I agree with your assessment of the F-35 in a deep strike mission! Yet, I disagree about the Weapons Pylons and AAM’s. As a matter of fact even the AMRAAM has a big impact on performance when carried externally! So, my example the Rafale would carry several similar missiles plus the pylons themselves!

The Rafale is so draggy that it can only go at M0.9 at 50% power setting with 2 x 2000L tanks and 6 AASMs.

Nic

There is no HARD DATA about the following range figures

– Combat Radius of the F-35 with 2 x 600 Gallon Fuel tanks
– Combat Radius of the F-35 with CFT’s

We’ll see if CFT can be added. Is there any provision in the design to add them at all? How would they impact on the stealth characteristics & coatings when you remove them or of they stay on the plane for so long? How would they impact stealth? Most planes with CFTs carry them permanently or close.

Both of these products have been announced by the IDF which has identified industry developers who will develop such systems for them. Since the USAF and other partners do not need added range (yet) from the F-35 they will stick with the smaller 426 Gallon tanks which have been developed but will be integrated at a later date. If and when the Users decide they need greater range, they could either ask their local industry to develop some or use the ones that have already been developed for the F-35I’s.

One could say that if the IDF has such requests, it means that they are not too confident about the range of the F35. Also, why would they want to compromise stealth to add range? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

The problem comes when you have to go on deep strike missions where you have S400+ IADS equiped with very sophisticated Pop up threats…There you would want to A) Preserve your most favourable RCS (Again, this thread is full of analysis on how Rafale has so many RCS reduction features incorporated into its design) B) Have performance to perform against pop up threats …. Carrying extra fuel in tanks (2-3 rather large tanks) and carrying A2G ordinance does spike your RCS and also provides performance limitations.

So you’re suggesting that sending clean F35s with internal weapons is how you would attack targets defended by S400+ IADS? Cruise missiles & X47 is how you would go. You’d never send a swarm of clean F35s to do that, provided it even has the range to go, which is far from certain if it isn’t carrying external fuel.

If you feel confident enough to sit in a clean F35 and fly at medium alt through S400+ defenses, then be my guest. I’d rather send Scalp EG missiles & Neuron stealth drones remotely targeted by two seater Rafales to take the defenses out first. Then nap of the earth flying & stand off strike with AASM from beyond the radar horizon for the less defended targets.

The only advantage the F35 has over any 4.5 gen fighter is something to enable it to do something nobody in his right mind would ask him to do and for which there are plenty of more efficient ways. X47s are being developped just for that. That’s also the role of stealthy cruise missiles.

But you don’t mind doubling the price of your main fighter and trade off a big chunk of its capabilities just to enable it to do something that would be better done by other assets & that would represent less than 1% of its lifetime missions. Wise!

Thats where the F-35 scores, With the ability to carry quite a very good A2G load (with 2 protective BVR weapons/WVR as well with BlkII Aim-9x) of 2 x 2000 Lb, More SDB’s, 2 JSOW’s/JSM’s etc etc…The F-35 can do complex misions against tough A2AD forces at very cometitive ranges while still retaining stealth and performance.

& costing you twice what you should be spending on your main “affordable” fighter aircraft, and which could be better spend elsewhere (for instance on platforms dedicated especially to tackle tough A2AD forces)

Nic

No, they evaluated Rafales and decided to chose Gripens.

False.

The Swiss air force evaluated, wanted and recommended to buy the Rafale. Swiss politicians told them to make do with the Gripen NG.

Nic

Like I said, EFT’s have not been tested on the F-35, CFT’s and EFT’s will come in the future…Therefore you are not making an apples to apples comparison…I ask again, what is the Combat Radius of the Rafale in a configuration that preserves its RCS (Recessed A2G Weapons, internal fuel etc )?

The Rafale is designed to fly below radar horizon & strike from there with AASM or SCALP/ASMP-A. Its weapon are designed to be able to engage targets from a distance that allows it to remain below radar horizon at any time (100 ft high means radar horizon of just above 10 km, which is about the range of AASM 250. AASM 125 would provide even more range if we ever got them).

Knowing that, it’s sillyy to ask what the range of the plane is in a configuration that another plane has been designed for. Do you really think that the AdlA or MN are going to use the Rafale in the way the F35 is going to be used?

The only relevant information one should consider is to what distance the fighter can strike a sensitive target without being detected. Be it by remaining below radar horizon and using SPECTRA to avoid the most dangerous areas, or by flying straight to it at medium or high altitude hoping stealth actually works as advertised.

Nic

We could still have taken over the secret nazi base in antarctica and base a whole mirage squadron and a C135 detachment there.

Maybe we would find flying saucers we could use too.

Nic

Agreed on the first part. The Mirage 2000 upgrade on the other hand on basis of most available information includes an avionics upgrade to keep it relevant till 2030, but does not involve any refurbishment of the airframe.

The proposal is to upgrade all 51 aircraft to extend their operational life and update their capability. The ‘cardinal points’ of the proposal include: no airframe modifications, no changes to major aircraft systems, no modification to equipment bays, limited cockpit modifications, minimum retrofit line modification facilities/activities, and, most significantly, it does not cover the cost of supply of weapons. (Link).

Wrong:

From this link:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/indias-fighter-upgrades-mirage-2000s-next-02891/

There’s also some grumbling about the short service life that would be left in some airframes after the upgrades are done, based on the promises in the 1982 contract and the quoted 9-year time frame for the work. The more relevant figure, however, is expected flight hours after the upgrade, which may include airframe refurbishment. The general expectation in published reports is about 20-25 years, or about 6,000 – 7,500 more flying hours, but this has not been explicitly broken down in reports we’ve seen.

From this link:

http://info-aviation.com/?p=9799

Since you probably don’t read french:

“un surplus de 6000 à 7500 heures” = “with an extra 6000 to 7500 hours”

How you guys expect to extend the service life of a plane that has very few flight hours left by 20-25 years without overhauling it is beyond me.

Nic

Well MiG-35 will cost even more to operate so whatever commonalities exist better make up for it big time,
Rafale is destined to have longer lasting engines, with less demand on maintenance, while consuming less fuel.
From an operational standpoint, that translate to better availability and sortie rate.
ed: on a 2nd thought, MiG-35 cost significantly less in purchase cost, so money wise it does work out,
so the primary objective may be western tech transfer

One thing that people often forget is also airframe hours. It was oft forgotten in the comparison between the Mirage 2000 & Mig 29 upgrade in the IAF, and it turned out the Mirage 2000 had more than twice the service life of the Mig 29. Which means for the same amount of hours you had to buy more than twice the number of Mig 29s.

Nic