Nomad, please take your unsubstantiated BS to another thread. There is no solid evidence about F-35 systems being superior in any way.

Ah.. so now even the fact that the F-35 has better sub-systems than the older-by-a-decade SH is ‘unsubstantiated BS’. I suppose next you’ll be saying that baseline F-16 may have featured comparable avionics, in the absence of ‘solid evidence’.

Or they could just retire them from 2020-2025 and replace with Tejas/Mk. 2.

Even today that still might be the best course of action.

That probably how it’ll go. There was a MiG-27 upgrade planned as well IIRC (incl. re-engining with AL-31s), which was formally scrapped when they realised it just wasn’t worth the effort and expense.

Ok lets say 120m… including ToT, training, facilities, initial spare parts etc. Check cost of other deals including 100% or so ToT…

$120 mil not including ToT, training, facilities. Initial spares might be included though. After factoring all the rest, the cost is upwards of $160 mil.

I’m torn on the notion of the U.S./NATO shouldn’t have purchased the F-35. In my opinion, besides being a scam to make a whole bunch of companies money courtesy of the taxpayer, I’m not sure the F-35 is needed. From what I read about the aircraft, it really isn’t what the designers cracked it up to be. I do agree that something is needed, but I am not sure the F-35 is it. I don’t believe that the F-35 is a replacement for the A-10 based on pure capability. It seems as if all of these air arms put their eggs in the F-35 basket and it the product is not all it is cracked up to be.

In light of recent Chinese and Russian advances, spelling out a requirement for a fifth gen aircraft was wise. The F-22 ran on proprietary software and couldn’t be navalized. So a new fifth gen design was required. The USMC had a fleet of AV-8Bs needing replacement, so a STOVL capability was required to standardization and to reduce costs through higher economies. So the design needed a STOVL variant. (And the F-35B’s export prospects are shaping up to be excellent.) It needed to be able to carry a standoff strike weapon internally, so deeper weapons bays were necessary.

In the end, the program over-promised (cheaper than the SH, IOC in ten years flat), and it was badly mismanaged for a long while but for the most part it has delivered what could reasonably be expected.

(The A-10 is also being replaced by the F-16, F-15E, B1B in the CAS role. The days of low level gun attacks are coming to an end. Even the A-10 uses the AGM-65 as its primary air-to-ground weapon rather than the main gun.)

I think I have heard the word “will” pronounced too many times where F-35 is concerned. Too often the words “will not” would have proved to be far more appropriate.

The current flyaway cost is $108 mil. The target flyaway cost is $85 mil. Hardly an epic quest. Especially considering that the cost has been consistently been falling by about 4% every year, even before the production has been ramped up.

You think that with India drawing off Rafale components at a greatly increased rate the cost of components would not fall? If the supply chain is going to perhaps double its output over a number of years, why should Rafale defy basic economic laws of economy of scale? Even if no Rafales were built for France in coming years, unless India spreads Rafale procurement over more than 10 years, component production rates will have to rise.

Production at HAL will gather pace only after 2020, when the Merignac line will be the process of closing. The supply chain isn’t going to significantly increase its output; with some production moving to India it’ll likely fall.

PS Better a rider to that: IF the Indian deal goes through

A more apt example of ‘will/will-not’.

Rafale is able to supercruise with four missiles and a 1,250-liter belly drop tank. It is also able to sustain M1.4 on military setting (w/o A/B) while carrying six AAMs. I think that reaching M1.4+ with driop tanks on afterburner setting is definitely doable.

Has it ever publicly demonstrated supercruise? I know the F-22 and Eurofighter have (the latter in Singapore and Switzerland).

9

1/ one may answer sevral things, first, tomorrow (27th december 2014) you have an interception mission and two fighters on the line, an F-35 and another fighter in service today (ok, forget also NK’s Mig15s).. say anything that flew after 1960… you order scramble, what happens?

Any F-35 flying an interception tomorrow will have been ordered in 2011 or earlier, and (for an export customer) selected in 2010 or earlier. The debate on the thread, by and large has been with reference countries ordering an aircraft tomorrow (or in the coming years).

the F-35 stays there and does nothing: IT IS NOT FINISHED, NOT CLEARED TO FIRE ANYTHING ON ANYONE
the other guy goes up and does the job

You didn’t feel any similar compunctions while talking up the Rafale’s omni-role capabilities in the earlier years, despite the fact that it only got the capability to self-designate targets in 2010-11.

that’s why I say that TODAY, it isn’t superior to anything operational

Semantics. The F-35s flying today aren’t relevant to most customers, who’ll be factoring in a Block 3i if not a Block 3F configuration at IOC. Unless the whole program goes under (which nobody aside from Mike Currill is predicting), those existence of those capabilities is not in doubt.

it just gets tiring how hopsalot and Cie always say it’s superior to this or that, even if it can’t do anything useful. what it may eventually be able to do somewhere in the future (nobody can tell exactly when, unless you take the promises for granted) is one thing, but saying “it’s the only option because it is superior” (read “now”) is nonsense (and I stay polite)

The timeline for the software blocks is in some dispute. Maybe it’ll get delayed, four months, six months, whatever. That the 3F configuration will get delivered, is not in dispute.

Anybody puts the treshold where he considers it the most appropriate for the mission they want to do (and that’s probably the main problem most air forces will encounter with the F-35, as it’s developed for the US, who want a first day striker and let others do the air superiority job (F/A-18 for the Navy and F15/22 for the USAF), while most airforces will need an air to air platform most of the time… obviously, the treshold they’d look for can’t be the same as the one that USN/USAF look for… but it’s the US PoV that is the one to be aimed for

The USAF will be replacing the F-15C with the F-35A. Neither the Super Hornet nor the F-15E are dedicated air superiority aircraft. The F-22 fleet stands at a mere 187 units.

The F-35’s role remains analogous to the F-16 (and Rafale). The F-16 was used for air superiority by some (Italy, Pakistan) and strike by others (Greece, Israel). Its the same case with the F-35.

My take on this is that it dominates exercises because all missile shots within certain parameters are considered kills.

Same applies to missile shots taken against the F-22. So the loss-exchange ratio isn’t significantly impacted.

Not the same as real world engagements. It is telling that all planes that came up against the F-22 where fired upon before they got the plane in their sensor range, and it is somewhat telling also that we have heard nothing about adversaries with IRST yet.

The F-22 and F-35 will continue to have the first shot advantage regardless of the missile’s Pk. The F-22 has gone up against IRST equipped aircraft (like the Su-30MKMs for example). If we’ve heard nothing, its most probably because there’s nothing to tell. Fact is, for most head-on engagements the range for the average IRST system barely pushes into the BVR regime.

any way.. merry xmas to all.

And a very merry Christmas to you to.