Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

[Philip]

If you read the various analysis of the Tejas programme by various former senior offrs (AMs,etc),plus read between the lines of serving top brass,DM,etc.,it is very clear that the Tejas in current Mk-1 avatar does not meet the min specs of the IAF,drawn up at least a decade ago. Tejas Mk-1 production as well hasn't yet made the grade. The hopes are on MK-2,which need extensive redesign to achieve desired results,which is in the range of 10-15% better performance than the aircraft it is replacing. This is going to take at least 5 years as the aircraft hasn't flown even once. As of now,Tejas MK-2 is a paper plane,notwithstanding the MK-1 just entering production (LSP).

There is simply no comparison between the Rafale's payload range factor,the best of the lot,Typhoon,MIG-35,Gripen,etc.,neither can there be for an MKI as well. Tejas is at the low end of the IAF's capability,meant to make up large numbers at low cost as was experienced with the MIG-21.
There was a famous statement made by a firang air chief. "Bombs are dumb software is smart". The sensor fusion that comes with the Rafale is its USP,added to its brute performance. 36 Rafales at the touted figure of $7.5B works out to around $200M+ a pop. It is extremely expensive. Thanks to our national grand strategy of being "knee-jerk" most of the time, we were shoehorned by the IAF into an order for at least 36 fast-tracked Rafales to meet the current threat from the PRC/Pak JV. Extra MKIs are always an option and reportedly in the offing. A buy of at least 3-4 very affordable MIG-29K/UG std. sqds. would be good replacements for the MIG-21,,another $2.5-$3.5B only,1/3 the cost of the number of Rafales (thanks to the delay in the definitive version of the LCA arriving),to plug the gap until 2020,when hopefully the MK-2 arrives in significant annual series production.

However,if the Tejas development of MK-2 gets further delayed and Mk-1 production is very low,the DM has hinted that there might be another option exercised,the unspoken words were another firang buy,most probably Gripens.

[eklavya]

Also it seems NaMo has decided that for ten years no WAR but prepare for it slowly and inexorably. Bakis can be taught lessons anytime but China needs to be kept on even keel.

I hope someone tells the PLA that they need to wait for ten years. In the meantime, this should do the trick:

[chola]

Why is there such pessimism about the 36 Rafales not happening? The GOI does manage to close deals every so often. I mean, we got our Hawks didn't see?

[shiv]

This Rafale discussion has got to be one of the most ironic and funny threads on BRF - hundreds of pages, thousand of posts, millions of eyeballs and at the end phutttt..

[chetak]

Not a good decision to cap it to 36 ....would lead to expensive fighter to maintain and procure.

If they really wanted to support tejas then why buy those 36 at all just invest all money in Tejas program.

They should buy 5-6 squadron and build MRO and local production facility in India

this is a sweetener for the french nuke power plants and uranium supply without strings onlee.

only time will tell how many and if the rafales are to arrive.

[member_28990]

It will be hugely detrimental to national security if no Rafales arrive. Indigenous production is necessary, but not at the cost of capability loss. Even 36 Rafales are a game changer in our region, and the original 100+ envisaged would have been a strong bulwark against the chinese. Make no mistake, what is happening is just bad strategy enforced upon us by the effects of the past black decade which put our economy on life support.

[member_28476]

In the meanwhile, Dassault team in charge of indian industrialization of Rafale is still working in India...

[NRao]

In the meanwhile, Dassault team in charge of indian industrialization of Rafale is still working in India...

Point being, what are they doing there?

After all one can never argue with raw numbers: 126 to 36 is a very potent drop.

Next that drop is funding the very plane that rafale proponents had posted as a waste when compared to the rafale.

So, to me at least, the dassault team is in India to answer how many LCAs is dassault willing to fund.

200 is the MoDs number. Do I hear 250?

[prahaar]

In the meanwhile, Dassault team in charge of indian industrialization of Rafale is still working in India...

Point being, what are they doing there?

After all one can never argue with raw numbers: 126 to 36 is a very potent drop.

Next that drop is funding the very plane that rafale proponents had posted as a waste when compared to the rafale.

So, to me at least, the dassault team is in India to answer how many LCAs is dassault willing to fund.

200 is the MoDs number. Do I hear 250?

Can you please explain the bolded part, regarding Dassault involvement in LCA? If this was some sarcasm I will eat humble pie.

[chaanakya]

Also it seems NaMo has decided that for ten years no WAR but prepare for it slowly and inexorably. Bakis can be taught lessons anytime but China needs to be kept on even keel.

I hope someone tells the PLA that they need to wait for ten years. In the meantime, this should do the trick:

Yes, NaMo went and told. He asked Eleven to read Vivek's scenario.

[NRao]

Pagot,

Or are you telling me that the dassault team has come to discuss about Plan B, which does not exist (Per CAS).

[member_28476]

I am just saying that a team of Dassault is presently in India so as to set up supply chains, and they didn't take the aircraft back. I just do not know more, but i'm sure about it.

[brar_w]

Even the SAAB team is in India preparing for "industrialization", their head for India said as much in a video posted a few pages back

[chaanakya]

I am just saying that a team of Dassault is presently in India so as to set up supply chains, and they didn't take the aircraft back. I just do not know more, but i'm sure about it.

That's correct. Team is currently working out the modalities for starting negotiations for 36 rafale and hopefully more under MKI program. Its basically advance team to prepare the ground work,.

[chaanakya]

Even the SAAB team is in India preparing for "industrialization", their head for India said as much in a video posted a few pages back

SAAB team is on Tourist visa and nowhere near MOD or IAF HQ. They are running song and dance show with Phadanavis.

[Gyan]

Kill Rafale to feed LCA & Su-30MKI. Also kill PAKFA to feed AURA & AMCA.

[NRao]

The policy of the new dispensation has ensured that the clout and influence of the middlemen is neutralized. It has ensured that arms procurements are not sabotaged at the slightest behest. It has ensured that nothing comes in the way of defence preparedness. The decision to purchase 36 Rafale aircraft from France in government to government deal is giving many sleepless nights to the lobbyists.

http://www.sify.com/mobile/news/finally ... jddha.html

[SaiK]

Kill Rafale to feed LCA & Su-30MKI . Also kill PAKFA to feed AURA & AMCA.

I support the feed now, and feed massively in the future. It is because of the void, IAF and GoI is forced to take decision on Rafale.

Now, we can also resolve this by reducing the ASR based on the changed threat perception. A few A5/6 with confirmed maal of 220KT walas (not just kakodkar promises and word of mouth weapon systems) that gets petal-ed should ensure more funds for homegrown products.

IAF must understand the needs first.

[GeorgeWelch]

Rakesh, grapes are sour in full flow!!

The fox tried and tried to get the grapes, and when he finally gave up he said 'the grapes were probably sour anyways'. Thus sour grapes is when you strive for something, don't get it and then say 'well, I didn't want it anyways'

If I said, "well, the US is better off not winning the MRCA anyways" that would be sour grapes

The basic issue, the elephant in the room, is that of the US's political unreliability when it comes to supporting combat platforms like fighter aircraft for India (which we pay full money for), while freebies and all sorts of aid goes to Pakistan. That alone in all likelihood would have made the IAF wary of buying the the teen fighters even if had not been outclassed.

Strange, I have been repeatedly been assured that the selection was purely on technical merits. So you're admitting that the IAF lied?

can manage their energy far better (making them better at BVR)

Energy management is key in gun fights. In BVR, not so much.

combat pilot with hundreds of flight hours in combat fighters under his belt to decide what metrics matter.

The future is reducing the importance of the combat pilot, so while they shouldn't be ignored, they should not be given absolute authority either.

The only advantage the F-18E/F has in today's time is that of COST.

"Other than that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

Even if that were true, and it's most definitely not, cost is hugely important.

The mistake everyone is making is comparing Rafale and SH on 1v1 basis

What you should be looking at is how much combat capability can you buy for x amount of money. Because even if Rafale is slightly superior 1v1, 72 SH give you more capability than 36 Rafale.

Enjoy your gold-plated white elephants.

[GeorgeWelch]

2) Spatial disorientation. Can we really afford to take the risk of sending a $125+ million fighter up in the air with just one pilot and then lose it to SD or something similar. I am sure Rambha pilots can attest to the episodes when they saved their fellow pilot's skin (or vice versa) up in the air.

That's what GCAS is for.

[Karan M]

The fox tried and tried to get the grapes, and when he finally gave up he said 'the grapes were probably sour anyways'. Thus sour grapes is when you strive for something, don't get it and then say 'well, I didn't want it anyways. If I said, "well, the US is better off not winning the MRCA anyways" that would be sour grapes

Rubbish, you are busy claiming that since the flying bricks did not win the MMRCA everyone else who won was bad and the competition was rigged. What else is it but grapes are sour. Since your junk couldn't make the grade, here you are claiming the MMRCA contest wasn't any great shakes anyway and everyone else was bad. Sore loser personified.

Strange, I have been repeatedly been assured that the selection was purely on technical merits. So you're admitting that the IAF lied?

Reading comprehension problems much? The sore loser attitude really shines through in your behavior here.

I never mentioned the MMRCA down selection was based on politics. In fact, "the elephant in the room", refers to the topic which nobody has addressed, which is that the US is an unreliable supplier of weapons. Look up idioms sometime.

It would have been an issue if the MMRCA aircraft selection was topped by the F-16 and F-18, in which case the IAF would have justified in kicking them out because of aforesaid factors.

But as things stood, the pigs never managed to get out of the sty into the thoroughbreds padlock.

Energy management is key in gun fights. In BVR, not so much.

Comedy of the highest order. So the F-22 doesn't need to manage its energy? Do you even know anything of the topic?

Oh wait.. next we have..

The future is reducing the importance of the combat pilot, so while they shouldn't be ignored, they should not be given absolute authority either.

ROTFL, as things stand, they have far more relevant experience than you do, and the MMRCA was about manned aircraft, so kindly go suck an egg.

"Other than that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

Even if that were true, and it's most definitely not, cost is hugely important.

Cheap junk is still junk.

The mistake everyone is making is comparing Rafale and SH on 1v1 basis

What you should be looking at is how much combat capability can you buy for x amount of money. Because even if Rafale is slightly superior 1v1, 72 SH give you more capability than 36 Rafale.

Unreliable dodgy numbers.

Enjoy your gold-plated white elephants.

You must be confused. We aren't buying the F-35.

[GeorgeWelch]

Rubbish, you are busy claiming that since the flying bricks did not win the MMRCA everyone else who won was bad and the competition was rigged.

No, I claimed that it was rigged because of clear evidence that it was rigged.

What else is it but grapes are sour.

Pointing out painful truths. (Speaking truth to power)

Since your junk couldn't make the grade, here you are claiming the MMRCA contest wasn't any great shakes anyway and everyone else was bad. Sore loser personified.

'Sore loser' would at least make sense in the context. 'Sour grapes' does not.

But riddle me this: If the MMRCA competition was so great, why did it get canned?

For exactly the reason I pointed out: It ignored cost efficiency

It was a dumb approach from the beginning and India finally realized it, but only after wasting how many years and (probably) getting locked into a small, almost worthless, subfleet.

My other criticism of the MRCA was that it was trying to combine too much into one package that would make it impossibly complex to negotiate. I said that it should have been split and just buy aircraft now to fill falling squadron numbers and then buy ToT for necessary items separately.

And now both of my criticisms have been fully and completely justified.

Comedy of the highest order. So the F-22 doesn't need to manage its energy?

Not in BVR.

ROTFL, as things stand, they have far more relevant experience than you do, and the MMRCA was about manned aircraft, so kindly go suck an egg.

Pilots like planes that are fun to pilot, they cannot help that. That doesn't always mean what they select is the best choice for your needs. When a large corporation is deciding on a car for the motor fleet, they don't base their decision solely (or even mostly) on what the drivers want. Otherwise it would be made up of Mustangs and Corvettes. The corporation has a responsibility to look at the bigger picture instead of merely which one is the most fun to drive.

Cheap junk is still junk.

Such ignorant statements are just embarrassing. Even the Rafale team would not agree with such a statement.

The mistake everyone is making is comparing Rafale and SH on 1v1 basis

What you should be looking at is how much combat capability can you buy for x amount of money. Because even if Rafale is slightly superior 1v1, 72 SH give you more capability than 36 Rafale.

Unreliable dodgy numbers.

The numbers are public, just because they make you uncomfortable doesn't mean they're dodgy.

Enjoy your gold-plated white elephants.

You must be confused. We aren't buying the F-35.

Actually, that was the F-22. Then we realized that super aerodynamic performance wasn't actually that important, so we decided to buy 1,500 F-35s instead.

If you were to buy the F-35 you would at least be buying additional capability that could justify the additional cost and reduced numbers. As it is, there is no mission the Rafale can do that the SH can not also do.

[brar_w]

Actually, that was the F-22. Then we realized that super aerodynamic performance wasn't actually that important, so we decided to buy 1,500 F-35s instead

That is absolutely not how it went down. The F-22A was meant to replace the F-15C, and there was a plan that the OEM had to replace the Beagle mission as well. The requirement was in line with the sort of missions the F-15Cs handle. The F-35A was to replace the F-16, F-18 and Harrier. Its performance and maneuverability compares very favorably that mission set, i.e. a swing role aircraft that can perform everything from CAS to air to air. The USAF wanted a more strike oriented less stealthy fighter, but the USN forced their hands and that meant a better signature, and larger weapons flexibility in addition to universal sensor (USAF wanted 1 IR sensor per 3 aircraft, USN wanted all aircraft to have IR coverage).

[GeorgeWelch]

That is absolutely not how it went down. The F-22A was meant to replace the F-15C

But then we realized it was too expensive for the capabilities delivered and the buy was truncated.

[brar_w]

That is absolutely not how it went down. The F-22A was meant to replace the F-15C

But then we realized it was too expensive for the capabilities delivered and the buy was truncated.

The threat for which it was designed became a lot smaller priority post cold war and the peace dividend ensured the numbers were cut. Had there been 500 F-22A's, the F-35 performance would still have been the same. The mission determines the aircraft performance, if you want long range you have to trade speed, if you want both you have to trade size and cost. The reason why the F-35A is different in performance to the F-22 is the same reason why the F-16C or the F-18C is different from the F-15C. The only difference in approach to the previous generation is that in this case (F-35) they have gone for larger sensors as compared to small-medium sized sensors as was the case in the Viper. The F-16A can spot a 1000 or so T/R module AESA, the F-35A uses a 1600+ T/R module AESA. Same goes for internal avionics growth. Its a medium sized fighter as opposed to the Viper that was a light sized fighter kitted to be a medium sized fighter (hence the BRICK performance in that profile).

[GeorgeWelch]

The threat for which it was designed became a lot smaller priority post cold war

In other words, "it was too expensive for the capabilities delivered."

Had there been 500 F-22A's, the F-35 performance would still have been the same.

But then there would have been fewer F-35s ordered. So we shifted some F-22 numbers to F-35.

[brar_w]

In other words, "it was too expensive for the capabilities delivered."

Once the threat vanishes you have to justify the need. In case of the SU collapse, the Russian re-armament slowed to a trickle, there weren't any massive Su-37 or Mig. 1.4 orders from Russia, hence the F-22A was left to a hedge fleet while advanced technology development continued in all sectors - that capability found use in the F-35 (Fiber mat is one prime example). Cost for the Raptor was a function of the numbers produced..Google the last batch cost of the F-22A, now factor in if you produced 300 more at that cost accounting for the fact that it would have gotten a lot lower. The F-22A did not even reach its peak production planned in the 90's. At that production rate, with the sort of industry that was involved in its development - you weren't going to get it to be affordable. However, had the threat existed and warranted, a larger purchase even at the last production block price - it would have been affordable.

The same applies to the Rafale and Typhoon. Had the cold war still warranted them they would have produced fighters at a much faster rate and reaped the financial rewards of the same.

But there would have been fewer of them. So we shifted some F-22 numbers to F-35

No. At the moment the F-35A is designed around the F-16, and A-10 replacement. The USAF has shrunk considerably since the gulf-war, and the F-35A purchase number that exists at the moment as a requirement reflects an aproximately the force they are looking to sustain. I have provided a graph showing the current squadron strength compared to 1992. The F-35A merely replaces the multi-role fighter force and the CAS force retiring between 2015 and 2038.

[GeorgeWelch]

But there would have been fewer of them. So we shifted some F-22 numbers to F-35

No. At the moment the F-35A is designed around the F-16, and A-10 replacement. The USAF has shrunk considerably since the gulf-war, and the F-35A purchase number that exists at the moment as a requirement reflects an aproximately the force they are looking to sustain.

So if the USAF had 500 Raptors, they would be looking to buy the exact same number of F-35s as they are now?

Regardless, we're getting offtopic . . .

[brar_w]

But there would have been fewer of them. So we shifted some F-22 numbers to F-35

No. At the moment the F-35A is designed around the F-16, and A-10 replacement. The USAF has shrunk considerably since the gulf-war, and the F-35A purchase number that exists at the moment as a requirement reflects an aproximately the force they are looking to sustain.[/quote]

So if the USAF had 500 Raptors, they would be looking to buy the exact same number of F-35s as they are now?[/quote]

Yes. The current requirement reflects the F-16 and A-10 replacement. The F-15C's and F-15E's are getting a life extension, EW and AESA upgrades (plus 5th to 4th communication Pods and IRST) and will likely last till the mid to late 2030's. If there is no F-22A replacement in the works throughout the 2020's (which is doubtful since there is an X plane program that takes of in FY16 to address future air superiority needs) then the number of F-35A's requested has to go up to account for some of the retiring F-15 Charlie's.

There is a roadmap somewhere online that shows the squadrons that are being replaced by the F-35's all the way through 2032 or so (I think it was in Air forces monthly), and all the squadrons are F-16 and/or A-10.

[GeorgeWelch]

edit: doesn't matter, way off-topic

[Vayutuvan]

I hope someone tells the PLA that they need to wait for ten years. In the meantime, this should do the trick: ...

Chances of a war (not some 1962 ish border skirmish but a real war if you know what I mean) with China in 10 years
is exponentially lower than Scotland breaking off from UK in 5 years, lower than Falklands becomes Malvinas in 10 years, but higher than UK/Q becomes a secular democratic republic where there are no hereditary lords in the House of Lords and are in numbers on the board of BBC.

[Viv S]

Why is there such pessimism about the 36 Rafales not happening? The GOI does manage to close deals every so often. I mean, we got our Hawks didn't see?

That's not pessimism, that's optimism sir. Negotiating is one thing, but hopefully the MoD will not be foolish enough to sign an actual contract. The $8bn price tag should be a more than adequate excuse to kill the thing in the negotiations stage.

[Viv S]

this is a sweetener for the french nuke power plants and uranium supply without strings onlee.

only time will tell how many and if the rafales are to arrive.

Why should we give them a sweetener on top of all the power plant contracts worth billions of dollars? Its a buyers market, if anyone's doing the other side a favour, its us.

[Nikhil T]

So AK Antony has come out of the hiding to launch a tirade against the Rafale deal.

He claims that

The company was not ready to transfer technology as part of the deal.

Now if that is correct why didn't MoD go ahead and cancel the deal with Dassault and choose L2? After all ToT was one of the key requirements. Why do the price negotiations drama if the company isn't willing the satisfy the tender requirements? So silly that we wasted years in negotiations.

[Karan M]

No, I claimed that it was rigged because of clear evidence that it was rigged.

What clear evidence? Sunlight from your wazoo doesn't count as evidence.

Pointing out painful truths. (Speaking truth to power)

If you can't handle the truth and its painful to you whilst you think you are some power, get some treatment asap. Delirium clearly.

'Sore loser' would at least make sense in the context. 'Sour grapes' does not.

A sore loser claims that the grapes are sour. That would be you.

But riddle me this: If the MMRCA competition was so great, why did it get canned?

And your junk is nowhere in the picture. Riddle me that.

For exactly the reason I pointed out: It ignored cost efficiency

Junk is still junk.

It was a dumb approach from the beginning and India finally realized it, but only after wasting how many years and (probably) getting locked into a small, almost worthless, subfleet.

The alternative would be to even dumber and wasting years on rubbish white elephants which are hopelessly obsolete such as the F-16 or F-18 or getting locked into a worthlessly expensive program which is too big to fail. Oh wait, the F-35.

My other criticism of the MRCA was that it was trying to combine too much into one package that would make it impossibly complex to negotiate. I said that it should have been split and just buy aircraft now to fill falling squadron numbers and then buy ToT for necessary items separately.

Your criticisms aren't worth a dime, since most of the claims you make are either outright fibs or biased towards buying rubbish from your preferred pongo suppliers.

And now both of my criticisms have been fully and completely justified.

Actually, they haven't. Since the Indian Govt did not decide to buy the F-16 and F-18 proving that both platforms were completely unsuited for the role.

Not in BVR.

Delusional talk. Take some physics classes.

Pilots like planes that are fun to pilot, they cannot help that. That doesn't always mean what they select is the best choice for your needs. When a large corporation is deciding on a car for the motor fleet, they don't base their decision solely (or even mostly) on what the drivers want. Otherwise it would be made up of Mustangs and Corvettes. The corporation has a responsibility to look at the bigger picture instead of merely which one is the most fun to drive.

More delusional talk. The MMRCA had 543 parameters out of which avionics parameters were an important component. Clearly, since it doesn't fit your shamelessly dishonest agenda, you won't admit it, but no reason why I can't call out your lies.

And the organization still went for the Rafale not your hopelessly obsolete junk. Goes to show they realize what is what and silly analogies don't hold any water.

Such ignorant statements are just embarrassing. Even the Rafale team would not agree with such a statement.

Actually they would laugh at your ignorance in comparing your flying junk to the Rafale, which routinely embarasses the F-16/F-18 in competitions, matchups worldwide.

The numbers are public, just because they make you uncomfortable doesn't mean they're dodgy.

The numbers in public don't match anything you say, which is not surprise since you tend to fib a lot anyways.

Actually, that was the F-22. Then we realized that super aerodynamic performance wasn't actually that important, so we decided to buy 1,500 F-35s instead.

Actually, you just got suckered into launching something which is one of the most expensive boondoglles and will come up with station wagon that needs far more money to make something out of it, than any other recent worldwide program in history.

The RAND Corporation, not exactly a radical peacenik group, reviewed the test data on the F-35 and called it a “double-fail,” adding that it “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” A less diplomatic reviewer called it “a dog,” plain and simple.

The Russians, Chinese and the world are all laughing at you. Only the poor Europeans have had to buy it so that your lot continues to splurge money on NATO and what not.

If you were to buy the F-35 you would at least be buying additional capability that could justify the additional cost and reduced numbers. As it is, there is no mission the Rafale can do that the SH can not also do.

[/quote]

The SH would not even be able to hold a candle to the Rafale across many mission criteria. Its a wheezing bomb truck kitted out with some extra sensors to make it less than the embarrassment it would otherwise be.

Wingfences added late for a fighter. Perfect example of how great it is.

[brar_w]

The RAND Corporation, not exactly a radical peacenik group, reviewed the test data on the F-35 and called it a “double-fail,” adding that it “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” A less diplomatic reviewer called it “a dog,” plain and simple.

And that later was denied by even the organization that was claimed to have sanctioned it, and later revealed that some of the data it was relying upon was based on a Harpoon 3 Video Game simulation based on the APA work, and the author of which is now (since he got let go by RAND) advocating a wait for it...." stealthy, subsonic, large, non-maneuvering (in the traditional sense) non-traditional fighter" for the future air superiority needs. which is in fact contrary to what the OEM thinks (LM). Even the quote from the blog that you cite is in accurate in that the RAND study or any other study has ZERO access to the test data that remains classified. Just like the F-22A, only a handful of parameters are made public so there was absolutely no "TEST - DATA" for the APA sim to use other than what they came up with on their own and of course with the help from Harpoon 3.

http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015 ... periority/

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... st-up.html

Many folks have used the data at hand, to calculate performance of the F-35 compared to its peers, be it the multi role aircraft it is replacing (F-16, F-18, Harrier) or the ones it is competing against in the same mission class (Gripen, Rafale, perhaps even the typhoon if it gets a better multi role capability)..There is not a very significant advantage either way that can be proven either in the acceleration in the transonic regime or in the subsonic regime. The only real advantage that some o these fighters have is that they can cruise at mach 1.2-mach 1.4 for a unspecified time with an air to air load, while all the F-35's performance data so supplied is with 2x2000 lb bombs + 2x Aim-120 and internal fuel. It has been claimed to have a larger supersonic radius as compared to the aircraft it is replacing but the acceleration numbers are with the strike mission and even then it is almost like a MINI F-22, where it takes about as much time to get from mach 0.8 to around mach 1.2 (with 2000 pounds of bombs, and 2 missiles - therefore the time will be shorter for just 4 missiles) than what the F-22 takes to get from Mach 0.8 to mach 1.5 in the air to air load. The F-35 trades off high supersonic (like the raptor) for loiter and range. This requirement comes from the multi-role nature and the need to replace the US and NATO strike fighters that conduct expeditionary warfare and therefore require that sort of range/payload trade offs. You could have given it mach 1.5 supercruise in the design but that would have meant a shorter range, greater reliance on basing and tanker support and higher cost. Adaptive engines will act as a bridge. Even the top speed of Mach 1.6 has been demonstrated with full internal payload for the strike missions i.e. 4000+ pounds of bombs and 2 missiles, and 18000+ pounds of fuel.

Video Game simulation aside (thats the only private-consultant_driven-sim done so far), each F-35 customer that expresses an intent beyond just a curious look into its capabilities gets to run its own simulations based on its own threats, and analysis at the 40,000 square foot Dayton Ohio facility that models the F-35's capabilities vs that of the threat, be it threat data that is provided by the US or customer's own threat data. This is of course in addition to the embedded pilot feedback and the entire gamut of classified data that is available to customers. Air Chiefs have a tad bit more access to performance data than a video game analysis conducted by a party that has absolutely no credibility even in the air-force that it does or did business with (APA-RAAF).

[member_27581]

What's next IS questioning human rights records of Switzerland?
Long back on BRF someone quoted that had he been in Army he would have been shot for "dereliction of duty" and now this guys comes out of hat..and starts when things are moving

So AK Antony has come out of the hiding to launch a tirade against the Rafale deal.

He claims that

The company was not ready to transfer technology as part of the deal.

Now if that is correct why didn't MoD go ahead and cancel the deal with Dassault and choose L2? After all ToT was one of the key requirements. Why do the price negotiations drama if the company isn't willing the satisfy the tender requirements? So silly that we wasted years in negotiations.

[Karan M]

And that later was denied by even the organization that was claimed to have sanctioned it,

LOL, no prizes for guessing why

and later revealed that some of the data it was relying upon was based on a Harpoon 3 Video Game simulation based on the APA work, and the author of which is now (since he got let go by RAND)

LOL yeah sure, character assassination in full flow against a Vietnam vet, now at NG... as versus ..."wait for it".. BLOGS...!!! (and also, simulations)!

[eklavya]

PM Modi announced the intention to acquire Rafale on 10 April.

The Gandhis spent the next 6 weeks hoping for a cut, for services rendered to date.

Dassault naturally refused (a bribe to the Gandhis is the one action that would guarantee the end of this deal).

Gandhis realise there's no way they will get a penny out of this deal.

Antony dispatched by Gandhis to talk trash.

Sad, but true ....

[brar_w]

LOL yeah sure, character assassination in full flow against a Vietnam vet, now at NG... as versus ..."wait for it".. BLOGS...!!! (and also, simulations)!

So that begs the question, Where was the performance data taken from given it is classified, and if they did not use Harpoon 3 what unique simulator did they use? and why does the same author now advocate a fighter that is in fact exactly like the unsubstantiated capability he was claiming the F-35 had??

This forum is littered with poorly written analysis that gets debunked including claims by former military pilots or high ranking officials. If someone draws a conclusion based on completely wrong analysis, that has zero assumptions stated and blogs around the www take it as something based on "TEST DATA" that itself is classified and has never been shared with any organization and it later turns out that the only non-government or air force funded SIM analysis had been conducted using Harpoon 3, then yes people will come out and debunk that as it being useless and calling it what it is. Essentially the author claims the F-35 is too slow (against what and with what payload??), can't turn (again no specifics offered)...while a year later he authors a paper and makes a presentation that calls for a future fighter to be Subsonic, Large and not rely on traditional maneuverability but long range BVR engagements and sensors/avionics. All in all he takes a position that the F-35 isn't maneuverable or fast enough contrary to what is claimed by its operators and designers and then takes a position that future air superiority fighter should not be fast or very maneuverable again a position that is opposite to what the designers seem to be thinking. He calls for an F-22A replacement to be slow, large and carry a very comprehensive list of sensors and avionics basing that on his analysis of a few decades of air combat where he claims these attributes offer a diminishing return as compared to weapons, sensors and persistence.

Stillion concludes that these advances may have fundamentally transformed the nature of air combat. This transformation may be steadily reducing the utility of some attributes traditionally associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., extreme speed and maneuverability) while increasing the value of attributes not usually associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., sensor and weapon payload as well as range).

Folks can believe in whatever they want based on whatever is published by any segment of the media, blog, tabloid etc. This is the largest defense program in the west and everyone from an IT blogger to a Technology magazine to your "insert tabloid magazine" outlet will talk about it because it "sells", but then don't expect those in the loop, i.e. the stakeholders (technical evaluators and Air Chiefs around the world that have to decide on it) that actually analyze a system and see its merits and demerits to actually base their decision on that when they have the entire performance and capability opened up to them to evaluate. As I said, if there are performance differences, make them clear..What are they? If the F-35 is a ' Brick ' , what is the difference in transonic acceleration between it and say the Rafale with a given payload? We know what the rough difference is between the F-35 and F-22 even though the F-35 carries bombs instead of much lighter missiles. How much time does the Rafale take to get form mach .8 to mach 1.2 with 9000+ pounds of fuel and 4000+ pounds of bombs and 2 missiles, plus a targeting pod? Now shave 4000 pounds of bombs and add a couple of more missiles and the F-35's performance should also improve, but then what is that performance? Its classified so we do not know..Thats a problem with those that say the F-35 is at a disadvantage..from what we know given what has been shared the difference is not significant when payloads are brought into the equation, for everything else we do not have enough data (but those that decide on it most definitely do). Even if the F-35 gets to say Mach 1.25 or Mach 1.3 in around a minute it gets to that in roughly the same time the Raptor gets to around mach 1.55 or so..and all the while having more optimized range/payload. It will not have a supersonic radius of the F-22, but that is by design..Similarly it will have a larger supersonic radius compared to the aircraft it is replacing and this will be significantly enhanced with adaptive engines - This is also by design. So the Supersonic and transonic performance for the F-35A lies in between the aircraft it replaces and the F-22A and this is so that it can carry its Multi Role payload and a very large amount of fuel given its size (18,500 odd pounds) allowing to to achieve range/payload performance at profiles where the aircraft it is replacing cannot even go supersonic. I would love to see an F-16 go supersonic with 18000 pounds of fuel, 4000+ pounds of payload and a targeting pod. The F-35A in that profile can reach its top speed of Mach 1.6 and has shown it in tests.

Aircraft are designed around missions, and so is the F-35. The F-22 had one edge of the flight envelope to contend with and it blasted its ATF requirement by achieving a Mach 1.76 Super-cruise but at the expense of outright range and payload flexibility. The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft and has to go supersonic when required, but also has to achieve a significant range and radius requirement on internal fuel in order to meet the multi role and strike needs of its customers. It has to swing and do A2A and A2G and therefore its capability reflects that. The outright "not a pound for air to ground" mentality of the ATF makes it a poor strike aircraft for all missions accept SEAD/DEAD where it can actually do some high level damage by lobbing SDB's at mach 1.7. For everything else be it heavy strike, CAS etc the F-35 is better because it had to do those missions day in and day out in addition to air to air missions.