The French Rafale Fighter Aircraft

[rjmaz1]

F-35 critical mach should be BELOW M 0.80 and that's a (quiet) generous estimate, meaning red-lined at M 0.95 DRY simply because the drag coefiscient nearly doubles between M 0.8 and M 1.0 and is <> equal at M 0.9 and 1.35 and that the engine doesn't have the poke to maintain it further up the Mach scale, hence L-M stament..

Notice how you said the drag co-effecient is equal at Mach 0.9 and Mach 1.35. To cruise at mach 1.1 would actually be consuming more fuel per minute than at mach 1.3. So at Mach 1.3 the aircraft will travel quicker using less fuel resulting in a longer range in a shorter period of time.

This is why Lockheed Martin's definition of supercruise is above Mach 1.2-1.4 as this is the speed at which the drag co-effecient has come back down again. The transonic region is not an effecient speed to cruise at, that is why Lockheed martin defines supercruise as being able to fly faster than the transonic region with dry thrust.

Based on this definition the F-35 will definitely not supercruise at mach 1.2-1.4. Lockheed martin not once has said the F-35 will not be able to reach Mach 1 with dry thrust.

Will it be able to hit Mach 1 at dry thrust? You think it will stop at mach 0.95, i think it will hit mach 1. Neither of us have evidence to back up our estimates.

Even the almighty F-22 doesn't supercruise above the transonic region during its mission. It simply doesn't have the fuel fraction to sustain it, not to mention it has to slow down to subsonic speeds to refuel. Some fans of the F-22 believe that it travels at Mach 1.6 for the entire mission so it can have a higher sortie rate. The USAF experience so far shows to get the longest range out of the F-22 its best to cruise at subsonic speeds and this is what they will be doing for the majority of the missions.

As the Eurofighter and Rafale are slower than the F-22 its even more likely that they will cruise at subsonic speeds. With a strike warload it will be difficult for both the Eurofighter and Rafale to pass the high drag transonic region, so it will be much more effecient to just cruise at subsonically.

The F-35 may end up hitting Mach 1 at 100% dry power though this will be entering high drag territory so in real life they will cruise at subsonic speeds. By flying a bit slower they gain alot of extra fuel effeciency. If the F-22 cruises below Mach 1 then the F-35 definitely will. The difference is the F-22 cruises at subsonic speeds with the throttles way back. With the F-35 they will be slightly back.

If the F-35 enters an aerial engagement it can simply go full afterburner and it will rapidly pass the transonic region up above Mach 1.3. Once the draggy transonic region has been passed the F-35 can then throttle back a little to save fuel. It will then be able to sustain its speed above the transonic region. As the aircraft has multiple afterburner settings it will be able to use a light afterburner setting to keep above the transonic region. The F-35's large internal fuel capacity and high fuel fraction gives it the luxury of being able to use the afterburners more often. In a defensive air to air role the F-35's will have the fuel capacity to use afterburners extensively allowing the F-35 to outpace even the latest Suhkoi's. This is why Australia doesn't need the F-22.

The Rafale offers minimal advantages over the F-35, yet has alot of disadvantages. The only advantages are speed when in clean A2A config and possibly agility. The F-35 has many advantages, stealth, range, AESA etc.

 

[swerve]

Minor correction - the CF100 was sold to Belgium. Of course this doesn't alter the point you have made.

The other comment I would make re this list is that a number of the aircraft concerned were designed for carrier operations and outside USA, UK and France no country had carriers large enought to operate them. For example the RAN would have loved the Sea Vixen to replace its Sea Venoms but operating these from the small carrier Melbourne would have been out of the question.

Cheers

Ah yes. My mistake. The Belgian CF-100s were ex-RCAF, not, new, but a real cash sale, like the exported secondhand J29. I've also found that there was an export contract for the Mystere II (to Israel), but it was changed to Mystere IV before delivery.

Good point about the carrier aircraft. It's true that very few aircraft designed for carrier operations were exported.

On checking, I've found that the F-102s provided to Greece & Turkey were ex-USAF, & donated.

 

[AegisFC]

Good point about the carrier aircraft. It's true that very few aircraft designed for carrier operations were exported.

But those that were usually sell pretty good, the F-4 and F-18 come to mind.
Isn't the F-4 the best selling modern Western aircraft?

 

[merocaine]

just something to note, it was 62/63 with the advent of Mc Namara that the decision was made to try to use forigen exports to finance domestic R&D and production. Until then there was no concerted effort to sell american (or anyone else's for that matter) weaponary abroad in a peace time situation.
Since then the US has been singularly successful in generating weapons sales,
no one has come close.

But then I find the whole idea of selling weapons in an attempt to make a profit morally repulsive, and a hugh ethical blind spot in the west.
As for chest beating in relation to arms sales by americans and french people,
grow up!

 

[swerve]

But those that were usually sell pretty good, the F-4 and F-18 come to mind.
Isn't the F-4 the best selling modern Western aircraft?

The F-4 was the first carrier fighter to sell well. The F-18 & Sea Hawk are the the only others to have more than one export customer, AFAIK.

The F-4 sold just over 5000, including a bit over 1000 for export (plus ca 500 secondhand exports, mostly donated), so export sales were about 100 more than the Mirage III/V. Deduct the subsidised & free exports, & the Mirage III/V was probably a little ahead in exports, though far behind in total production.

Total production of F-16 is a bit behind the F-4, but over twice as many have been sold abroad. Adjusting for exports paid for by the USA doesn't change that ratio much.

A lot more F-86 were built.

 

[Tasman]

The F-4 was the first carrier fighter to sell well. The F-18 & Sea Hawk are the the only others to have more than one export customer, AFAIK.

The F-4 sold just over 5000, including a bit over 1000 for export (plus ca 500 secondhand exports, mostly donated), so export sales were about 100 more than the Mirage III/V. Deduct the subsidised & free exports, & the Mirage III/V was probably a little ahead in exports, though far behind in total production.

Total production of F-16 is a bit behind the F-4, but over twice as many have been sold abroad. Adjusting for exports paid for by the USA doesn't change that ratio much.

A lot more F-86 were built.

The UK was the only country, other than the USA, to use the F-4 from a carrier. The USA developed the F-4 for land based operations with the USAF. The USMC, of course, used the carrier version.

In the case of the FA-18, a lightened land based version, the F-18L, was projected but although it offered improved performance, it was not put into production. I think this was partly because potential customers didn't want to end up with an orphan aircraft and partly because the carrier capable FA-18A, as used by the USN and USMC, met the needs of its early customers, Spain, Canada and Australia.

The Sea Hawk was interesting because it was used as a land based aircraft by the German navy.

It is a pity for the Rafale that the RN has not opted for a catapult equipped carrier as I believe it could have been a competitive contender for a RN order.


Cheers

 

[Rich]

But then I find the whole idea of selling weapons in an attempt to make a profit morally repulsive, and a hugh ethical blind spot in the west.
As for chest beating in relation to arms sales by americans and french people,
grow up!

This is a strange place for someone with your ethical principles to be hanging out at. Or did you think the world would hold hands at the equator and sing "give peace a chance" if we in the west stopped selling arms?

The French have actually been very successful in military sales until fairly recently. Their arms production have always been geared towards exports and have had quite a bit of success with the Mirage series of warplanes. And then they produced the rat. As superfluous a piece of technology as has ever been put together.

It wouldn't be a problem if they weren't so dependant on exporting it, and needed to do so so much. The plane actually fits in quite nicely in the French air forces and I'll bet it has an excellent service life with them. The rat has its strengths and its been constructed by a very accomplished aviation industry. An industry going under, but still, the French have designed many a fine airplane.

I think the Rafale, "aka the rat", will shine as a carrier strike fighter within the parameters of the French navy. All kidding aside it is a pretty good strike fighter. The airplane has strengths, lets face it. But if the Brits were going to go with a standard carrier deck, and as far as I know they still eventually might, they would buy the naval F-35.

The F-35 is a far stealthier platform. And on the one hand the French try to play down the F-35s stealth advantage, or like our little friend here insult the aircraft while hinting at his little fantasy after action pilot reports, and on the other hand the French are whittling their airplane down to make it as LO as possible.

The rat might be a bit more agile but what good is that when the BVR AAM that's coming at you is 3 to 7X more agile then any fighter? That's why after a certain level "agility" becomes redundant and mostly only good for airshows and goofy peacetime exercises.

What good does agility do you when a highly stealth fighter, with an excellent AESA, sees you long before you see him, and then figure in the capability and lethality of the AIM-120D The F-35 will be firing. Or for that matter the excellent MBDA Meteor.

As for French military sales?? There are a lot of factors involved, one of which was the end of the cold war and the inevitable re-alignment of markets. Another factor was the Wars America was involved with in the middle east, as well as Israel, and the total domination of Yank made systems in those conflicts. Most of all aircraft. Nothing sells like "success" and on top of that list was our stealth aircraft which had incredibly successful operational histories. Thus, a lot of nations want to jump on that bandwagon.

First Ive ever heard of this.

just something to note, it was 62/63 with the advent of Mc Namara that the decision was made to try to use forigen exports to finance domestic R&D and production. Until then there was no concerted effort to sell american (or anyone else's for that matter) weaponary abroad in a peace time situation.

I think the real engine for the great arms complexes developing was the cold war.

 

[merocaine]

This is a strange place for someone with your ethical principles to be hanging out at.

ah the duality of man....

I think the real engine for the great arms complexes developing was the cold war.

It provided one of the reasons to change how arms were produced, but it came down Mc Namara deciding that weapons should be treated like any other good, ie large production runs with the surplus being sold to american allies(export) to finanace domestic re-equiping. The problem was the other western powers, the larger ones at first, britian, france, germany, Italy, all followed suit, selling to all and sundry. And Russia, wow, a study in amorality.

So war as a human enterprise is what really interests me, war as a means to generate a few bucks doesent. This deserves its own thread, but I think I'd be the only guy posting on it!

All the same its is good to see someone sticking up for the Raf (why Rat?) its been pretty much ignored on this forum compared to the euro fighter and the F's

 

[swerve]

...The Sea Hawk was interesting because it was used as a land based aircraft by the German navy....Cheers

And the Dutch. Pakistan bought some Supermarine Attackers, & the A-4 has been widely used as a land-based strike aircraft, though most exports were ex-USN/USMC aircraft. A-7 sold a few abroad for land-based strike, as did the Buccaneer.

 

[BKNO]

So at Mach 1.3 the aircraft will travel quicker using less fuel resulting in a longer range in a shorter period of time.

Sure appart for the FACT that its wing profile is not optimised for this speed but M 0.9 and that L-M specifically denies any supercrusie capabilties..

rjmaz1 This is why Lockheed Martin's definition of supercruise is above Mach 1.2-1.4

AGAIN, you're MORE than welcome to SHOW us ANY link to this so called "L-M" standard.

For all it's worth it's YOUR invention and it's worth nothing.

As for my side of the argument:

Does the F-35 supercruise?
No, neither the F135 or F136 engines were designed to supercruise.
http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm

NOW Your turn to put your money where your keyboard is please...

rjmaz1 Lockheed martin not once has said the F-35 will not be able to reach Mach 1 with dry thrust.

You should interess yourself to more advanced aerodynamics and loose the Mythology bit...

rjmaz1 Neither of us have evidence to back up our estimates.

YOU meant YOU dont, fopr the rest you keep assuming, a lot.

rjmaz1 The Rafale offers minimal advantages over the F-35, yet has alot of disadvantages.

You clearly have little clue about it; when it comes to it, sorry but the advantages valid for F-22 are aslo valid for Rafale, supercruise, a much higher Mach limit and maneuvrability for a starter...

I will come back to the rest of your post later on...

>>>>>

On supercruise and design features:

Sweepback increases critical Mach, reduces the rate at which the drag coefficient rises and lowers its pick.

Here is the 40* sweepback wingplan of NASA supercritical F-8 aircraft compared to F-35.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1574&stc=1&d=1179740102

This means that F-35 is likely to have a comparatively much lower critical Mach than F-16 (40*), than F-16 compared to F-22 (42*).

They all have a supercritical wing profile and this critical mach estimate/comparison is only assuming that they also have similar tickness ratio, which is of course NOT the case.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1575&stc=1&d=1179740102

This official L-M drawing is called: f35_variant_ctol_drag-Lift...

F-35 main landing gear are retracting not inside the wing profile or the fuselage but in a proeminent steamelined fairing.

This increases its t/c ratio which works on deltas, reducing wave drag when mixed with a carefuly blended area rule design, due to their low aspect ratios.

This does not work on straighter sweept wings where the drag ratio is higher at transonic and supersonic regimes.

It is de-facto a feature better suited for subsonic flights and is a feature used on subsonic airliners.

F-35 is designed to spend more time at lower altitudes and thus requiers a stronger wing structure; this implies the need for a thicker wing profile or lower speed/G-load limit at low levels.

NOTE: F-35 A wings were strenghtened to meet 9 G requierements...

F-22 sweepback is only 6* short of that of Rafale for example, 42 vs 48*, that of F-16 is 40*, that of F-35 around 35*.

According to Dryden, F-22/F-35 superctitical profiles are optimised for at up to M = 0.90, above this, lift and drag coefficient diverges and that's very much a best case scenario.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1576&stc=1&d=1179740102

Another aspect of the drag and critical Mach issue, compared to a more conventional design, the DRAG rise of a supercritical profile Mach number is about 0.11 higher, increase proportionaly faster to M 1.0.

This mean that in effect if an aircraft is equiped with a similar (T/C, Sweepback) supercritical wing, it will requier an equivalent increase in thrust for the same supersonic speed.

So the difference is made in thickness/Chord ratios and sweepback.

With their F-8 FCW, in order to get the drag rise for the wing up to M = 1.0 NASA solution was to increase the sweepback to 42* and extend the leading edge of the inboard section of the wing.

F-8 was already a supersonic design capable of speeds in eccess of M 1.7, NASA F-8 FCW studies focused on the subsonic and transonic regime, with a total of 54 flights, 55 hours flight time in an envelope opened to M 1.2, 40 k ft and 6G.

Large LEX have the secondary effect of decreasing the supersonic surface of a wing leading edge by creating their own Mach line in front of it (It is created at the LEX root)

Their presence have the effect of "smoothing" the the wing own shock waves, making speeds above Mach 1.0 possible with much lower power outputs by reducing overal wave drag.

Dassault combines the higher lift coefficient of a more moderate 48* sweept delta with a very high sweept 70* LEX on Rafale for example...

This is one primary characteristic for the transonic and supersonic drag ratio of straight, Ghotic and Crancked delta wings, to achieve this, LEX roots have to be well ahead of the wing roots.

These two features are present on F-16 and F-22, (40 and 42* sweepback and large LEXs) NONE on F-35 (Small LEX, F-35A, F-35B).

To optimise them for high SUBSONIC speeds, supercritical airfoils have also a characteristic of high spanwise variations of thichness and twist.

This is partly due to the characteristics of higher aspect ratios and sweepback without twist with marked lift loss at specific speed regimes and AoA.

To finish, F-22 requierements: AREA RULE SHOULD BE OPTIMISED AT LOW LIFT TO ACHIEVE SUPERCRUISE. (Fuselage).
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1577&stc=1&d=1179740102

Now look at these features individually:

(+) Higher sweepback: = High Critical Mach. = F-22 (F-16).

(+) Higly developed LEXs: = Higher subsonic cruise. = F-22 (F-16).

(-) Higher Aspect ratio: = Lower Max Mach. = F-35 (F-16).

(-) Highly developed twist: = Subsonic Optimisation. = F-35 = F-22.

(-) Higher tickness ratio: = Lower Max Mach. = F-35.

(-) NON Optimised AREA RULE: = Higher Supersonic drag. = F-35.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1575&stc=1&d=1179740102


http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1578&stc=1&d=1179740102

Now, a non-scaled photoshoped comparison of the frontal area......

 

[Grand Danois]

BKNO,

Can you explain how supercruise at M1.0 could be useful in real world operational terms? You will be going marginally faster than subsonic, but at a dramatically increaed fuel consumption.

The CD bump will make fuel comsumption prohibitively large, and if you cannot get past the transonic "hump" then it is an arbitrary paper statistic. This would be a real world, useful, meaningful supercruise definition.

Getting past M1.0 on dry thrust alone, is for record books, but not for much else.

And no one is argueing that the F-35 will supercruise. Quit that strawman.

 

[Falstaff]

The "hump" depends on the shape of the aircraft to a large degree. An aircraft with an optimised shape will get past the sound barrier and the "hump" much easier and smoother than one that's optimised for subsonic cruising. So much for humps...
That's why rimjaz high school equations don't work in real life.
And it's a commonplace that an engine's fuel consumption "explodes" on afterburner.

The German air force is very pleased with it's Eurofighters because once they are in the air they accelerate very fast beyond M1 and fly sustained supersonic speeds without ABs (=supercruise, dear rimjaz) to their operational area with a significant A2A weapon load (4x AMRAAM and 2x AIM-9 or Iris-T). The sonic boom is much quieter as well.
They say that the supercruise abilities give them unknown tactical flexibility (along with the supersonic maneuverability) and much better air defense coverage than with the previous F-4Gs or MIG-29s.
This somehow points towards a rather reasonable fuel consumption. And our air force is not exactly known for boasting.

I really don't want to hear that M1.2-1.4 b******* again, please! :lul

 

[Grand Danois]

The "hump" depends on the shape of the aircraft to a large degree. An aircraft with an optimised shape will get past the sound barrier and the "hump" much easier and smoother than one that's optimised for subsonic cruising. So much for humps...
That's why rimjaz high school equations don't work in real life.
And it's a commonplace that an engine's fuel consumption "explodes" on afterburner.

The German air force is very pleased with it's Eurofighters because once they are in the air they accelerate very fast beyond M1 and fly sustained supersonic speeds without ABs (=supercruise, dear rimjaz) to their operational area with a significant A2A weapon load (4x AMRAAM and 2x AIM-9 or Iris-T). The sonic boom is much quieter as well.
They say that the supercruise abilities give them unknown tactical flexibility (along with the supersonic maneuverability) and much better air defense coverage than with the previous F-4Gs or MIG-29s.
This somehow points towards a rather reasonable fuel consumption. And our air force is not exactly known for boasting.

I really don't want to hear that M1.2-1.4 b******* again, please! :lul

It's not that I disagree with above description. And I'm not arguing that EF or Rafale does not supercruise. However, they also go past transonic right? See underlined btw, and they accelerate past M1.0 quickly... (?)

Do you know if the German EF go M10.0 or M1.2+ when they supercruise? That could provide some insight...

Size of "hump" and when the transonic regime is left behind is exactly a function of design - as you say. And this would decide if it is favourable to be in that regime or get past it.

 

[Falstaff]

It's not that I disagree with above description. And I'm not arguing that EF or Rafale does not supercruise. However, they also go past transonic right? See underlined btw, and they accelerate past M1.0 quickly... (?)

Do you know if the German EF go M10.0 or M1.2+ when they supercruise? That could provide some insight...

Mmm... I wasn't able to find the exact M-number right now. I'll try to find out and post it. The statement didn't contain a specific number, it just said supersonic.

 

[Grand Danois]

Edit of my previous post. Typos + comprehension.

It's not that I disagree with above description. And I'm not arguing that EF or Rafale does not supercruise. However, they also go past transonic, right? See underlined btw, and they accelerate past M1.0 quickly... That could indicate that they do not wish to stay transonic. (?)

Do you know if the German EF go M1.0 or M1.2+ when they supercruise? That could provide some insight...

 

[BKNO]

Grand Danois Size of "hump" and when the transonic regime is left behind is exactly a function of design - as you say. And this would decide if it is favourable to be in that regime or get past it.

That's precisely the point, NONE of F-35 design features are optimised for supersonic cruise.

Supercruise means NO military power above M 1.0 regardless of the aircraft aerodynamics and resulting transonic characteristics.

A F-16 supercruises at M 1.1 so does the Mirage 2000...

So when L-M says not designed to supercruise about the TWO engines it means SUBSONIC.

I got MORE in the pipeline to make my point stick anyway and none it being anything else than real world, useful, meaningful...

Grand Danois Can you explain how supercruise at M1.0 could be useful in real world operational terms? You will be going marginally faster than subsonic, but at a dramatically increaed fuel consumption.

WE make the SAME point it is NOT really effiscient but on older types this is still useful.

Grand Danois This would be a real world, useful, meaningful supercruise definition.

But greatly depends on the aircraft Critical Mach as well, READ my previous post.

Grand Danois Getting past M1.0 on dry thrust alone, is for record books, but not for much else.

It makes MORE sense Operationaly for our pilots than for you perhaps but they are quiet pleased with the capability since it reduces their IR signature no end in A2A configuration...

Grand Danois And no one is argueing that the F-35 will supercruise. Quit that strawman.

Im puting dots on points of some guys Is here with some proper argumentation too in case you haven't noticed yet...

rjmaz1 So at Mach 1.3 the aircraft will travel quicker using less fuel resulting in a longer range in a shorter period of time.

Not NEARLY as closed to be as simple as that.

1) This graph assumed a thickness ratio of 5% for a valid comparison, the F-35 T/C is well higher than that of F-16 or F-22, this mean de-facto a lower critical Mach.

2) This is only valid if the engines themself were optimised for M 1.2 or high spuersonic speeds which they aren't.

Does the F-35 supercruise?
No, neither the F135 or F136 engines were designed to supercruise.
http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm

3) The airflow speed behind the engine inlet have to be reduced below supersonic speed for the compressor to stay below its pressure recovery limits.

If the inlet design is optimised for subsonic speed as in the case of F-35 (STVOL operations DRY at LOW-level) there is very little chances for this to happen.

F-35 Diverterless Supersonic Inlet Flight Tests validated the design and proved that there was NO gain at supersonic speeds but a total of <> 22% pressure recovery increase over the previous (Configuration 230) design.

This was consistent of L-M plan to recover "licking" airflow from the original engine glove design and recover lost static thrust.

4) Quote: "The new inlet showed slightly better subsonic specific excess power than a production inlet and that verified the overall system benefits of eliminating the diverter. Test pilots remarked that military power settings and thrust characteristics were very similar to standard production F-16 aircraft with the same General Electric F110-GE-129 engine"

F110-GE-129 frontal Thrust is equal in DRY power and slightly better of F-135 in Military power.

DRY: 116.2 vs 116.6.

Mil: 194.7 vs 175.5.

F110-GE-129 was optimised for speeds above M 2.0.

This means that if you were expecting a GAIN in DRY power over the F110-GE-129 equiped F-16 it only occurs at SUBSONIC flight regime.

Just a reminder here:

F-16 supercruises by accident at M 1.1, with 50% internal fuel and only two low-drag AIM-9s at <> 40.000.

It have a much smaller frontal area than F-35 in this configuration and is designed for a higher Mach and altitude too as is F110-GE-129.

To finish:

Since Cruising means 80/89% DRY thrust, there is NO argument possible for F-35 to "supercruise" whatever the "definition" of the word might be, neither the engine nor the airframe AND the inlets are designed for a SUSTAINED cruising speed above M 1.0.

I am still waiting for you to produce this L-M "Supercruise" standard definition.

 

[Grand Danois]

That's precisely the point, NONE of F-35 design features are optimised for supersonic cruise.

Who said they were?

Supercruise means NO military power above M 1.0 regardless of the aircraft aerodynamics and resulting transonic characteristics.

A F-16 supercruises at M 1.1 so does the Mirage 2000...

Though our input and approach is the same, you insist on an arbitrary paper definition of supercruise.

Although every aircraft design is unique you insist on applying a M1.0 dry thrust definition, even though it tells you nothing of what the implications is are.

Your definition is void of applicable meaning. An empty definition.

So when L-M says not designed to supercruise about the TWO engines it means SUBSONIC.

I got MORE in the pipeline to make my point stick anyway and none it being anything else than real world, useful, meaningful...

Your strawman. No one has said it will.

WE make the SAME point it is NOT really effiscient but on older types this is still useful.

But greatly depends on the aircraft Critical Mach as well, READ my previous post.

Yes, I didn't read it well enough. We agree on that point, that we are almost saying the same. As to definition:

Data->Information->Knowledge.

I have noticed that it is in the transition from information to knowledge where we typically tend to disagree. I f.i. would insist that a term should have meaning and application beyond the arbitrary.

It makes MORE sense Operationaly for our pilots than for you perhaps but they are quiet pleased with the capability since it reduces their IR signature no end in A2A configuration...

Isn't that function of improved dry thrust effiency applicable at all speed regimes, i.e. independent from this discussion?

 

[Rich]

All the same its is good to see someone sticking up for the Raf (why Rat?) its been pretty much ignored on this forum compared to the euro fighter and the F's

I aint sticking up for it. I dont think the French should have built it in the first place.

At the same time I acknowledge the strengths of the aircraft and the accomplishments of the French Military/Industrial complex.

The airplane was a very expensive proposition. It didn't take genius to foretell it wasn't going to be a very successful export fighter, "tho I dont think anyone thought it would bomb this bad".

I wonder if it has a chance in India as it would be a wonderful carrier strike fighter for this AC they always talk about building. But even there it would be a small order, one carrier right? And the cost of the navalized SUs and MIGs are probably 1/2 that of the Rafale.

I think the French really needed the Singapore sale. The South Korean one probably wasn't such a surprise but the Singaporean one was.

 

[merocaine]

I aint sticking up for it. I dont think the French should have built it in the first place.

I know your not sticking up for it, i was talking about BNKO.

Its a tough market out there, the americans did the smart thing by tying buyers into the R&D of the F35, now they got a ready made market out there, by buy american there subsidising there own armaments industrys.

After reading BNKO posts, as over blown as they were, I do wonder if the F35 will be as all singing, all dancing as I might have previously thought.
Since most of the posters on defencetalk are from countries that are going to buy the F35 you dont really hear anything negetive about it.

 

[Grand Danois]

Since most of the posters on defencetalk are from countries that are going to buy the F35 you dont really hear anything negetive about it.

As far as I am concerned, being from a country that "is going to buy the F-35", I would say it really doesn't matter if we go F-35 or EF from a sheer capabilities/security aspect. I am, my apols to the Swedes, not a fan of a beefed-up Gripen.

Working together with our traditional partners, the F-35 seems to be a very good choice on that part as well, with a good likelihood of enabling the full potential of that fighter in actual warfighting.

I think the Tiffy, Raffy and Lightening II are all magnificent jets, each with their strengths an weaknesses. I do, however, perceive, what I think of as much unwarranted slagging of the F-35, just because it doesn't fit the traditional template of air-air fighters and does not have those virtues like highly swept wings (or the stealth of a B-2).