Don’t forget that the Su24M2 could come with Kh31P & Kh59.

Good luck using whatever frigate or destroyer as a radar picket with an opponent equipped with Kh31P & various versions of Kh59 unless it’s a T45 or something.

It’s not the number of airframes that count, it’s the number and type of missiles you get along with it.

12 Su24 are way enough if you have what it takes to arm them.

Nic

I can see your point yes, HOWEVER, I have trouble believing that Argentina is in any position to be able to afford 12 SU-24M2’s to begin with, then getting them into service, having to train both a pilot and a weapons officer for each plane?….. procuring the maintenance equipment and training, then actually being able to translate that into an operational unit?…doubtful to say the least….and for Argentina to acquire brand new systems of munitions, and to become proficient with them?…and honestly, just as Tempest 414 said…..by deleting the airfields that “house” the 12 SU-24M2’s to a state where nothing is taking off…the threat is completely negated….

and another pointed question should be asked…..just where is Argentina supposed to acquire aforementioned SU – 24 M2’s?…Russia recieved their final upgraded M2’s not that long ago…are they going to strip their own capabilities to sell 12 to Argentina?…….seeing as it is an upgraded variant seeing new hardware, electronics etc added into an old manufacture airframe right?…I mean they don;t build these any longer, they were built by the old Soviet Union in the 70’s and 80’s……and not to mention that as a larger supersonic swing wing design they are maintenance intensive too…..good luck with the procurement….

“Technically not supercruising” most likely because he considers it transonic. If you read the quote again you will see that he goes on to talk about the F-35’s transonic performance saying:

As for being in a dive, for 150 miles? :stupid: That would also make no sense since he specifically says:

You think a plane trying to lob a bomb or missile is going to go into an incredibly long shallow dive covering 150 miles of slant range before doing so?

Also, the F-35’s bays have the capacity to hold 3 AMRAAMs each. (so 6 internal AAM)

In that specific loadout comparison and for as long as its internal fuel lasted the Rafale would be .2 Mach faster, yes.

Hopsalot, may I ask a question?………you mention the F 35 has the “CAPACITY” to hold 3 AMRAAMS each right?…now as I recall, there was issue and discussion as to whether the weapons bays where actually carrying 3 or where being limited to 2 each…….

any clarification on that? and I seem to remember that the AIM 120 was UNABLE to be launched from the internal Weapons bays, is that right?…so carried only as an external hard point mounted ordnance? seems crappy if true that one of the best BVR weapons, would cause the F 35 to reduce it’s speed,performance etc. and worse increase it’s Stealth when it may be of actual benefit in a BVR shoot out….

See, I;m trying ….. 🙂

Cheers

Do you realize this is a fake news report, bassed in nothing and far from reality, using the December 28th fools/joke date?

it is utter nonsense

To whom and to what are you referring? YES this particular article most likely is rubbish, however, Kirtchner sure has been in bed with Putin now hasn’t she?…Russians building a Nuclear reactor and likely two hydro electric stations, “specialists” to the oil fields…Russian use of Antarctic airspace, possibly Russian bases?…and that come s what FREE?….I am sure that there is some conniving talk of aircraft etc….

Yet Of course it is all nonsense……that is exactly what I was saying…….to even base a totally hypothetical scenario and exclude many and massive factors…this is what happens…we can all play “Scenario” wars…..and I was simply pointing out facts deleted from the scenarios being run by rcolistete in his posts.

Just keep things realistic and non specific in “scenarios”…and no one gets upset right?……

Cheers, and have a Happy New Year

Certainly acceleration and climb performance is also important, probably more so than max speed, but we don’t have the necessary numbers to do an apples to apples acceleration comparison.

Extrapolating from the numbers we do have…

Clean the Rafale will have the advantage. (but would presumably be flying at an airshow)

Lightly loaded for air to air (4-6 AAM(internal on F-35), +centerline tank for Rafale):

Max speed:
Rafale M1.6
F-35 M1.6

Max dry cruise:
Rafale: unspecified “supercruise.”
F-35 M1.2

If the Rafale drops the tank the brochure says it can sustain M1.4 on dry thrust. The F-35 can’t match that, but does have a much larger internal fuel capacity and will have greater staying power without tanks.

Bottom line, these two aircraft are broadly similar in the data we have available.(both superior to the Hornet and Super Hornet) There really should be no question whether the F-35 is capable of performing air policing missions without any difficulty.

Obviously the article doesn’t make that clear, but I suspect that number is in the context of a broader mission profile, just as the F-22’s range is generally expressed as: “410NM, with 100NM supercruise. ” I think the fact that he goes on to say:

I read this essentially as “In one mission profile the F-35 can sustain M1.2 for 150 miles, but there is a range penalty for flying faster.”

We can rule out any possibility that somehow the F-35 would exhaust its entire fuel load in 150 miles. (as that would require ludicrous fuel consumption numbers, in mil power no less…)

We can also rule out the possibility that somehow it would require most of the F-35’s fuel load to get to M1.2, as that is totally inconsistent with what O’Bryan said: “F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes “through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily.”

All that is really interesting….however I still have one concern, well question really……Despite the fact that O’Bryan USED to be an F -18 pilot, he now works directly for LM correct?…has he personally flown the F 35?…does he base his comments on direct personal experience or is he taking the comments from test pilots?….are those test pilots in the pay of LM?……

I mean having an ex F 18 pilot as a spokesperson is great …however, one needs to stop for a moment and take the actual information being relayed with a pinch of salt. I mean LM will NEVER publicly say that their project is flawed or is inferior to anything would they? and many would never question their statements because the spokesman used to be a pilot for some other fighter plane…yet has NEVER flown the F 35 himself….

I am not saying in anyway that the information is wrong, just that the situation MAY allow for the information regarding the F 35 to be directly and tightly controlled by LM and further by the Pentagon and the USAF.

The information regarding the Rafale, IF it all came directly from Dassault would likewise be subject to the same situation. However, the Rafale has been flown by MANY Nations pilots in testing and competitions etc. and has been in service long enough for VERY extensive information to have been compiled.

I would also support you assumption that the F35 IS CAPABLE of air policing missions and use. I do however continue to state that at it;s expense and high cost to operate, it is by far, more than MANY nation’s need. Sorry, some may think that “stealth” is important for Air Policing, I would say the opposite, that it is detrimental and overkill, a totally un needed feature…I don;t think that some trainer / cum- fighter is the answer either. But to expend $130 Million PLUS and pay $30,000 an hour to fly?…no, it is too expensive to use in that role……not when alternatives that will be cheaper to acquire, maintain and operate can be found…..as well as allow for a numerically larger purchase to be made. As can be seen with the F35, almost everyone that has or will think of purchasing them, are reducing their numbers wanted. Now that may work out for Nations like the UK and say Japan that will be retaining other airframe types to supplement…BUT for other Nations, having just a sole type capability of far fewer F35’s is just NOT a realistic approach. I mean the simplest reason may be that as the type is not in operational service anywhere, there really is NO information to see where actual costs and time frames are for Operational maintenance etc…it may be that it takes longer for maintenance and would reduce the number of available planes more than anticipated……NOW this is all just a hypothetical statement. But it does perhaps highlight some of the areas where little to no information exists, because no one really knows until they reach Operational Squadrons and start racking up air time and maintenance time Operationally instead of under more controlled test conditions.

As a strike aircraft flying into a heavily defended Nation…sure, THEN it would fit the bill……but to tool around intercepting and escorting BEARS etc…..it;s just to much aircraft, to much bill for doing a job that others can do…….that is my biggest point….

It is enough for Argentina to use Su-24M2 to do simulated attacks, forcing UK to spend a lot more in the Falkland’s air defenses.

About Eurofighter intercepting Su-24M2 :
– Su-24M2 being detected about 50 km of the land radar station at Falklands;
– Su-24M2 simulates launching its air-surface missiles;
– Su-24M2 goes back to Argentina, in high altitude, supersonic (Mach 1.35);
– Eurofighter scrambles after 3-5 minutes of QRA, more 3-4 minutes to be at high altitude and supersonic;
– Eurofighter with 6-8 missiles should fly at Mach 1.6-1.7, with a supersonic combat radius of 250 mn (463 km);
– so the Su-24M2 would be at (50 + 72-119 = 122-169) km far from Falklands when the Eurofighter is airborne (after 3-5 minutes of QRA);
– the speed difference is about Mach 0.3, so the Eurofighter would take 23-32 minutes to reach the Su-24M2;
– at this time, the Eurofighter fuel is low, time to go back to Falklands in subsonic speed;
– but the Su-24M2 is back to the Argentina land before, in 13-15 minutes;
– conclusion, Eurofighter can’t intercept the Su-24M2 in this LO-LO-HI attack profile if the Eurofighter take-off after land station radar alert.

The possible solutions are expensive for UK :
– AEW airplane 24/7;
– CAP of Eurofighter 24/7;
– frigate as radar picket;
– OTH radar at Falklands.

OK, I have to ask here, in your scenario, you have blatantly neglected the RN Frigate or Destroyer that patrols the waters around the Falklands and more importantly between Argentina and the Falklands, also the RN has the HMS Clyde permanently assigned ( at least until 2018) also capable of detecting any incoming Argentinian aircraft. the RN also may have at any one time a Trafalgar Class Nuclear Sub in the area as well… NOW any of such could detect an incoming Argentinian “raid”, far further away than your assumed 50 km’s out…leaving far more time for the Typhoons to scramble and then your SU – 24M2’s fly into a kill zone and everyone gets splashed…..so WHY leave them out?

OR, another neglected feature is that the UK are smart enough to have placed Rapier 2000 AA systems on the island…how many?…not sure…Where?..don;t know….but I do know that the Rapier systems have been upgraded, and the newer 2000 series has the DAGGER Radar as well as the Blindfire and Optical trackers…..why did you neglect to mention that your incoming Argentinian SU-24M2’s would also be facing AA missiles from said batteries?…they would in all likely hood also be fore warned of the approaching aircraft etc……again WHY?

And despite the fact that Argentina would like to imagine that their pilots are good and their equipment OK….reality is that they neither have SU – 24M2’s NOR are their pilots in any way equal to the RAF. Any A2G Missiles that Argentina might actually possess would be old designs and likely would need to be fired from well inside the defended radius of the islands….again necessitating the fact that any Argentinian aircraft assigned to such a foolish mission would be splashed, likely at 100% casualty rate.

Sitting here prophesising about what a Plane could do without looking at factors such as the RN, the AA Missile defenses, linked communications and generally a technological superiority of at LEAST a decade or more is literally ridiculous.

Bottom line, Argentina will NEVER get a plane or ship or troops anywhere close to the Falklands again. The Islands are certainly not going to be “surprised” like they where in 1982. And the current state of the Argentinian Military on a whole is no where NEAR what it was during the Junta. The Navy is falling apart and rusting away, the Army is ill equipped and ill trained, and the Air Force?…well it essentially has not improved at all since the 1982 war.

Lets look at things realistically, or at least try to include realistic features in your scenarios.

Here is just another simplistic theory to add…lets say that your SU -24 M2 Squadron does make a run at the Falklands….between the RAF EF’s and the AA Defense Missile batteries 5 – 6 of the SU-24’s get shot down……with the attack on the Falklands, the UK would in all likelihood declare a state of war against Argentina fairly rapidly this time around, as it would be a premeditated and deliberate attack. SO , that said, Comms being what they are nowadays, the RN’s Trafalgar Class sub sitting in the waters somewhere around Argentina get the flash to retaliate …the Cruise Missiles go in, and in a matter of minutes the Argentinian Military capabilities start to take serious depletion, from a hidden sub, and they would have NO means of defending from it nor engaging it. So, said SU-24’s may be able to return to their base only to get smashed in strikes against the airfield……so really, why are speculative scenarios played out without covering the bases?…

In NO way is Argentina ever going to win such a situation….the relations between Argentina and the US has declined substantially since the 1980’s, NATO is far more tightly knit with all the conflicts etc that they are cooperatively engaged in…..In all honesty, the UK may not be alone in dealing with another attack the second time around…..did you consider that?…..perhaps a US carrier group in the area would be a possibility?…then how does it play out?….

do you see what I am trying to say? speculating on the “abilities” of a plane are fine….but start into a specific scenario and it changes drastically….and in this particular case, likely the end result would be that Argentina suffers massive mainland strikes and losses, and who is going to interfere?….who are Argentina’s allies in this?…Russia?…not bloody likely, they have issues enough in their own backward…China, NOPE….

the thing iam trying to say is, you treat the future upgraded of other aircraft as if they have them right now, while you basically said anything F-35 will have doesnt exist! how many EF-2000 have AESA radar? how many kind of air to ground weapon it can carry compared to f-16 ?
if the other pod can be upgraded why cant they upgraded f-35 EOTS?, you basically treat any other aircraft as upgradeable but denied any future upgrade related to F-35?

Because the OTHER planes are already operational, their upgrades only make them better…WHILE they are in service….as for weapons?…the EF was designed as a FIGHTER, not a jack of all trades…yet it is coming along with introduction to their A2G roles with more an more weapons being accepted and tested…in the mean time, the RAF have the Tornado still…

The EOTS in a pod are plug and play……they are separate units……the EOTS that got slapped into the BUILT IN Fuselage of the F35, well, it isn;t quite so easy to get out and redesign for ONE type of aircraft alone…where as pods can be carried by everything….the big question is WHY did LM allow the EOTS in the F35 to become so outdated, even while THEY designed and built the new SNIPER ES’s?…….pretty stupid eh?…OR they will now turn around and say…sure we can upgrade it…it will be another two years and 50 billion dollars…..by the time the FIRST F35 Squadrons actually get Operational, I am convinced that the RAF fleet of Typhoon II’s will be upgraded with AESA and will still be OPERATIONAL……

The F 35 has a long way to go. Then again, LM produced some other “Really Great” ( Roll eyes) planes in the past too… ones that got NATO Nations pressured into buying…dandies like the F-104 Starfighters…..likely killed more pilots than most other types world wide….and NOT exactly a stellarly useful type neither…

1) ok let me explain it to you again : legacy fighter mostly rely on agility to survive again high level of threat, thus they also carry very little weapons if the threat is high because carry alot of weapon reduce their agility, they wouldn’t carry more weapon than F-35 when there alot of enemy fighter flying around, or alot of enemy SAM sites, when there is little threat then they can carry a lot of weapons,
F-35 rely on stealth and situation awareness to survive high level of threat, when the threat is high then you will need stealth and you have to carry weapon internally so only limited amount of weapon , when the threat is low you can carry weapon externally so can carry alot of bomb and missiles , do you understand now? , also the reason why F-35 can carry that much weapon is due to the fact that future weapon are very small, so can be carry on double rack such as BRU-57, BRU-69/A or quart rack suck as BRU-61 hence 1 pylon can carry 4 weapons
2) F-15 have very low wing loading + lack LERX so at low and medium altitude it will turn worse than an F-35, higher wing loading also mean F-35 have better roll rate! so yet it is more maneuver
3) SPEAR and SDB II are actually better than most weapon , they have multiple seeker so extremely
hard to jam or missed, they are small in size thus have low RCS, IR signature thus much harder to be detected or intercept, they can be carry in very large number thus allow aircraft to either attack many targets or overwhelming target defense, their range also pretty good around 100 km longer than most SAM can detect F-35, their only down side is small warhead , but unless you attack a bunker you wouldn’t really need big warhead!
4) no it not hope or anything like that! they are all been tested and develop now, it not just some make up story! you are talking like f-35 never gonna go operational

your concepts of what the F35 is “supposed” to be for and do is slanted….it’s NOT a FIGHTER, NOT an Interceptor etc…it;s supposed to be a STRIKE AIRCRAFT…therefore carrying weapons to STRIKE…a handful of little 250 lb bombs maybe wonderful for Terry Taliban driving on a flat desert in a pickup truck….sorry, NOT ENOUGH BANG to breach any defensive positions/bunkers or hardened redoubts..OK for anything but a Bunker?…do you have any idea on how explosives work?…even in WW2…250lb bombs were found to be incapable of causing enough damage…SDB, you do know that means SMALL DIAMETER BOMBS right?…not a missile?…..small and hard to intercept?…sure…still larger than a RPG 7 Round, yet those can be “Intercepted”, even from close range and at level trajectory…Systems such as TROPHY etc. will be adapted and developed to stop a SDB with in short effect I would imagine… ( see I can play FUTURE abilities too!) as for the MBDA SPEAR (Selective Precision Effects At Range )…it is a BRITISH , RAF requirement, it is NOT even developed for use by the Typhoons and / or Tornadoes yet…the F35 might get there eventually, it may . MAY be ready for initial deployment sometime after 2015….and NOT for the F35 for some time after that….

You just go on an on like all these weapons are actually fitted to the F35 and ready to go……I mean the SPEAR will in all honesty be developed and tested BY THE RAF, for THEIR F35’s long before the USAF gets around to testing it and maybe making it operational for the USAF ones.

So your F35 is going to flying alot of low and medium altitude missions?……I mean nothing like opening up the good ol’ Mark 1 eyeball for AA fire on them right?….nice that it can out turn an F15 at Low altitude, you do realize that there is far more to aerial military flying than turning right?….you say that the F35 can outclimb an F15?….out dive an F 15? what about at high altitude, you know where planes tend to play?….not down in the single and low double digits….

Funny, how there are NEVER conclusive reports from things like CAPABILITY FLYOFFS, say between an F 15 and the F35… or the F16 and the F35…never anything concrete, just a vague description by a few pilots… it’s sorta like flying a…. or almost like…..

I have no doubt that eventually the F35 will go “Operational”…there is no choice now….billions spent on it, Nations pressured and prodded into “buying ” it, everyone watching to see what happens…..it;s like a train wreck…horrible to watch, catastrophic results, but no one can look away. The USA can NEVER admit a flop, could NEVER stop the program now..not and maintain any integrity at all.

Jay,

the reason for using aircraft in Mali was speed of delivery. There were land routes from secure ports, & those routes were used to deliver much of the heavy equipment, & take away some of it when the force was reduced. A lot of French vehicles drove from Abidjan & Dakar, where they’d been delivered by ship), & indeed, much of it has already been withdrawn via Dakar. Also, some of the supplies flown in were consumables, & didn’t need to be shipped out because they’d been used up.

The French argument is that in that environment, A400M can deliver direct, while C-17s had to unload at airports distant from the area of operations & transfer their loads to C-130s & Transalls for delivery to where the fighting was. They’ve since used A400Ms to do exactly that, flying into remote airstrips in northern Mali, straight from France. C-130 & Transall can fly straight into them, but with much smaller loads, & take much longer, being slower & needing to refuel en route.

According to what they’ve said, they can do the same job with fewer aircraft with A400M than if they use a mixture of C-17 & smaller freighters, can’t do the same job with C-17 only, & would need at least four times as many C-130s as A400Ms to do it.

Of course, the C-17 can carry individual items (such as tanks) that an A400M can’t, but IIRC the French didn’t fly in anything that couldn’t have been carried in an A400M. I think that everything they flew in may have fitted in a C-130.

I’m pretty sure the UK will sell on the surplus C-130Js. I agree, they have enough life left in them (despite much heavier RAF use than expected when they were bought, because the Iraq & Afghanistan wars weren’t planned for) to make them attractive on the second hand market. The last I heard, there was talk of a few being kept for SAS use, so we may not get rid of them all.

C-17 load is roughly twice that of A400M, which is roughly twice that of C-130.

Thanks Swerve,

I thought I had read that some of the French wheeled armour was flown in by C17’s, but I may be wrong about that too….Yes, the C17 sure isn;t going to be landing on very short , rough forward strips as easily as C130’s or A400’s…..One stop fly in / out is better than multi phased for sure. Curious to see how the NATO / Partnership for Peace Nations do with the three……I guess only time and future events will dictate that answer though…Being such a large Military NATO Partner, and a fairly active one, I was just surprised that they didn;t feel the C17’s could fit in….I like what I have seen of the A400 Atlas…sure it will be a great plane in RAF and French service.

I do hope that the UK gets something back from the C130’s…a decent fleet of a good , capable plane to see go to waste….Yes, I could see maybe 2-3 being retained for SAS/SBS, SF use….

Curious here Swerve, is the C17 capable of landing at the Falkland Islands?…is that one of the uses etc.

Cheers