Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
76
Canada

20e anniversaire du Mirage 2000-5

The French Ministry of the Armed Forces has made a statement in 2019 to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Mirage 2000-5. The following paragraph can be extracted from it:

Avec une envergure de plus de 9m, une vitesse maximale de 2,2 mach (soit environs 2717 km/h) et un monoréacteur, le Mirage 2000-5 constitue une évolution du Mirage 2000C. Il est le premier avion français à disposer de missiles MICA de type air-air et FOX 3.

Translation
And the American Pentagon has said many times that the F-35 is the most capable warplane of the 21st century and will be so even decades from now.

the logic is completely lacking for someone who is so smart

It's funny to see someone who doesn't know anything about it come and challenge well known performances with a reasoning like "the fact that prototypes have reached the performances you claim proves that production planes can't do it" and he does it in front of a former director of Dassault for the performances of Dassault planes. :ROFLMAO:
Its actually sad, and I mean this it is sad to watch someone with your pedigree fall into conspiracies and political accusations and other tinfoil nuttery, despite all that experience. Several times the F-35 has been shown to be superior to the Rafale, and people like yourself resort to silliness to explain it. Rafale simply is not up to F-35 level. The Swiss most recently showed it, and the Finnish will probably show the same again. You will go into denial and blame everything because the denial is simply too strong to believe the fact that the F-35 outperforms the Rafale both tactically and financially. I don't think you could actually admit to a single positive aspect of the F-35 that is not some kind of backhanded insult.


 
Last edited:

zinswinsin

Well-Known member
Dec 4, 2017
548
326
USA
1637112637394.png


Rafale fanbois about the F-35
 

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
378
187
Australia
Rafale costs at a minimum 2.1 billion US dollars more in the bid in Switzerland. It may be even more than that, we just know that the Swiss only disclosed the next lowest bid was 2.1 billion more but didn't disclose who 2nd place was

Behold the most circular logic yet

The indian's are saying they paid the same as the french airforce in 2016, of $105m plus the $55m that the Indians had to spend to get it worth using, so $160m flyaway. you would add 5 years inflation to that now. The rafale was about twice as expensive as a F-35 :)

2016 NDA Rafale deal breakdown:
-Unit cost (36 F3+* RafalesX$105m*) $3.8b
Weapons (including SCALP ALCM and METEOR BVRAAM) $1.2b
-Base costs (creating world class base level maintenance operations and state of the art climate controlled hardened air shelters) $2b
-IAF specific enhancements ** ( including improved hot an high performance, integration of Israeli systems and weapons) $2b
Total: approx. $9b (or €7.9b or Rs59,630 crore as we know the deal was valued at in 2016).
Notes
* an identical unit price to that paid by the French armed forces
** such costs are one off and will not be incurred for any future batches.
It should also be noted that the 2016 was for highly advanced versions of the Rafale (F3+) highly customised to operate in Indian conditions whereas the version being negotiated under the original MMRCA was the F2 version minus any Indian specific upgrades.
 

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,001
658
California
And the American Pentagon has said many times that the F-35 is the most capable warplane of the 21st century and will be so even decades from now.

the logic is completely lacking for someone who is so smart


Its actually sad, and I mean this it is sad to watch someone with your pedigree fall into conspiracies and political accusations and other tinfoil nuttery, despite all that experience. Several times the F-35 has been shown to be superior to the Rafale, and people like yourself resort to silliness to explain it. Rafale simply is not up to F-35 level. The Swiss most recently showed it, and the Finnish will probably show the same again. You will go into denial and blame everything because the denial is simply too strong to believe the fact that the F-35 outperforms the Rafale both tactically and financially. I don't think you could actually admit to a single positive aspect of the F-35 that is not some kind of backhanded insult.
tumblr_64e6f8b5e4c2b56a565a508abfa36356_af872261_500.gif

Rafale costs at a minimum 2.1 billion US dollars more in the bid in Switzerland. It may be even more than that, we just know that the Swiss only disclosed the next lowest bid was 2.1 billion more but didn't disclose who 2nd place was




Behold the most circular logic yet
I personally think, and likely be proven right, F-18E came in second.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
17,189
13,057
Mumbai
The rafale was about twice as expensive as a F-35 :)
Leaving aside the cost for erecting 2 bases & ISE requirements of the IAF, what's the quantity of F-35s produced till date as compared to the Rafales ? Does mass production play any role in lowering the cost/jet in your opinion & if yes , don't absolute numbers of F-35s churned out as compared to the Rafales play a role in significantly lowering the former's costs as compared to the latter.

Secondly how does what the F-35 cost come into the picture as far as India is concerned when neither was it on offer nor was the IAF interested in it & it certainly didn't evaluate it .

This isn't to say that the French are beyond probity . The massive cost over runs in their now aborted Sub deal with Australia which arguably played a big part in it's being scrapped has been well documented. I think a member from Norway has posted on how the French tried to pull a fast one when the Norwegians were evaluating their armaments ( subs?) & were promptly given the boot for their pains.

In stark contrast , the US is probably the most honest arms dealer one can ever hope to encounter .They go strictly by the book. Tanaka ( lord rest his soul ) would certainly have testified to the veracity of my claim as would a host of others.
 

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
378
187
Australia
Leaving aside the cost for erecting 2 bases & ISE requirements of the IAF, what's the quantity of F-35s produced till date as compared to the Rafales ? Does mass production play any role in lowering the cost/jet in your opinion & if yes , don't absolute numbers of F-35s churned out as compared to the Rafales play a role in significantly lowering the former's costs as compared to the latter.

Secondly how does what the F-35 cost come into the picture as far as India is concerned when neither was it on offer nor was the IAF interested in it & it certainly didn't evaluate it .

This isn't to say that the French are beyond probity . The massive cost over runs in their now aborted Sub deal with Australia which arguably played a big part in it's being scrapped has been well documented. I think a member from Norway has posted on how the French tried to pull a fast one when the Norwegians were evaluating their armaments ( subs?) & were promptly given the boot for their pains.

In stark contrast , the US is probably the most honest arms dealer one can ever hope to encounter .They go strictly by the book. Tanaka ( lord rest his soul ) would certainly have testified to the veracity of my claim as would a host of others.
I didn't add the $2b infrastructure cost. in my reference of $160m. It was made up of the 36 rafale at $3.8b and adding the enhancement costs of $2b, then dividing by 36. Which is $161.111 million.

Your point is right, that mass production and volume purchase. Has reduced the cost of the F-35 to under $80m.

How does what the F-35 cost come into the picture as far as India is concerned? It doesn't really, other than curiosity and to tease the French poster.

Their tantrum after Australia used the exit clause and didn't proceed to the next phase of detailed drawing plans, is over the top. It was still in the early stage, of initial drawing design.
The French weren't jacking up the price that much, and it may well have been valid. Although it was working out very expensive. The newspaper reports of A$90b is for inflation dollars. The A$50b was in 2017 constant dollars and stayed similar to the A$40b, what was originally given. we were concerned about more cost rises and money not being spent in Australia.

The US has to be transparent in their dealings. Or the group agreements like NATO, QUAD and AUKUS would fall apart. If it was found that one nation is secretly getting a better deal. Israel and Egypt are 2 that are getting separate funding aid, but it is open and everyone knows.
 

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
1,507
994
Delhi
The most amazing thing about Russians is they can keep re-inventing the same thing and some people just can't help but believe it. Back in the old days, before people decided that non stealth aircraft can be stealth with some new paint and a little RAM on the front these kinds of claims were actually laughable.
Russians are even more pathetic now. They have literally become cheap salesmen and merchandise sellers. This is the state of Russian weapons manufacturing right now
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RISING SUN

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,144
10,631
India
The F-22 was under serious political fire thanks to American adventures in Iraq, if the F-15s performed to capacity then there is no need for F-22-- optimist is right. The US never publishes losing results unless they want something. F-22 was a highly political lightning rod from nearly start to finish. troops were getting killed by IEDs while the USAF was getting hundred million dollar plus super fighters to fight an enemy that collapsed 15 years prior. it was a terrible look

Literally no one can be convinced by anything using scripted exercises.

The Indo-US exercises had rules constraining the employment of each others' most advanced tactics and technologies. India had even used the monkey model of the Su-30, with the K designation, instead of the latest Su-30MKI, not even the slightly better MK was used. The other jets were older M2000 and Mig-29 that date back to the 80s, and were upgraded only a decade later. Their best radar ranges were around 50-60Km. Our most advanced jet in the fight was the Mig-21 Bison, and it was this jet that earned the most amount of praise. It was the only modern-BVR capable jet the IAF used in the exercise against the Americans. The most advanced jets in the fight were the F-15s of course.

And it was these ancient jets that India used to beat the F-15s. No one's gonna make any conclusions about the fight using such an exercise.

I love Russian stuff as much as the next guy, they are beautiful looking flying machines, but I am under no illusions about their capability. and the monkey model excuse is not only old, tired and pathetic, but also self defeating. The internet needed an excuse and the monkey model thing which I saw introduced decades before the collapse of the USSR has become the main excuse. Other popular excuses included blaming the operators. these aircraft just are not great mysteries anymore. When its actual real shooting wars, and not games or exercises, the US takes no chances and we see terribly lopsided kill ratios.

Er... Monkey models are a real thing. It's not an excuse. The SU version of their jets were completely different from what were exported. The radars were different, most jets didn't have an EW suite, the IRST was a generation behind. The Syrian and Iraqi tanks and jets were a generation behind their parent versions. This isn't even some secret, it's open source news. The first time their most advanced aircraft tech was ever exported was to India, in 2002.


The existence of monkey models was revealed by a Soviet defector to the West. He pointed out that Western armour suffered because they were making their technologies suitable to beat export Soviet models.

Some text:
"The `monkey-model' is a weapon which has been simplified in every conceivable way and which is intended for production in wartime only.

For instance, the T-62 tank is one of the simplest fighting vehicles in the world. But as it was being designed, a still simpler version was also being developed, for wartime use. The `monkey-model' of the T-62 does not have a stabilised gun, carries simplified radio and optical equipment, the night-vision equipment uses an infra-red light source to illuminate targets (a method which is twenty years old), the gun is raised and turned manually, steel rather than wolfram or uranium is used for the armour-plating piercing caps of its shells."


The Iraqi T-72 tanks that the Americans fought in 1991 were so bad that even with direct hits on the Abrams, they couldn't penetrate the armour. The reason being the Soviets only exported steel-based APFSDS instead of tungsten, let alone DU. Even though the gun was decent enough, the ammo was too weak to be used in a modern war.

Soviet tech was only suitable for third world countries to fight each other. They had three tiers of weapons. The first was used by themselves. The second was exported to Warsaw Pact countries. The third was exported to everyone else. The best part is the first tier is still unknown. The West only has access to the second and third tiers even today. It's actually why the Russians are open to exporting the S-400 to the US, their own version is different from the export version.

A monkey model along the lines of the SU was proposed for the F-16 by Jimmy Carter as well, where the F100/110 was replaced by an outdated J79. Regan killed it.

The Idea that as the USSR Super Power collapsed, funding dried up, and Russian aircraft started to suddenly excel in areas that take money and lots of research, that they traditionally always suffered in thanks to magic, is simply unbelievable. There is a cohort of people like yourself who then invent the most bombastic claims that fly in the face reality.

Not at all. The Soviets simply did not export their prime technologies, so nobody knew about them until after the 90s. Their best jet exported was a monkey model of the Mig-29, which didn't even use the same engine as the SU did. Their second best jet was merely a 3rd gen Mig-23 family, alongside the Su-24. Otoh, the collapse of the SU opened up the export of both the modernised Mig-29 and of course the Flanker.

The modernised Mig-29 was significantly superior to the older SU model, which the SU had forbidden for exports. It added additional fuel, removed hydraulics in favour of FBW, a new engine, reduced RCS etc. They changed the aircraft completely. All the weakness the Western pilots had identified in the older Mig-29, were more than sufficiently fixed in the Mig-29M version. Imagine, cost of operation has since dropped by 80% compared to the original.

Take the Mig-21 for example. Only India operates the most advanced version and it has an engine that increases its thrust by 30% during combat, over its standard AB thrust. From 70KN, it climbs to well over 90KN, only the Indian version. So, while the standard export variant had a TWR of 1, the Indian version could be boosted to more than 1.3. The export of this tech wouldn't have been possible under the SU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: suryakiran

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,144
10,631
India

“No use in talking about F-35’s high flight-hour costs. According to calculations of the 132nd Air Wing of the Royal Norwegian Air Force, the flight-hour cost of F-35 is NOK 110,000 (EUR 11,000) including personnel, maintenance and fuel costs, not much different from the F-16."

Obviously makes sense. Longer life of the engine helps a lot in reducing costs. It will be lower than the cost of TEs. The new F414 is even cheaper than the F135.
The indian's are saying they paid the same as the french airforce in 2016, of $105m plus the $55m that the Indians had to spend to get it worth using, so $160m flyaway. you would add 5 years inflation to that now. The rafale was about twice as expensive as a F-35 :)

2016 NDA Rafale deal breakdown:
-Unit cost (36 F3+* RafalesX$105m*) $3.8b
Weapons (including SCALP ALCM and METEOR BVRAAM) $1.2b
-Base costs (creating world class base level maintenance operations and state of the art climate controlled hardened air shelters) $2b
-IAF specific enhancements ** ( including improved hot an high performance, integration of Israeli systems and weapons) $2b
Total: approx. $9b (or €7.9b or Rs59,630 crore as we know the deal was valued at in 2016).
Notes
* an identical unit price to that paid by the French armed forces
** such costs are one off and will not be incurred for any future batches.
It should also be noted that the 2016 was for highly advanced versions of the Rafale (F3+) highly customised to operate in Indian conditions whereas the version being negotiated under the original MMRCA was the F2 version minus any Indian specific upgrades.

The F-35's definitely cheaper than the Rafale to buy and operate. Especially so with the weaker dollar.
 

suryakiran

Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
838
1,062
Bangalore
@Optimist

Would there be a difference if availability was brought into the picture?
a. For example, how many hours does the F-35 need to be maintained for every flying hour?
b. What would that number be for the Rafale?
c. How many planes would be required to maintain the same sortie rate over a period of 20 days. For the Rafale, and F-35.
d. What would be the cost now for maintaining the fleet?

Will be interesting to see this.

Now, with specific Indian problems. Both the F-16 and F-18 failed the Leh trials. Afaik, the Rafale and Typhoon cleared them. The cost of enhancing the F-35 for Leh, if it were ever offered would be far greater than the cost of the Rafale. I could be mistaken. The delay also would be greater.

The countries where the F-35 has been successful; operate either under the American umbrella or have understandings with the US of defence assistance in case of need. And here comes the critical part. India does not expect defence protection, but spare parts assurance. I do not believe, India still trusts the Americas for anything of this sort. The same is not true for Israel, France and Russia.

The reply to this by observers normally is, 'Oh they charge a scandalous amount for the same!'. Well yes they do, but they deliver. With the Americans and Germans, the threat of sanctions and some bill preaching human rights can appear out of nowhere.

So let us forget India. The requirements are different. The threat perception is different. The dependence on the Americans will be for intelligence and inputs, while the actual fighting is done by us.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,144
10,631
India
@Optimist

Would there be a difference if availability was brought into the picture?
a. For example, how many hours does the F-35 need to be maintained for every flying hour?
b. What would that number be for the Rafale?
c. How many planes would be required to maintain the same sortie rate over a period of 20 days. For the Rafale, and F-35.
d. What would be the cost now for maintaining the fleet?

Will be interesting to see this.

The thing about the F-35 is everything important is hidden, everything unimportant is bandied about and everything secret is either under/overestimated depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,144
10,631
India
I'm not the only one with doubts

It's like the Rafale doubts in India. The court's gonna give it a clean chit in the end.

The thing about the F-35 is all the stuff that's been promised is expected late into the decade, and the only argument against it, ie, of it not yet being operationally ready, will be "solved" by the time it enters service in the Swiss AF, so it's a "non-issue". Legally, the Swiss will have followed the process correctly, no different from what India did, so the court can't rule against the F-35 at this time.
 

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
378
187
Australia
@Optimist

Would there be a difference if availability was brought into the picture?
a. For example, how many hours does the F-35 need to be maintained for every flying hour?
b. What would that number be for the Rafale?
c. How many planes would be required to maintain the same sortie rate over a period of 20 days. For the Rafale, and F-35.
d. What would be the cost now for maintaining the fleet?

Will be interesting to see this.

Now, with specific Indian problems. Both the F-16 and F-18 failed the Leh trials. Afaik, the Rafale and Typhoon cleared them. The cost of enhancing the F-35 for Leh, if it were ever offered would be far greater than the cost of the Rafale. I could be mistaken. The delay also would be greater.

The countries where the F-35 has been successful; operate either under the American umbrella or have understandings with the US of defence assistance in case of need. And here comes the critical part. India does not expect defence protection, but spare parts assurance. I do not believe, India still trusts the Americas for anything of this sort. The same is not true for Israel, France and Russia.

The reply to this by observers normally is, 'Oh they charge a scandalous amount for the same!'. Well yes they do, but they deliver. With the Americans and Germans, the threat of sanctions and some bill preaching human rights can appear out of nowhere.

So let us forget India. The requirements are different. The threat perception is different. The dependence on the Americans will be for intelligence and inputs, while the actual fighting is done by us.

It is an ongoing issue for all air forces.
The F35a is doing better now, but still needs improving to get to 80%. These is for 2020 and the current numbers
Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis directed the Air Force to reach an 80 percent MC rate on its F-15, F-16, and F-35
1637155803808.png
 

suryakiran

Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
838
1,062
Bangalore
It is an ongoing issue for all air forces.
The F35a is doing better now, but still needs improving to get to 80%. These is for 2020 and the current numbers
Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis directed the Air Force to reach an 80 percent MC rate on its F-15, F-16, and F-35
View attachment 21882
Hi,

Would mission capable rate be the same as man hours for maintenance for every flying hour. This is what I was referring to. And based on this how many planes would be required and then calculations need to be done.

If its the same, then great! Apologies for not making my query clear.

@Picdelamirand-oil how many maintenance hours per flying hour for the Rafale?
 

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
378
187
Australia
Hi,

Would mission capable rate be the same as man hours for maintenance for every flying hour. This is what I was referring to. And based on this how many planes would be required and then calculations need to be done.

If its the same, then great! Apologies for not making my query clear.

@Picdelamirand-oil how many maintenance hours per flying hour for the Rafale?
This has some more info
"In fact, the number of maintenance hours per flight hour on legacy fighters is a multiple of what F-35A is demonstrating today. The Air Force’s stated requirement for F-35A is no more than nine hours and the actual is five hours, making it the most easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet."

France isn't doing well with 55% of it fleet available.
Another point of attention is the availability of planes. If it tends to improve, it remains "perfectible" according to Mr. Ferrara. “Taking into account the issues related to the engine and the level of operational support [NSO], the operational technical availability [DTO] of the Rafale [air and navy] reached 55.8% in the first half of 2021, against 50.4% in 2020 ", which remains" to be put into perspective "given that the" current rate appears very close to that observed in 2018 [55.7%],
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: suryakiran