Know Your 'Rafale'

[Kshithij]

An F-35 can carry 4 AIM120 internally.

Yes, it can carry 4 AIM120 inside by sacrificing the A2G payload. Then F35 becomes a air superiority fighter. But with such poor maneuverability and such huge size, I wonder how will that fare. Last time an Israeli F35 was shot down by S200 in Syria!

 

[BON PLAN]

Exactly.
The most valuable is an ability to do one-time high G turns combined with long steady turns without significant energy losses.
But how can you do this on a plane with aerodynamics of a brick?

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

Nice !
Perfect !

You say in two sentences what I tried to explain since 20 posts.

Congrats.

 

[BON PLAN]

Last time an Israeli F35 was shot down by S200 in Syria!

It's not exactly the case.
It was a bird strike.

A S200 bird ....

 

[gadeshi]

It's not exactly the case.
It was a bird strike.

A S200 bird .... [emoji23][emoji23]

What to say...
If a multi-million plane gets engine blowback due to axial wind to its ass (sorry, nozzle ) and this sets it on fire on land...



Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

Just look at this turning demo even while the F-35 is still limited to 7gs under 3i software:


Take note the maneuvers at 0.05 and 2:52. It's extraordinary how the F-35's nose can be pointed tighter than the actual turn. This is what the Norwegian F-35 test pilot (a vertern of F-16) has been referring to. That F-35 easily points its nose at the F-16 in a turn.

I must say that this performance was embarrassing. It couldn't do a proper 180 degree turn at all. The Wing loading is too high and it is showing clearly. Simply moving here and there with slight turns is not good enough.

The nose was pointed up because the F35 was incapable of maneuvering well and the pilot had to ensure that the plane doesn't stall suddenly. The pilot was being cautious. No one uses maneuvers like these in combat. Even the famous Sukhoi cobra maneuver is never used. What matters is turn speed and low turn radius. F35 is lacking badly in it.

 

[Sancho]

If India decided to purchase Jets without Offset, the cost was reduced by 33%.

And we would get even less returns to our industry than the deal already offers, which only makes the it worse, than it already is.

So if we remove fixed costs we paid for India specific modifications and we don't insist on offsets, 18 more will cost us less than 2 billion... is that right assumption?

No, because the flyaway cost for each Rafale was around 91 million Euro => 102 million USD. Add the basic spares and logistics and you are still above 2 billion. But offsets are part of the DPP and can't be deleted, because these returns to our industry are vital.

 

[proud_indian]

But offsets are part of the DPP and can't be deleted, because these returns to our industry are vital.

But we can't always depend on offsets for ever. History suggest the offsets haven't been very beneficial for our companies and until they invest in the local R&D, We can't expect them to provide alternate to imports. All they are doing is filling their coffers at the expense of taxpayers.

 

[Sunstersun]

people are idiotic for repeating that s-200 nonsense.

why the fuck would israel send a brand new jet out into combat before IOC let alone FOC?

There is 0 evidence it was shot down.

seriously unless you're either a troll or a 50 iq person for believing in that shit.

 

[Sancho]

History suggest the offsets haven't been very beneficial for our companies and until they invest in the local R&D, We can't expect them to provide alternate to imports

That's not how it works, most privat players are not interested to invest in developments to provide our forces with arms and techs, because they are guided by profits. PSUs can't be like that, because they are under government control, they have to develop and produce, if it's profitable or not.

Now offsets are meant to divert "any kind" of jobs in return to our industry. That can be integration, maintenance and repair of the RBE AESA like DRAL will do, to production of parts like Tata does for Apache and Chinook. They don't care what job it is, as long as it's profitable. That however doesn't make then develop own radars or helicopters now, since it's only a job for them. But the more offsets will be returned, the more the companies will start to commit themselves to get better and at some point hopefully start own work too. You see the beginning with TATA, Kalyani and L&T, but they need a government that provides them with orders too and not just make marketing. TATA still waits for the C295 deal and could get a big deal with the SE MMRCA tender and already has committed themselves to the Kestrel, Kalyani just was disappointed with the cancellation of the SPIKE order and L&T is on the verge of own submarine R&D, we just need to give then the right deal know with P75I to grow for the future.

So we need offsets for sure, but we need to increase the quality of the returns and that's only possible with large scale deals like MMRCA, that sadly was canceled. A huge loss for India!

 

[BON PLAN]

No, because the flyaway cost for each Rafale was around 91 million Euro => 102 million USD. Add the basic spares and logistics and you are still above 2 billion. But offsets are part of the DPP and can't be deleted, because these returns to our industry are vital.

The 12 Rafale on option for Qatar are charged 1.1 billion €.

If you want more services, weapons, options.... you add money, as usual.

 

[BON PLAN]

people are idiotic for repeating that s-200 nonsense.

why the fuck would israel send a brand new jet out into combat before IOC let alone FOC?

There is 0 evidence it was shot down.

seriously unless you're either a troll or a 50 iq person for believing in that shit.

Of course you have evidence of the contrary !

 

[Sancho]

The 12 Rafale on option for Qatar are charged 1.1 billion €.

Qatar had an option clause, India doesn't.

 

[Armand2REP]

people are idiotic for repeating that s-200 nonsense.

why the fuck would israel send a brand new jet out into combat before IOC let alone FOC?

There is 0 evidence it was shot down.

seriously unless you're either a troll or a 50 iq person for believing in that shit.

No official ever claimed it was shot down. The evidence is Syria fired at a war plane over Lebanon and around the same time an Israeli F-35 suffers damage from "multiple bird strikes." What makes it suspicious is the IDF sitting on it for two weeks trying to confuse the timeline.

 

[Sunstersun]

Of course you have evidence of the contrary !

You can't prove a negative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

 

[CannonBalls]

Qatar had an option clause, India doesn't.

India has for 18 more aircrafts.

 

[Kshithij]

You can't prove a negative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

Nothing is happening is not default either. So, can't hide behind nothingness

 

[BON PLAN]

Qatar had an option clause, India doesn't.

It's just to give the price of the fighter, dry.

As all the fixed costs are nearly already paid (air bases, indigenization), the next Indian Rafale batch will cost far less than the first one.
ie : 90 to 95€ million each + offset (offset is an Indian choice) + some spares ....

 

[Armand2REP]

You can't prove a negative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

Israel could release pictures of its "bird strike" damage. It is a funny thing they refuse to do so.

 

[BON PLAN]

India has for 18 more aircrafts.

It's not clear.

But it's of no interest. If India need more fighter, the dry price of each will be in the same area than the first.

 

[BON PLAN]

Israel could release pictures of its "bird strike" damage. It is a funny thing they refuse to do so.

Interesting !

specially if the dammages are in the rear part of the frame....

But with the so impressive low speed caracteristics of the F35, a bird stricking the plane by the a** may occur