but the military will have a fair amount of experts to analyze this stuff.
Eurofighter and Dassault basically have to offer smaller numbers of planes to fit in the given budget. Neither party has said in public how many aircraft are in the offer. But this is no problem, if the planes perform better. If the Finns see that LM is offering too many planes for the given operating budget, they will be unimpressed. It would just be a bad mistake for LM.
Oh sorry, I did not notice your question earlier. Perseus, the high-speed missile, will be coming soon. I guess the real details are secret. Anyhow, the new missile will be coming some time around 2030 - could be something that the Finns are looking at.
One problem with F-35 is that there is no center pylon. Like this:
So right now, Rafale is known to be getting a new high-speed missile, whether it is supersonic or hypersonic, remains to be seen. Such a weapon for F-35 is not planned. It seems like F-15EX is the platform of choice for hypersonic weapons for USAF.
Of course it is possible that they will put hypersonic weapons in the F-35. But they will probably not fit in the internal bays. Also, there is no center pylon, so it is not practical to load it with one large missile. It remains a possibility to put missiles on the wings in "beast mode". But how long would integration take...? Very long.
It is the same with the Mig-31 and Kinzhal, picture here:
Just one big missile in the center. And then, of course - Sukhoi MKI with Brahmos:
It is kind of hard to imagine two of these on one F-35. One will not do, because there is no center pylon. Internal bays are unthinkable.
Just one big missile in the center. And then, of course - Sukhoi MKI with Brahmos:
It is kind of hard to imagine two of these on one F-35. One will not do, because there is no center pylon. Internal bays are unthinkable.
Yeah but doctrinally these hypersonic missiles will have ranges way outside the combat zone. Think B-52's lobbing cruise missiles. I don't really see the point for F-35's to carry a huge long range missile when 4.5 gens can do it and use the targeting data from an F-35 penetration into the enemy airspace.
It depends on what the Finns consider fits in the €250M per year bracket. Because it's still €4M a year for each of the 64 jets.
CPFH of the SH is lower than the Hornet's according to the Americans. So at least that would fit in the Finnish budget.
J-20A with WS-10C.
This engine has TVC and LO capabilities. But no supercruise. At the very least, it exceeds the capabilities of the Flanker by a wide margin.
This engine has TVC and LO capabilities. But no supercruise. At the very least, it exceeds the capabilities of the Flanker by a wide margin.
If it is in public, anyone can be part of discussion. If your fictional opinion gathering is meant for one person, take it to chat or PM.
Honestly, when it comest to Chinese platforms, all is conjecture.
Why you always denying the capabilities of Chinese military? Your denials won't change the reality, domestic civilian technology advancement will definitely benefit military technology.
Good point!
I do not deny capability of China. Go through all my post history. I never deny it. I do question it. I do question the capabilities for which we have no evidence and only speculation. In a lot of discussions about China, speculation and facts are used interchangeably. Thats what I question.
In the current discussion, you can see there are a lot of things which are presented as "facts" but with little evidence to back it up. There are many unwarranted assumptions. Heck, leave evidence, not even sources are provided.
China has a history of hiding facts everywhere be it economics, be it military everywhere. Then why should its capability be accepted even at mere speculation.
All I do is to doubt it. All I do is to ask for sources of claims. Nothing more.
I can do a point by point highlighting of places where assumption are made and presented as facts and where evidence is simply not there.