VnomadHad Rafale/Typhoon cost the same as the F-35 (they do not) there will still be a capability gap, in particular between Typhoon and F-35. The capability gap between Rafale F4.2 and the F-35 will be much smaller, but nevertheless there will still be a gap, add to that the higher cost of the Rafale, and the lack of US integrated weapons, and it becomes a no-brainer for a US-oriented Finland.
I doubt that. According the programme director (AFM, Jul 2017), the Rafale F4 will feature upgrades to its radar, EW system, comms & weapons and enter service around 2025. No airframe modification or thrust upgrade is envisaged. In the same time-frame, the F-35 will be available in the Block 4.4 configuration i.e. with the second hardware upgrade (the first being rolled out around 2022). So the capability gap might well end up widening by the next iteration.
VnomadI think the model for Typhoon has to be RAF post 2020- Meteor, full A2G and burgeoning EW capabilities, not some random guesstimate based on the Swiss evaluation years and years ago. Typhoon backed by UK experience and development and funded by the Gulf States is not Typhoon in Luftwaffe service (or out of service more like).
The USAF F35 is not the same beast that lower tire operators will have access to, so comparing F35 with Typhoon with no qualification is disingenuous.
:sigh:
Just when you think the myth-making has been put to rest, it pops right back up.
FYI –
Pentagon F-35 chief blasts Boeing comments
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
PARIS, June 16 (Reuters) – The head of the Pentagon’s F-35 fighter program blasted on Tuesday what he called Boeing Co’s (BA.N) inappropriate marketing of a new F-15 fighter model with radar-evading capabilities that it is marketing as an alternative to the Lockheed Martin Corp-built (LMT.N) F-35.
Brigadier Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer for the F-35, said Boeing was free to market its F-15 “Silent Eagle” plane, but rejected a claim by Boeing executives that Washington was selling a “dumbed down” version of the F-35 to international partners.
“I state categorically that I am not doing a different variant of aircraft for my international partners today,” Heinz told Reuters in an interview at the Paris Air Show.
He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.
Vnomad^ what!? thats awful. he should come back as Berkut 2
Berkut 2.0 Pirozhki.
VnomadUnlikely to be a 320, and even more a P-8 base platform, IMHO.
I bet on a Falcon platform, as it was just selected to be the next SIGINT aircraft.
Lol. That’ll be popular with the Germans. French design, manufactured in France, equipped with what will inevitably be mostly French mission systems. The German Navy may as well cut out the complication and go with the in-service P-8.
If Germans are to participate, the least they can expect is a Franco-German platform i.e. an Airbus; the A318, if fuel savings are the paramount concern.
VnomadThe requirements don’t exist in a vacuum. They need to be weighed against the cost of the system, something that can only be done when the final bids are in.
If, at that point, they concluded that the Rafale (while skewing closest to the RFP) was too expensive, then settling for the Gripen would have been perfectly sensible. Nothing political about it.
The military would have been stupid to dig in its heels and insist on the Rafale, despite knowing that the aircraft would be a harder sell to the public and perhaps financially unviable for the subsequent Hornet replacement.
VnomadKidding?
Not necessarily. It’s known, for example, that the Brazilian AF favored the Gripen over the more capable Rafale and SH.
A cheaper aircraft makes it easier to get follow-on orders sanctioned by the beancounters. And for smaller airforces in benign environments, the fear of downsizing can outweigh concerns about a narrower mission profile.
Vnomad• URF (minus the engine) estimate of the F-35A dropped from $67.7 Million (2012) to $67.6 Million, that of the F-35B increased from $77.1 Million to $77.4 Million and that of the F-35C increased from $78.1 To $78.7
The URF estimate of the CTOL engine remain unchanged, that of the STOVL system went from $26.7 Million to $26.8, while that of the CV went from $11 Million to $11.1 Million. All in 2012 dollars.
Interesting. That works out to a combined URF of $78.7 mil (2012) which adjusted for inflation is about $85 mil.
VnomadWell Eurocanard fuel fractions are comparable once you load them up with 3 tanks each – 1250 l for the Rafale (0.42), 1000 l for Gripen (0.4) and EF (0.39). Rough numbers, F-35 is 0.38.
But I agree only the Rafale can offer a significant advantage, when using the fat tanks. OK for CAP, not so much for interceptions.
0.39 for the F-35A but the lower interference drag should translate into a significantly higher combat radius than the Rafale & EF.
But even if they’re oversized, they’re not optimized for max. range/endurance. And I doubt F-35 wings fall into that category. I once compared wing area without fuselage area as used in reference wing area. F-35A wing is about 24.5 sqm – F-16 20.5 sqm. So to have comparable wing loadings at empty weight, you’d need an F-16 at 11 tons… not even the latest twin seat Viper with CFTs and spine can offer that (yet… I think…).
You’re missing his point. The wings are not optimized for max. range/endurance because they’re oversized due to maneuverability concerns. Beyond the optimum lift/drag point, increasing the wing area results in a lower aspect ratio (for the same wingspan), greater friction drag, and therefore lower range/endurance.
VnomadMalaysia and Taiwan operate US fighters too and they don’t have a military alliance. The F-35 is in a different category as per state dept.
The US DoD has no apprehensions about selling to Switzerland or Finland. Both states, unlike Malaysia & Taiwan, are geopolitically stable and predictable. Neither of them has been asked to enter into a military alliance as a prerequisite to acquiring the F-35.
VnomadNeutral European countries: Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Ireland.
Clearly the Gripen is a natural and the most appropriate choice for Switzerland. There isn’t one neural non aligned country that is getting F-35’s. If the Swiss wanted to stick to this long held tradition, then they shouldn’t but the F-35. Because buying F-35’s is a defacto military alliance with the USA.
FYI Ireland doesn’t operate fighters, Austria’s not (seriously) pursuing any, Sweden has a domestic industry to cater to, and the so very neutral Swiss and Finns have been operating an American fighter type for about two decades now.
Also, while Saab has the pole position in Switzerland, the F-35 is widely considered the front runner in the Finnish competition.
VnomadNot entirely true, what we have seen in recent export deals on the Rafale is that a portion of the development costs are baked into the contract on a per unit basis. Each Rafale is costing India roughly 103 million USD (Rs 670 crore in 2016 value) without equipment, weapons, or India specific mods (like HMS).
That’s a sly bit of figure massaging by the Indian MoD; releasing the erstwhile rupee figure instead of the current value (~Rs 750 crore).
The contract was negotiated in 2015-16 and denominated in Euros. The €92-94 mil flyaway cost at the current exchange rate is actually around $115 mil.
VnomadContrary to the unofficial stories in the western defense media, the last official disclosure coming from official sources was one of progress on the FGFA.
F-35 to India would be yet another F-35/S-400 combination conflict. Russia would probably get India in on the S-500 too.
India requires a 2 seater. Lockheed will never build a 2 seater F-35.
India requires build licensing for 5th gen products.
^ I don’t recall seeing anything about the 2 seater requirement being off.
Russia agreed to the demand of the Indian Air force that it must be a two-seater fighter.[58] The Indian version will be a two-seater that will, “accommodate one pilot and a co-pilot who will function as a weapon systems operator (WSO).”[38]
There have been no official disclosures about the state of the FGFA acquisitions in the recent past.
You haven’t heard about it recent because the decision was made back in 2012 and the conversation on online fora and elsewhere has moved on.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has decided the number of Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFAs) at 144, down from an earlier estimate of about 200.
Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne told India Strategic in an interview on IAF’s 80th Anniversary that all these aircraft would be single seaters, the same which the Russian Air Force will have but some components like onboard computers and systems would be different as in the case of SU 30 MKIs.
Now designated PMF, or Perspective Multirole Fighter by Russia, the Indian aircraft would be made in India with Russian assistance, he said adding that discussions with the Russian Government are already on.
– Gulshan Luthra, Oct 2012
India had initially pitched for 166 single-seat and 48 twin-seat fighters, but the IAF now plans to stick with single-cockpit fighters to reduce costs and protect stealth features.
– Jay Menon, Oct 2013
Painfully aware of the issues associated with the development of the FGFA, the IAF in 2012 pared down its requirement to just 144 single seat fighters from the earlier requirement of 166 twin-seaters and 48 single seat versions. Previously the IAF had wanted twin-seaters in keeping with its air superiority doctrine of having two pilots on-board with one serving as a dedicated weapons systems operator – a doctrine that it has evolved through its experience with the Su-30MKI.
But in the case of the FGFA it seems that there is an appreciable loss in terms of stealthiness arising from a larger radar cross section (RCS) for the two-seater configuration. There are also accompanying payload and combat radius penalties. These factors when taken together with the rising costs of development mean that the two-seater version does not make that much sense anymore.
– Saurav Jha, Mar 2014
VnomadLast time i checked, Russia is open only in Barent Sea and far-East Well North of Japan(Black Sea too, but its kind of constricted there).
So if you want to do a Strike elsewhere, then you most likely are going to launch the Kinzhal over lots of Land area. Reports state a range of 2000km..
Well if we say 1200km i think its Fair, launched from High flying Mig-31.
The exchange was in the context of soyuz1917’s post about the missile being a “carrier-killer” (scroll up to post #5114). If we’re talking about conventional targets – again.. ballistic missiles are capable of attacking them too.
VnomadI’m not sure we are on the same page here..
the kind of manuvereing we are talking about here, is as i said only small course corrections in the start and mid-flight phase. And that is not for taking any evasing manuever against any incoming anti-air missiles.
The flight like I said is similar to a MaRV – course corrections and such without any significant terminal stage maneuvering.
Its before that.. its about manuvere around those Ani-air missile sphere’s.
Assuming we’re talking about attacking a Aegis-type naval target/flotilla/fleet I don’t believe its possible to go around the anti-air missile sphere.
VnomadIts not about manueuvering hard. It doesn’t have to. Some minor course correction is enough going at that speed.
That also what a MaRV deployed by a (DF-21 type) ballistic missile does. The principle remains the same as does the likely response vector (SM-2ER/SM-3).
Very different from the kind of end-stage jinxing that a conventional (throttleable) air-breathing missile engages in.
Sign In
