Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

[randomradio]

You pulled numbers out of your butt thinking what the RCS increase is of two 9x missiles on a stealth fighter... nuff said. You're fool of yourself.


Regularly? Is that right? Please post a link. Maybe that is why the french plane has a 63% mission capable rate?


Seems you have trouble understanding that the Swiss report boast the F-35's superior air to air capability compared to the french plane.


Spoken like a person who still lives in the past or whos nation can't afford the latest most advanced fighter. SA is life and those that fly 4th gen fighters and transition to the F-35 understand it. Those that listen to these fighter pilots also understand it but people like you will never understand until India flies the F-35 after the IAF gets their *censored* handed to them by chicom air force and their stealth fighters.

As for F-22 beating the F-35... not when the F-35 can see the F-22 first since the F-35 is stealthier and better sensors. F-35 apg-81 was able to jam and F-22 and jamming an F-22 is pretty much an impossible task... at least for 4th gen fighters.


I had no idea Finnish defense officials briefed you on what their long term is... or did you read their minds?


USAF's budget is almost as big as China's defense budget the USAF has never had just one fighter that can do the same job and never will, same with the USN. If politics and special interest didn't exist many USAF 4th gen fighters would start being replaced by the F-35.

F-15EX was forced on the USAF there's nothing the F-15EX can do that the F-35 can do a whole lot better.


The point is chicom fighters carry only 4 missiles and Russia carry 4 or 6 which is understandable since Russian air to air missiles are not as advanced and reliable. Only their "latest" russian flankers carry 4 missiles during intercept or escort due to drag and weight.

F-15s stationed off Iceland only carried 4 missiles during intercept missions in combat fighters will not be carrying 8 or more missiles. Btw F-35 block 4 will carry 6 Aim-120s and drag will not be an issue like the french plane and other 4th gen fighters.


It's called an air superiority fighter because that was its only role you dope! Same with F-15c and F-14. Oy vey.


Seems like you didn't read the Swiss report. Cost was a part of it and if the F-35's cost was exactly the same as the french plane they'd still select the F-35 because of its SUPERIORITY in the air to air realm that the french plane can't match.

Ah, the fanboy in you has awoken. Yes, yes, the F-35 is better than the F-22 in every single role. Even in legends, the turtle beats the rabbit in a race after all.

And yes, the F-22 can only perform one role.

F-22A Raptor Advanced Tactical Fighter, United States of America

The F-22A Raptor is an advanced tactical fighter aircraft developed for the US Air Force (USAF). It entered service with the USAF in December 2005.

www.airforce-technology.com

In September 2002, the USAF decided to redesignate the aircraft F/A-22 to reflect its multi-mission capability in ground attack as well as air-to-air roles. The aircraft’s designation was changed again to F-22A when it achieved initial operating capability (IOC) in December 2005.

Stupid USAF doing unnecessary things. Look at how confused they are.

And of course, the F-35 is an air superiority fighter. Who cares about the chiefs of the USAF and the ACC, those guys are dinosaurs who can't tell a rock apart from a smartphone. Only kids know technology. Damn, what was I thinking? It's so obvious.

Look at all the crap one of them said...

Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts - Breaking Defense

For years, the news about the most expensive conventional weapons system in US history, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has been driven by its soaring costs, technical problems and schedule screw-ups. The government and Congress and the public rarely speak about what the F-35 will do, how...

breakingdefense.com

In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle.

And yeah, from ground attack configurations, the discussion has changed to interception configurations. Nice. But then it doesn't matter since the F-35 is better at everything compared to all the other jets combined. Hell, it doesn't even need missiles. Since it's built like a tank or a hippo, the jury is out on that one, it can just use its superior agility to ram into other jets. I won't be surprised if it can just land outside Putin's house and roll over all of his tanks too.

 

[Bon Plan]

Aah, now I see the connection. I am starting to connect the dots... I am a bit slow.

Does anybody know what the NEZ of MICA missiles would be?

Only unofficial datas :
MICA in the 15 - 20km range I think.
AMRAAM in the 15-25 depending of the model ?
Meteor >70km (more officially said by MBDA)

 

[Bon Plan]

F-35 has been pushed to 9.9Gs full fuel load and internal load.

source?

F-35 is a superior air to air fighter by far than any 4th gen fighter.... which is what the Swiss report said.

The swiss report only said what uncle Joe wanted them to say. If not, heavy counter measures on dollar use, on bank trade...

 

[Bon Plan]

The F-35 can't beat the laws of physics.

Don't feed the troll. He is convinced to be an überlegener Mann

 

[Innominate]

Ah, the fanboy in you has awoken. Yes, yes, the F-35 is better than the F-22 in every single role. Even in legends, the turtle beats the rabbit in a race after all.

And yes, the F-22 can only perform one role.

F-22A Raptor Advanced Tactical Fighter, United States of America

The F-22A Raptor is an advanced tactical fighter aircraft developed for the US Air Force (USAF). It entered service with the USAF in December 2005.

www.airforce-technology.com

In September 2002, the USAF decided to redesignate the aircraft F/A-22 to reflect its multi-mission capability in ground attack as well as air-to-air roles. The aircraft’s designation was changed again to F-22A when it achieved initial operating capability (IOC) in December 2005.

Stupid USAF doing unnecessary things. Look at how confused they are.

Dumb dumb. It was F-22 to later F/A22. Meaning it was designed for one role and later got a small role in air to ground by releasing 1000lb Jdams.

And of course, the F-35 is an air superiority fighter. Who cares about the chiefs of the USAF and the ACC, those guys are dinosaurs who can't tell a rock apart from a smartphone. Only kids know technology. Damn, what was I thinking? It's so obvious.

Look at all the crap one of them said...

Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts - Breaking Defense

For years, the news about the most expensive conventional weapons system in US history, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has been driven by its soaring costs, technical problems and schedule screw-ups. The government and Congress and the public rarely speak about what the F-35 will do, how...

breakingdefense.com

In fact,Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle.

Context is not your strong suit, huh? Lets see 2014 was talk about F-22s not getting increment 3.2A upgrades and even talk about early retirement for F-22s because how expensive it is to keep them operational just like they decided recently early retire the F-22s. As for it takes 8 F-35s to do what 2 F-22s can HANDLE well you need to put it in context. Eight F-35s with internal air to ground load has the same amount of air to air missiles of two F-22s. Duh! Also no "modern fighter" has ever used up all their air to air missiles not even the Israelis during Bekaa Valley air war (June 6-June 11th) where almost 90 Syrian fighters were shot down. F-22s or any fighter will never be in any air combat where all their missiles are expended because enemy fighter pilots are not dumb enough to stick around as their buddies are getting blown up just like Bekaa Valley air war.

 

[randomradio]

Dumb dumb. It was F-22 to later F/A22. Meaning it was designed for one role and later got a small role in air to ground by releasing 1000lb Jdams.


Context is not your strong suit, huh? Lets see 2014 was talk about F-22s not getting increment 3.2A upgrades and even talk about early retirement for F-22s because how expensive it is to keep them operational just like they decided recently early retire the F-22s. As for it takes 8 F-35s to do what 2 F-22s can HANDLE well you need to put it in context. Eight F-35s with internal air to ground load has the same amount of air to air missiles of two F-22s. Duh! Also no "modern fighter" has ever used up all their air to air missiles not even the Israelis during Bekaa Valley air war (June 6-June 11th) where almost 90 Syrian fighters were shot down. F-22s or any fighter will never be in any air combat where all their missiles are expended because enemy fighter pilots are not dumb enough to stick around as their buddies are getting blown up just like Bekaa Valley air war.

Yep. You are right. The USAF and all their officers are wrong.

 

[randomradio]

@vstol Jockey @Picdelamirand-oil

How badly do you think the MTOW will be affected if the Rafale's wings are folded, with both 75KN and 83KN engines?

The way I see it, if the Rafale's wings are folded, then the SH will end up demonstrating superior payload. But if the Rafale's wings are not folded, then it won't fit in the elevators. In case the Rafale fails the tech evals, then we may end up with a single vendor situation.

 

[vstol Jockey]

@vstol Jockey @Picdelamirand-oil

How badly do you think the MTOW will be affected if the Rafale's wings are folded, with both 75KN and 83KN engines?

The way I see it, if the Rafale's wings are folded, then the SH will end up demonstrating superior payload. But if the Rafale's wings are not folded, then it won't fit in the elevators. In case the Rafale fails the tech evals, then we may end up with a single vendor situation.

Payload may get affected by the amount the weight increases due to wingfold mechanism. but the max G-Laod will suffer. The payload penalty will come depending on where the wingfoldng is done. If it is done with just outermost pylon and wingtip pylon being part of the wingfold, than there may not be any payload penalty as they are exclusively for MICA missiles.

 

[randomradio]

Payload may get affected by the amount the weight increases due to wingfold mechanism. but the max G-Laod will suffer. The payload penalty will come depending on where the wingfoldng is done. If it is done with just outermost pylon and wingtip pylon being part of the wingfold, than there may not be any payload penalty as they are exclusively for MICA missiles.

I don't think the IN will care much about the G-load penalty. But it's good that the jet won't suffer a payload penalty. If Dassault manages a 3m reduction, then it should easily fit even in the second elevator aboard the Gorky.

 

[vstol Jockey]

I don't think the IN will care much about the G-load penalty. But it's good that the jet won't suffer a payload penalty. If Dassault manages a 3m reduction, then it should easily fit even in the second elevator aboard the Gorky.

yes, But I think that wingfolding will take place where the elevon split is.

In such a case Rafale will loose out on the payload capability of two heavy pylons. Their load limit may get reduced unless DA decides to split the elevons further.

 

[randomradio]

yes, But I think that wingfolding will take place where the elevon split is.
View attachment 21737
In such a case Rafale will loose out on the payload capability of two heavy pylons. Their load limit may get reduced unless DA decides to split the elevons further.

What would be the penalty in this case?

And can't they just split the larger elevon instead?

 

[vstol Jockey]

What would be the penalty in this case?

And can't they just split the larger elevon instead?

One additional actuator for each wing and also recaliberation of flight controls.

 

[randomradio]

One additional actuator for each wing and also recaliberation of flight controls.

That shouldn't be difficult, but I guess it will end up adding to a cost that Dassault may be unwilling to spend.

I suppose the other option would be to redesign the elevons itself.

But shouldn't all of this affect the slats also?

 

[Dawg-69]

New article on HX Finland:

Hävittäjät | Uusien hävittäjien käyttö- ja ylläpitokulut arvioidaan muissa maissa jopa neljää kertaa korkeammiksi kuin Suomessa – Mikä selittää eron?

Uusien hävittäjien ostaminen on kallista mutta niin on käyttäminenkin. Monissa maissa käyttökulut on laskettu monta kertaa suuremmiksi kuin Suomessa.

www.hs.fi

"The budget is completely inadequate to run 64 F-35's"

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

New article on HX Finland:

Hävittäjät | Uusien hävittäjien käyttö- ja ylläpitokulut arvioidaan muissa maissa jopa neljää kertaa korkeammiksi kuin Suomessa – Mikä selittää eron?

Uusien hävittäjien ostaminen on kallista mutta niin on käyttäminenkin. Monissa maissa käyttökulut on laskettu monta kertaa suuremmiksi kuin Suomessa.

www.hs.fi

"The budget is completely inadequate to run 64 F-35's"

In the summer, Switzerland decided to purchase 36 F-35 fighters. At the current exchange rate, the value of the purchase would be €4.7 billion, but Switzerland estimated the operating and maintenance costs in its justification for the decision to be more than double that, at €9.7 billion. At Swiss prices, the cost of operating 64 fighters over a 30-year service life would be more than €570 million per year. Since then, the Swiss procurement has again become more complicated.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

The difference between Switzerland and Finland is that Finland takes the available cost data seriously,
let that be judged:

Although the figures are not fully comparable, it would seem that a budget of €250 million to run 64 F-35 fighters would be totally inadequate.

The F-35 is the most expensive weapons system in the US, and has been repeatedly criticised by the country's National Audit Office for poor spending discipline.

The most detailed information on the cost of the F-35 fighter jets can be found in reports from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). The F-35 is the most expensive weapons system in the US, and has been repeatedly criticised by the GAO for poor cost discipline.

Since 2012, the life-cycle cost of the US F-35 fighter has increased from $1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion, despite efforts to reduce costs, according to the GAO. A trillion is twelve zeros.

According to the GAO, the purchase price represents less than a quarter of the life-cycle cost, or just under $400 billion. The largest share, $1.3 trillion, is the cost of operation and maintenance. Almost half of that is maintenance and personnel costs. The biggest increase has been in staff costs for subcontractors.

The GAO warns that there is a gap between budget constraints and the actual costs of the fighter. Air Force F-35 operating and maintenance costs should be reduced by as much as 47%, but the GAO is not convinced by the planned savings.

According to the GAO, costs have been driven up by problems with supply chains, maintenance, information systems and the engine. According to the agency, the fighters have been out of action around 15% of the time due to a lack of spare parts. At the end of last year, 20 aircraft were unable to fly due to engine failures.

The Aircraft Development Programme has warned that by 2030, fighter aircraft will face a shortfall of 800 engines.

The US Department of Defense has decided to replace the ALIS information system with the new ODIN system. However, its development has been delayed. Congress cut its funding for this year by 42%.

The F-35 programme aims to reduce the cost per flight hour of the fighter by 25 % by 2025, but officials from the programme, the Defence Acquisition Division and the Cost Accounting Office interviewed by the GAO did not consider this a realistic goal.

According to some interviewees interviewed for the report, the fifth-generation stealth fighter would be impossible to fly at all for the same price as previous fighters.

According to another GAO report, the F-35 has not performed as expected and repair times have been twice as long as planned. For example, the fighter's outer skin panels, which are critical to its stealth capability, have required repair. In 2018, there was a shortage of 4 300 spare parts. Foreign partners have had to wait a long time for parts.

 

[Dawg-69]

Final word from defense minister Antti Kaikkonen is this:

" The tender has set quite strict criteria, and the offers must fit within the criteria. This has been made clear to all tenderers."

I can't see this happening, folks. Sixty-four F-35's are unlikely to fit inside the criteria.

 

[Optimist]

Only unofficial datas :
MICA in the 15 - 20km range I think.
AMRAAM in the 15-25 depending of the model ?
Meteor >70km (more officially said by MBDA)

Well at least you have the AMRAAM out distancing the MICA. You do realise the METEOR is being fitted to the F-35, don't you?

 

[randomradio]

New article on HX Finland:

Hävittäjät | Uusien hävittäjien käyttö- ja ylläpitokulut arvioidaan muissa maissa jopa neljää kertaa korkeammiksi kuin Suomessa – Mikä selittää eron?

Uusien hävittäjien ostaminen on kallista mutta niin on käyttäminenkin. Monissa maissa käyttökulut on laskettu monta kertaa suuremmiksi kuin Suomessa.

www.hs.fi

"The budget is completely inadequate to run 64 F-35's"

Final word from defense minister Antti Kaikkonen is this:

" The tender has set quite strict criteria, and the offers must fit within the criteria. This has been made clear to all tenderers."

I can't see this happening, folks. Sixty-four F-35's are unlikely to fit inside the criteria.

This is the most important part:
Scott Davis , the Finnish director of Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35, does not dispute GAO's information, but he says it is usually at least a year old. According to him, the operating costs of the F-35 are falling all the time, and when Finland gets its machine, they will be clearly lower than at present. The fighter meets the ceiling set by Finland for operating and maintenance costs, Davis tells HS.

The F-35 is claimed to be within the Finnish budget.

Anyway, the F-35 is cheaper than the Hornet in the US. So it will most definitely fit the Hornet's budget.

 

[Innominate]

La Tribune newspaper said yesterday quoting CEO of Safran, Philippe Petitcolin that, the engine upgrade in terms of thrust was necessary as the Rafale had grown heavier over the years due to addition of weapons and other systems.

He said that the original thrust of the Rafale engine was the same since the launch of the French fighter. The Rafale was designed over two decades ago.

Defense World

View News at Defense World

www.defenseworld.net