Know Your 'Rafale'

[undeadmyrmidon]

M1.2 on a slight descent (it's why it's only possible for 150km, after it hits the ground).

LM supercruise definition : more than Mach 1.5 without reheat. It's what LM said... not me.

a EU supercruiser definition? and why not a mach 1 EU definition ?

So you admit it supercruises! Rather contradictory statement. Anything past M 1 with no AB is supercruise.

 

[Armand2REP]

Lol in your fantasy maybe, but that's it! You can't deny a direct interview and quotes of the DM that negotiated the Rafale deal, just because you don't like it.

According to you he negotiated the "Rafael" deal. That is what it says. There is plenty of sources confirming the option for 18.

"While the agreement has an option clause for 18 more Rafales"
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-09-23/india-finally-confirms-rafale-deal

"More aircraft will indeed be required, but it is difficult to say whether the additional requirement will be met by acquiring the same aircraft, except maybe another 18 under the option clause."
https://www.defensenews.com/global/...-deal-with-france-for-36-rafale-fighter-jets/

“Even if India exercises its option to purchase more Rafale aircraft"
https://thewire.in/68202/rafale-deal-emblematic-modi-trying-fix-indias-defence-industry/

"Even if the IAF exercises an option clause for 18 more Rafales"
http://www.rediff.com/news/column/f...ld-ruin-modi-and-parrikars-party/20160923.htm

"un haut fonctionnaire indien aurait confié à Bloomberg que les deux parties sont tombés d'accord sur une option d'achat de 18 chasseurs supplémentaires."
https://www.usinenouvelle.com/artic...18-rafale-supplementaires-54-au-total.N373424

Do I need to continue? There are dozens more...

 

[Sancho]

If really DA made such deadlock, India's top brass were fool to choose it after all. But we all know that's it's not the case.

Not if the aim was still provided IAF with the minimum capability for strategic missions, as the government claims (debatable imo though). Even if the deal as a whole was bad, it then still had a purpose for IAF and a lot of PR for the government.

This DM was forced to negotiate positively because the PM decide to.
He dedided nothing, just press the price (with success).
Because he was forced to ink this deal, he said the minimum and negate the option because it was not his own choice.

Finally you said something true, but even if he didn't decided the deal, he lead the contract negotiations and therfore is the most qualified source to know if there was an option clause or not. So if he states "clearly" there is no option, it gets difficult to prove the opposite, that's why @Armand2REP is desperately pointing to a typo in the article, because he can't disprove the content.

 

[Armand2REP]

Not if the aim was still provided IAF with the minimum capability for strategic missions, as the government claims (debatable imo though). Even if the deal as a whole was bad, it then still had a purpose for IAF and a lot of PR for the government.




Finally you said something true, but even if he didn't decided the deal, he lead the contract negotiations and therfore is the most qualified source to know if there was an option clause or not. So if he states "clearly" there is no option, it gets difficult to prove the opposite, that's why @Armand2REP is desperately pointing to a typo in the article, because he can't disprove the content.

Modi went to Paris and made a fool of Parikkar and he spent the next two years disparaging the Rafale at every turn even going as far as saying that the LCA was the equal of Rafale. So I really don't have to accept his interpretation of events he was not even a part of. He signed the paper as a function of his office and then resigned that office in disgrace. The option exists but he never intended to exercise it. Fortunately it was never his decision to make.

 

[Sancho]

Do I need to continue?

Lol of course, till you find an official source at the same level as Parrikar and not just media reports, because there several media reports confirming no option clause as well, which however are not at as official as Parrikar of course.

Surprisingly, the contract for 36 fighters has no “options clause”. This means the Indian Air Force (IAF) must operate just two squadrons of this new fighter — the seventh type in the IAF inventory — or negotiate afresh for additional Rafales.

http://wap.business-standard.com/ar...al-for-36-rafale-fighters-116092301019_1.html

The Sept. 23 contract between India and France has no optional clause for additional fighters, which would mean any additional purchases would have to be negotiated with a fresh price,
the source added.

However, Amit Cowshish, a former financial adviser for the MoD, said the "absence of [an] option[al] clause does not rule out the possibility of acquiring more of the same aircraft," adding that "even a separate contract can be negotiated at the same price."

https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...ditional-rafale-fighter-jets-mod-source-says/

Defence sources have made it clear that the deal for 36 Rafale jets does not come with an option clause. This means that more orders will come only through fresh talks.

https://www.google.de/amp/www.livem...mp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=googleamp

 

[Sancho]

Modi went to Paris and made a fool of Parikkar and he spent the next two years disparaging the Rafale at every turn even going as far as saying that the LCA was the equal of Rafale. So I really don't have to accept his interpretation of events he was not even a part of. He signed the paper as a function of his office and then resigned that office in disgrace. The option exists but he never intended to exercise it. Fortunately it was never his decision to make.

And there is the problem that you miss, Modi only made the announcement of the deal in 2015, but it was Parrikar who negotiated the contract and all it's clauses for 1 year. So an option clause was not included or deleted in Paris, but after that.
Not to mention that I highly doubt you were part of the negotiation or the talks in Paris, which means I take Parrikars statement as clearly more reliable than your opinion.

P.S. But I agree on the Part about Modi making a fool of Parrikar in Paris.

 

[gadeshi]

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20559

One post on fanboy forum without proofs from nobody?
Is it your evidence?

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[BON PLAN]

There are multiple videos showing F 35 as a highly maneuverable and agile fighter posted in the past few pages. 9G is great for it unless the pilot plans to wear a space suit.

Watch it again, you will see that it can only make 90° sharp turn, maybe 100°, not more. It degrades too much its energy by doing so.
after every sherp maneuver, it need to flight straight away to recover energy.
The frame is too big and unaerodynamic.

 

[BON PLAN]

Not if the aim was still provided IAF with the minimum capability for strategic missions, as the government claims (debatable imo though). Even if the deal as a whole was bad, it then still had a purpose for IAF and a lot of PR for the government.




Finally you said something true, but even if he didn't decided the deal, he lead the contract negotiations and therfore is the most qualified source to know if there was an option clause or not. So if he states "clearly" there is no option, it gets difficult to prove the opposite, that's why @Armand2REP is desperately pointing to a typo in the article, because he can't disprove the content.

Don't worry.
You are right.
Next batch will be 36 planes !

 

[Kshithij]

There are multiple videos showing F 35 as a highly maneuverable and agile fighter posted in the past few pages. 9G is great for it unless the pilot plans to wear a space suit.

The maneuvering is not sustained for decent amount of time. It is one instant turn of 9G and then loss of energy

 

[WolfPack86]

Rafale fighter aircraft.

 

[WolfPack86]

When will we order additional 90 Rafale fighter aircraft its 2018 now.

 

[Kshithij]

So you admit it supercruises! Rather contradictory statement. Anything past M 1 with no AB is supercruise.

Supercruise requires flat trajectory. Descent speed can't be considered as "cruise" speed. No, F35 can't supercruise. It can go "supersonic" without after burner while descent but not supercruise.

This is what @BON PLAN meant. If you ask me, he is right

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

Supercruise requires flat trajectory. Descent speed can't be considered as "cruise" speed. No, F35 can't supercruise. It can go "supersonic" without after burner while descent but not supercruise.

This is what @BON PLAN meant. If you ask me, he is right

Anything above M1 without AB IS Supercruise. Even Su 35 struggles to touch this number.

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

Watch it again, you will see that it can only make 90° sharp turn, maybe 100°, not more. It degrades too much its energy by doing so.
after every sherp maneuver, it need to flight straight away to recover energy.
The frame is too big and unaerodynamic.

Watch the video it simply zooms and recovers airspeed. F 16 + F 18SH.

 

[Kshithij]

Anything above M1 without AB IS Supercruise. Even Su 35 struggles to touch this number.

Supersonic is not supercruise. You are not understanding the definition of the word "cruise". If it is descending, it is not cruising. Period. F35 while cruising has max velocity at 0.9mach without afterburner

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

Supersonic is not supercruise. You are not understanding the definition of the word "cruise". If it is descending, it is not cruising. Period. F35 while cruising has max velocity at 0.9mach without afterburner

Then the source and magazine are fools? I trust the magazine more than back hand geometry.

 

[Sancho]

Don't worry.
You are right.
Next batch will be 36 planes !

Well you better hope for a naval deal, because that is the only way to get more Rafale orders in India. IAF already made it clear, that their priority is the SE MMRCA and not more Rafales "at the moment" and GoI stated, they want no further Rafales at all.
The media is also pointing on the failure of GoI's Make in India marketing so far, which makes another off the shelf procurement even more difficult.
So unless IN selects Rafale and a joint order leads to a production line in India, the chances for more Rafales are quite low at this point.

 

[asianobserve]

This is one of the most BS pearls I've ever heard from you
Please continue

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

You need to remove "BS" from your English vocabulary for it applies more to you than other people you want to shame... :bs:

The USAF says that AGM-158B JASSM-ER will eventually be integrated with as very similar plane set: B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, B-52 Stratofortress, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Falcon (Block 25+), F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and F-35A-C Lightning II.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.co...ds-family-of-stealthy-cruise-missiles-014343/

 

[asianobserve]

Hey, Siri, How Do You Fly An F-35?

http://aviationweek.com/defense/hey...m=email&elq2=9da0305590ec4cb79b1126708f222e66

Please, ask Siri how the Fat F35 can reach 9G !

Looks like France needs more these kind of proposed training, more on simulators, since France can hardly afford to make 50% of its military planes in flying condition...