Aviation Week gives some details of the “S 300” cannisters — it seems that they are made from oildrums welded together :p:p:p. In the proud tradition of “stealth plane”, “stealth boat”… stealth brains… http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aa372acc3-9c93-418f-b183-b084ed33837d&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest They are # 1 clowns…
________
Digital volcano
So weapon system cost of the F35 is lower that it’s flyaway cost? Intersting 😀
You mixed-up the numbers.
Also, these figures are for the present customers: USAF/USN/USMC + 8 foreign partnes. However, since the F 35 will spell the end of W European A/C industry, a prudent estimation of ~ 4000 F 35 means that the price will go down.
Are you comparing total program cost of the Rafale with an estimated flyaway cost of the F35? Am I seriously supposed to reply to this kind of arguments? :confused:
Nic
Nope, weapon system cost, not flyaway…
The more you are going to add weapons externally the shorter the range. If you add 6 tons of weapons to your beloved F35 the range will be cut dramatically from the 700NM maximum on internal fuel. Its exactly the same thing as removing external tanks from the Rafale to add weapons instead.
Nic
Then, if in stealth mode, the F 35 has more chances to penetrate modern IADS and in a COIN scenario, both the Rafle anf F 35 can carry the same load, what AFs around the world will prefer: the 150 mil $ rafale or the 90 mil. $ F 35?
Just so it is understood that LM doesn’t bet it all on “stealth” to penetrate air defence, they are betting subsonic acceleration is going to save F-35 when “stealth” doesn’t.
“Stealth doesn’t make you invisible, but smaller”
Putting words in peoples mouths is extremely unpolite, and I would add that it proves that you are unable to adress my points. Otherwise you wouldn’t need to invent points to reply to.
What I said was:
With appropriate flight profiles and stand off armament I’m quite confident that the Rafale can take on seriously defended foes.
Nic
And I questioned this, unless we are talking about COIN. I wans’t rude.
Stop trolling
It’s not trolling. Now, if you say that a Rafale has more chances than F 35 to penetrate a IADS-defended space, excuse me , but you are trolling.
It could carry a billion tons for all I care, what counts is the combat radius at a similar payload.
F-35A:600 NM/1,100 km (AIM-120*2 + 2,000 Ib JDAM*2) as per toan’s figures is definately nothing spectacular for a plane that flies “clean” and that carries that much fuel!
Nic
This figure is for stealth mode (weapon inside weapon bay). We were talking about an Ass-crapistan scenario. Again, the F 35 can carry ~ 8 ton of weapons and 8.3 ton of fuel. The 9 ton of the rafale should be divided between weapon/ext. fuel.
A nice pic of the SG
________
Romanian Cooking
BS to say the least. With appropriate flight profiles and stand off armament I’m quite confident that the Rafale can take on seriously defended foes.
Yes, if the defender will shot at you with an AK 47, an 100 years old Lee Enfield or throw a rock…
Wrong, the Rafale can carry 9,5 tons of payload. I’m not a nobel prize in maths, but it seems to me that it’s superior to 8,7 tons.
No, because even a Rafale fanboy won’t claim that aside the 9 t , the Rafale will be able to carry 8.3 ton of fuel :diablo: Because an F 35 will …
Maybe, not yet achieved. But Mach 1.67 is production standard 240-3.:rolleyes:
That’s AA1 . Now the AF1 is flying.
er, do you mean that your performance benchmark is a fighter model that flew back in 1980?
A CLEAN FIGHER !!! It’s hard to understand, it seems…
solid sol-air defense? you mean like one that was simulated in the UAE exercises where rafale did just fine?
Did fine? Like detecting the radars? :p And was there any S 300 in UAE? Because I’m not aware of…
And nationalism/fanboysm aside, which one dio you think would be better of in a strong SAM environment? An F 35 or a Rafale ?
Its not because the loads are carried internally that they have no hit on performance. They still weight quite a bit. And for a comparable payload the rafale would need only two middle wing hardpoints, while carrying the same AtoA load on the wing tips only with minimal drag penalty, and twice the load if you want to use the fuselage poins, which also have minimal drag penalty.
A F35 can’t even carry internally the loadout that the Rafale carry in Afghanistan!
Nic
But that’s the point !
A Rafale can carry whatever payload makes you happy only in a Afgansitan-like war! Try this over a solid sol-air defense.
And in F 35 case, to the 2,7 ton (internally/stealthy) you should add ~ 6 tons, in an COIN configuration. Wich is still > rafale.