VnomadSo is the F414 a modular engine?
VnomadBtw…
not guessing anything Vnomad when quoting you.
You sure? Really sure? Really really sure?
VnomadSensitivity translated in range and very low RCS tracking. source? Christian Venot, program head, 3AF conference, Oct 12th 2016, Le Haillan. Of course, you can believe me-or not- (i guess you won’t, but i was there, not you).
Is Mr Venot is very well acquainted with the ‘sensitivity’ of the APG-79? How so?
I do not think F414 can be dismounted, one part (module) changed, be mounted back and cleared for ops without further testing. I don’t know about its modularity and auto diagnosis, but i do not think it is designed so (conversely EJ200 and M88 are). Feel free to show me wrong. Btw, you are the one that started that talking about “last call improvisations” without anything to assess….
Are you guessing or do you know this for a fact?
You know that I started the talk about ‘last call improvisations’ for a fact, or are you guessing it was me?
VnomadPretty much all of the issues with the helmet have been identified, we’ve got a path forward and it looks like we’re headed in the right direction. From my perspective, the helmet is.. I wouldn’t say its a success yet. It looks like its going to be a success. I really enjoy flying with it. Its very different flying with the Helmet Mounted Display, even with experience in the F-18 using the JHMCS. Its a very different concept to not have that Heads Up Display. It took me about 50 hours to really dial myself in to be able to use that system. But now I absolutely love it.
– LCDR Michael Burks, USN
San Diego 2014
VnomadI do not really care about “conventinal wisdom”. Some modes are still lacking on RBE2 AESA (will come with F3R standard, but pilots and Thalès ppl are adamant about it. They expected similar performances, but in the end (due to UMS modules) performances are way above apg79 (sensitivity etc.)
Please share your sources.
“sensitivity etc.” – what’s included under etc besides sensitivity? Also, what metric is sensitivity measured by?
LRU modules. And autodiagnostic of modules btw. So no MTBF… No ground retest after dismounting engine and changing one module. Much simpler maintenance.
And this is not something the F414’s IECMS is capable of according to you?
VnomadF-18 E/F aerodynamic issues explain its pityful range (considering its size) and the need for CFTs. You are contradicting yourself comparing a “fleet wide” paperplane (ASH) with a reliable, efficient design (Rafale). Not to s&y about superior data fusion and SA, embedded ECM suite, superior aerodynamics, better radar (better modules and signal treatment), longer range and persistance, modular architecture, modular engines, better missiles, Grandad (F-18) was certainly good workhorse, but not as gifted as Rafale.
Eh? Better aerodynamics, sure. Better ECM suite? Quite likely vis a vis the baseline SH. But better radar? First time I’m hearing of this argument. Conventional wisdom pretty much skews the other way.
VnomadYes I know Canada is a program Partner.
Which obviously is too much for some People in here, as they now order SH. How dare them!!?Seeing people trying their best to cast doubt about any urgency on behalf of Canada fighter procurement is sad. Like people in here know more and better than anyone in Canada’s defense Department and Airforce.
Are we really pretending this isn’t Trudeau’s attempt to weasel out of his promise to hold an open competition, by making an executive decision and deferring the real one to the next govt?
No doubt someone in ‘Canada’s defense Department’ has explained to him, just how much egg he’d have on his face, if he directed the RCAF to run an open competition and publicly release their assessment.
Because FYI, this is the RCAF’s actual position –
I truly believe, given the mandate that we have now, the F-35 is, from all airplanes that are available, is the best airplane that’s out there
.
.
In the end, I’m a military guy. I’m going to salute and carry on with orders and the equipment the government judges adequate.– Lt. Gen. Yvan Blondin, RCAF Chief (2012-2015)
VnomadIsraeli cabinet approves additional F-35 purchase
http://defense-watch.com/2016/11/27/israeli-cabinet-approves-additional-f-35-purchase/
Israel is due to receive a specially modified F-35A designated as the F-35I. The jet will feature unique Israeli characteristics such as electronic warfare systems, sensors and countermeasures and a main computer that will have a plug-and-play feature to allow add-on Israeli electronics to be used.
The F-35I will also feature an external jamming pod, and new Israeli air-to-air missiles and guided bombs in the internal weapon bays.
Introducing standoff jamming capability. Most likely Elta L-8251, though the Rafael SkyShield is also a possibility.
Other F-35 operators will also probably have the opportunity to invest in the Israeli solution.
VnomadYour figures do not mention MiG-27. Have these been retired already? Additionally, if ~240 x MiG-21 are going to be retired between now and 2022, that’s ~12 squadrons rather than 3 or 4 isn’t it? According to Wiki IAF has 34 squadrons of fighters including 245 x MiG-21 and 87 x MiG-27. I don’t understand how IAF will have 30 fighter squadrons in 2022 if 16 of the current 34 are retiring in the next 5 years and replacements are 2 x Tejas squadrons and 2 x Rafale squadrons and 2/3 x Su30MKI squadrons. To me 34-16+6/7 does not make 30. What have I got wrong?
That’s my account of the force structure in 2022. That’s why the MiG-27 has been excluded and the Rafale & Tejas included.
The Bisons were originally scheduled to be retired by 2022, but that’s extendable to 2025. I’m guessing 2 sqs. will persist past 2022 and be replaced by the Tejas Mk1A by 2024. Unless the MoD seals a deal for a new Western type, in which case they might be retired by 2022-23.
As to the last point, I wouldn’t take Wikipedia figures at face value. The MiG-21 figures for one seem like total rubbish, or perhaps just outdated. The MiG-27UPGs constitute 4 sqds, maybe less (I’m not sure about the retirement schedule).
VnomadNearing the end of 2016, it is reported that IAF has 34 fighter squadrons and that a large number of fighters are due to be retired within the next 5 years (16 squadrons), Without replacements, squadron strength would thus fall to 18 squadrons, about half today’s strength.
What replacements are planned for delivery in the next 5 years?
.
.
.
So, with 34 active squadrons late 2016, 16 scheduled for retirement and 6-7 to be delivered up to 2022, IAF squadron strength is set to drop to 24/25 squadrons by 2022 unless more aircraft are ordered/delivered. By all accounts that number of fighter squadrons would be insufficient for IAF to maintain a minimum capability.
You may want to check your figures again. This is the sq strength of the IAF based on known/confirmed orders.
Su-30 x 14 sq.
Jaguar x 6 sq.
Mirage x 3 sq.
MiG-29 x 3 sq.
Rafale x 2 sq.
Tejas x 2 sq.
________________
Total = 30 sq.
Plus MiG-21 Bison x 3-4 sq. (to be replaced by Tejas Mk1A.)
So the IAF’s strength in 2022 should be a minimum of 32 squadrons.
This is NOT counting whatever comes out of the project for a single engined western fighter. Also, doesn’t count any follow-on orders for the Su-30MKI (currently scheduled to run till 2019). By most accounts, the sq. strength in 2022 will most likely be higher than the current 34 squadrons.
VnomadThe offers were performed outside of the scope of the running competition and were meant to revert the MMRCA decision and let Indians go for direct purchase of the F-35, instead. As much as you’d love to twist it, you can’t say the F-35 was never offered to India.. It was, and several times on top of all that..
A semantic argument that is meaningless when applied to the actual issue – Eurocanards losing out to the F-35 on the export market. The F-35 couldn’t meet the ToT requirements of a (later cancelled) program.
You could use the same argument to claim that the Rafale ‘beat’ the F-35 out in Qatar & Egypt, since the F-35 was unable to meet the ‘must-be-for-available-for-sale’ criteria.
The mentioned 5% for export customers might be applicable on what LockMart charges to US DoD within the framework of the FMS deal but it’s not necessarily what the final recipient is paying.
The final recipient/export customer pays what the US DoD pays for the flyaway aircraft. Plus a 4.7% service charge.
Yep, these are all export cost and should only be compared to F-35’s export flyaway cost, at best within the same competition adhering identical requirements. Only then it’s apples to apples..
Flyaway cost of one aircraft compared to the flyaway cost of another. Apples-to-apples. ‘Requirements’ have little to do with the flyaway cost of an off-the-shelf product. The hardware diff. b/w a standard & customized aircraft is minimal (just the HMS & towed decoy in the IAF’s case… <$1m).
VnomadShould the Brits have accepted the Rafale design?
Folks comparing the two Eurocanard programs directly are missing the wood for the trees. Whether by chance or by design, the choices made by the Brits have resulted in nothing short of splendid outcomes for them.
Q. Why did the French withdraw from the FEFA program?
A. (i) Design leadership (ii) Workshare. They wanted to preserve full spectrum design capabilities and protect/foster the domestic industry. Both reasonable objectives.
As a result, for better or worse, the EF became a UK-driven program.
– The airframe evolved out of the BAE EAP.
– The engine evolved out of the Rolls Royce XG-40.
– The radar was based on the Ferranti Blue Vixen.
– The EW system was a GEC-Marconi led program.
– MAWS, decoys, HMS and many other critical sub-systems were BAE designs.
The EF program was mismanaged and ended up costing nearly twice as much as the Rafale. But the UK had to contribute only a third of that while retaining cross-spectrum core competencies. At the same time, it managed to retain the lion-share of exports too – 84 out of 127 export EFs will come from the Warton line. Another Saudi order (+48) will push production comfortably into the 2020s.
Meanwhile, its industrial fortunes were secured through a $4 bn investment in the JSF program, as a result of which 15% by value of every F-35 will be produced in the UK. Even if the effective figure is closer to 10% in practice, its still a brilliant outcome given that the aircraft is scheduled to remain in production well past 2030.
Plus, of course, it bolstered RAF/RN capabilities matrix with a new stealthy option.
VnomadThey have been offered the F-35 twice..
Unless they were willing to offer it within the terms of the MMRCA contract i.e. ToT & local production (you think?) the ‘offers’ were just small talk (or bait), nothing else.
Wrong.. it’s $78 million unit recurring flyaway in FY2018 dollars.. the corresponding price of the F-35C is ~$130 million (don’t remember which FY).
The corresponding price for the F-35A for the same year is about $90-95 mil. Add in an additional 5% for export customers. The F-35C isn’t relevant to anybody but the USN.
The notion that the F-35 is cheaper than Rafale is pure myth spread by some individuals who love to compare US flyaway cost for the Pig with export program of Rafales for Qatar, incl. weapons and support for 30 years.. :stupid:
Flyaway cost for an export Rafale – $96 mil (C) & $100 mil (B). Figures from the Indian sale, not the Qatari one. Nobody AFAIK has compared the $300 mil acquisition for the latter with the F-35’s flyaway cost.
VnomadFlyaway cost for whom? USAF? Comparing export deal for India with domestic flyaway cost is not what I call directly comparable..
Flyaway cost through the DSCA involves a cost increase of 4.7% over the base price (assuming R&D costs are waived… which is the case in any competition).
Flyaway cost for a US NAVY F/A-18E was $55mil few years ago.. How does that translate to the Kuwaiti deal who shall now pay over $10bil for 32+8 aircraft?
What is the production rate of the SH today vs ‘few years ago’? What sort of support deal are the Kuwaitis looking for? How much of the maintenance are they willing to, or rather.. capable of doing locally?
Oh yes, this again..
1. It was 40 vs. 60
2. Those few millions saved on flyaway are desperately lost in the myriad of various support and infrastructure cost.
3. As much as I would like to take this as a fair point, lion share of follow-on deals is more expensive than the original ones. Don’t know why, TBH.
1. No it wasn’t. Unless it was coincidence that the new number was exactly enough to equip two full squadrons. No more, no less. Not 43, not 47 not 49. Exactly 40.
2. If you have corresponding figures for the Gripen’s support & infrastructure cost, do share.
3. Inflation + upgrades. All else being equal, an existing type will always been cheaper to induct.
VnomadNo you don’t. You know flyaway cost from Senate numbers. Compare apples to apples please. I already linked them to you several times.
Let me rephrase that – we know the flyaway cost of an export Rafale. Corresponding numbers for the French state may be lower (do re-post the link if you can though).
Sign In
