IAF Mirage 2000

[BON PLAN]

View attachment 39747
Mission reliability, Sortie rates, combat radius are all met with the required armament loadout.... What are you talking about?
Yes, F35 can 'supercruise'.. It uses afterburner to cross Mach 1 but can maintain a speed of Mach 1.2 for over 150 nautical miles with military thrust. This was cleared specifically by the USAF. Besides F135 engine is in its first iteration with 19 tons of thrust, and there's significant room for upgrade for increased thrust.

F35 can supercruise just for 20 minutes, in a slightly descent, and only after crossing mach1 with After burner. It's not that the super cruise ability.
Sortie rates ? We can have such a discussion after the FOC, in 4 or 5 years...
combat radius : revised from the begining promises.
Load : at least one model (B I think) can't reach the required load.

 

[BON PLAN]

That’s official price paid by USN to Boeing. Adios.

Impressive that such a low cost fighter solution only clinch two small export deals.... Bu as an average US citizen you are not surprised.

 

[BON PLAN]

F 35 has TWR is 1.13 - 1.16 using 40% internal fuel load which is still more than what most modern fighter jets can carry with 1 external fuel tank. Thus it is perfectly capable of supercruise.

In the process you trim the afterburner to ~ 0 KN during transonic flight and you will be able to supercruise at M 1.2 for 150 Km.

This is not the supercruise definition. LM own definition is ">mach 1.4" and probably not using the FAB before.

 

[Flying Dagger]

F 35 has TWR is 1.13 - 1.16 using 40% internal fuel load which is still more than what most modern fighter jets can carry with 1 external fuel tank. Thus it is perfectly capable of supercruise.

In the process you trim the afterburner to ~ 0 KN during transonic flight and you will be able to supercruise at M 1.2 for 150 Km.

Supercruise in short outbursts using after burner and then sustain it for a few seconds isn't technically supercruise period.

What is the weapon load with 40% fuel anyway ?

Supercruise isn't simple maths of T/W ratio either the inherent drag of the plane also plays a rule.

Modern fighters are generally 4th gen right now having one with a tanker hanging around and comparing with a 5th gen ( which is supposed to be supercruise ) already end the discussion.

Not to forget Navy and Marine F 35 are showing structural damage and RAM coating fall apart when they use after burners.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIERAN&usg=AOvVaw2HTxpwDFsgGPiCUdftN57Q

When they themselves deny it can supercruise how can you claim it bro ?

 

[Armand2REP]

What can $45 million per plane get you?
Now compare that to what India got for $40 million per plane for Mirage upgrade.. ($40 million in 2012 is $41.5 million today). That’s called ripoff.

That is the cost of having HAL do the upgrade. It only costs France $18 million when done at Dassault.

 

[Flying Dagger]

That is the cost of having HAL do the upgrade. It only costs France $18 million when done at Dassault.

Not true.
The cost of kit supplied for the upgrade itself is very high than 18 million Euro
French products do not have the advantage of economy of scale like USA got.

Infact for spare parts etc too we pay a lot in comparison to other jets we got.

 

[Armand2REP]

Not true.
The cost of kit supplied for the upgrade itself is very high than 18 million Euro
French products do not have the advantage of economy of scale like USA got.

Infact for spare parts etc too we pay a lot in comparison to other jets we got.

We paid less than $1 billion to upgrade 55, do the math.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Supercruise in short outbursts using after burner and then sustain it for a few seconds isn't technically supercruise period.

What is the weapon load with 40% fuel anyway ?

Supercruise isn't simple maths of T/W ratio either the inherent drag of the plane also plays a rule.

Modern fighters are generally 4th gen right now having one with a tanker hanging around and comparing with a 5th gen ( which is supposed to be supercruise ) already end the discussion.

Not to forget Navy and Marine F 35 are showing structural damage and RAM coating fall apart when they use after burners.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIERAN&usg=AOvVaw2HTxpwDFsgGPiCUdftN57Q

When they themselves deny it can supercruise how can you claim it bro ?

Thrust to weight ratio shows the amount of vertical thrust that could be brought upon in that scenario.

A simple Immelmann maneuver can be used to take to take a 'dip' to increase speed. That is greatly benefitted by the TWR.

Drag of airframes like F 35 are balanced by flat body lift design using chines and other wing body blending. Hence the shape of an F 35 is 'stubby' like a cigar.

Only planes which have TWR of 1.5-1.6 consistently can have a speed of M 1.5+ without afterburners. These are the Rafale, Eurofighter and F 22. In the future Su 57 may join these ranks.

F 35A has 1.13 as TWR. Thus it can sustain around M 1.2 when afterburners are ~ 0 KN for 150 km.

F 35A maneuvers like an F 16 in supersonic regimes and has far better acceleration and slow maneuvering capabilities than the F 18 SH. This puts it in the range of a non TVC Su 30.

F 35B and F 35C face higher transonic drag especially the C variant. The B variant is heavier due to the central lift fan and the C variant has bigger wings for carrier operations and heavier landing gear for catapult launches. Usage of a thermal coating has negated this. The occurrence of the issue happened only once for both the B and C variants.

Vice Adm. Mat Winter, who leads the F-35 program on behalf of the Pentagon, told Defense News that the department has taken steps to mitigate the problem with an improved spray-on coating, but added that the government will not completely fix it — instead accepting additional risk.

As justification for the decision, Winter noted that the issue was documented while the jet was flying at the very edge of its flight envelope. He also said the phenomenon only occurred once for both the B and C models, despite numerous attempts to replicate the conditions that caused the problem.

The new coating, which was introduced in Lot 8, allows the jet to withstand hotter temperatures caused by the afterburner, the documents stated. Winter characterized the material as able to withstand “what we call the thermal shock wave,” but declined to specify how the coating works or how much protection it provides.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...e-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/

 

[Bhurki]

Only planes which have TWR of 1.5-1.6 consistently can have a speed of M 1.5+ without afterburners. These are the Rafale, Eurofighter and F 22. In the future Su 57 may join these ranks.

The only way Rafale can have a T/W ratio of 1.5 is when its on the ground!
M88x2 dry-10 ton, wet-15 ton.
EW-10.7 tons
GW-15 tons(EW +4.7 ton fuel)
MTOW-25 tons( GW+10 ton payload)
In fact, in numbers Rafale is inferior to SH18. It is more like the F18 C/D

 

[Flying Dagger]

We paid less than $1 billion to upgrade 55, do the math.

You may have but we were charged more for the same.

 

[vampyrbladez]

The only way Rafale can have a T/W ratio of 1.5 is when its on the ground!
M88x2 dry-10 ton, wet-15 ton.
EW-10.7 tons
GW-15 tons(EW +4.7 ton fuel)
MTOW-25 tons( GW+10 ton payload)
In fact, in numbers Rafale is inferior to SH18. It is more like the F18 C/D

The F 18 C/D is superior in all respects to the F 18 SH aerodynamically except the slow manuevering profile.

Rafale has a near 1:1 weight when combat loaded with 100% fuel. At 50% fuel it achieves the 1:1.5 TWR. Check your numbers.....

 

[Armand2REP]

You may have but we were charged more for the same.

Because the work was done at HAL which charges more than twice as many man hours as Dassault for the same job. Not to mention Indian taxes vs tax free French state orders.

 

[Bhurki]

Rafale has a near 1:1 weight when combat loaded with 100% fuel. At 50% fuel it achieves the 1:1.5 TWR. Check your numbers.....

Empty weight is 10 tons.
Internal fuel is 4.7 tons.
Add them its 15 tons.
Total thrust is 15 tons.
Rafale has 1:1 only when it has 'No Combat Load' with 100% fuel..
My numbers are quite alright..

 

[BON PLAN]

Infact for spare parts etc too we pay a lot in comparison to other jets we got.

except Jagar and Hawk, you are fully equipped with russian fighter. I doubt their spare parts to be cheap.

 

[BON PLAN]

We paid less than $1 billion to upgrade 55, do the math.

withour radar, for the french M2000 D ....

 

[BON PLAN]

F 35A maneuvers like an F 16 in supersonic regimes and has far better acceleration and slow maneuvering capabilities than the F 18 SH

??? it was deeply beaten by a single seat F16 with 2 external tanks.

Better than SH18? maybe. SH18 is less impressive than legacy F18, as seen during this year swiss field tests.

https://militarymachine.com/f-35-vs-f-16/

 

[BON PLAN]

The only way Rafale can have a T/W ratio of 1.5 is when its on the ground!
M88x2 dry-10 ton, wet-15 ton.
EW-10.7 tons
GW-15 tons(EW +4.7 ton fuel)
MTOW-25 tons( GW+10 ton payload)
In fact, in numbers Rafale is inferior to SH18. It is more like the F18 C/D

empty weight of Rafale C, the single seater, is just less than 10 tons.
10.7 tons is nearly the M naval variant, with a massive undercarriage.

 

[Bhurki]

The F 18 C/D is superior in all respects to the F 18 SH aerodynamically except the slow manuevering profile.

I don't know where get you these internal assessments from.
I'm looking at plain raw numbers..
SuperHornet vs Hornet-
Carries more fuel ( 6.6 t vs 4.9 ton )
Carries more Armament ( 8.0t vs 6.4 t)
Has more thrust ( 20 tons vs 16 tons)
Has extra range ( 2300 km vs 2000 km)
Identical T/W at 50%fuel (1.12)

 

[BON PLAN]

In fact, in numbers Rafale is inferior to SH18. It is more like the F18 C/D

numbers....
in numbers EF 2000 is superior than Rafale. In facts Rafale is better mainly because its overall config is smarter (Delta + close coupled canards) and its aerodynamic better, specially at the air intakes level.

 

[Bhurki]

empty weight of Rafale C, the single seater, is just less than 10 tons.
10.7 tons is nearly the M naval variant, with a massive undercarriage.

My bad, i overquoted 700 kg ..
That doesn't change the fact that Rafale at 15 tons has lower thrust that that of old f18 Hornet (16 tons) and obviously Superhornet(20 tons)