Rufus,

 

Thank you for that post. It makes sense that the F-35 would be a top performer in the present and future battlefield but can the program demonstrate its ability to live up to expectations without spending $250 million per plane? The JSF's target price was originally 29-34 million. How anyone could have been led to believe that was possible is beyond my comprehension, so the questions remain:

 

1. Can its issues be resolved without sacrificing performance?

2. Will partners have the same patience as our SecDef if the program becomes delayed due to engineering concerns?

3. Will it be affordable to allies as well as the U.S. to purchase in sufficient numbers?

4. Will unmanned technology create obsolescence before the program even has a chance to mature, say around 2020?

"Thank you for that post. It makes sense that the F-35 would be a top performer in the present and future battlefield but can the program demonstrate its ability to live up to expectations without spending $250 million per plane?"

 

Good question (I would be lying if I said I knew the answer for sure of course)

 

"The JSF's target price was originally 29-34 million. How anyone could have been led to believe that was possible is beyond my comprehension, so the questions remain:"

 

Well, they were basing that on a lot of different assumptions, some of which haven't come to pass and some of which might still come to pass.  It is important to remember that that number was for a full production rate F-35 in some previous year's dollars, not the initial production models in today's dollars.  The F-35 really should be a relatively inexpensive aircraft to produce when all is said and done. 

 

"1. Can its issues be resolved without sacrificing performance?"

 

Thus far the F-35 does not appear to have encountered any major performance issues besides the weight problem from a couple years ago, just cost and schedule issues.(It is generally working as planned, it is just taking them longer to get there, and thus the costs are rising.)  Of course, it is early in its testing so there is still plenty of time for issues to be uncovered. 

 

"2. Will partners have the same patience as our SecDef if the program becomes delayed due to engineering concerns?"

 

Hard to say, I suspect they will, if only because there isn't another game in town.  They could of course go with a 4th generation jet but that isn't going to get them the same type of performance.  

"3. Will it be affordable to allies as well as the U.S. to purchase in sufficient numbers?"

 

Hopefully, that depends how the remainder of the testing program goes.  The US has really bet the house on the F-35.  If things go smoothly the US will have saved a simply unbelievable amount of money and will see huge numbers of 5th generation aircraft entering service with its airforce, marines and navy.  Trying to develop multiple different 5th generation jets for each service would have been simply impossible to consider.  

 

Of course if the program runs into major performance issues it will be a disaster.

 

"4. Will unmanned technology create obsolescence before the program even has a chance to mature, say around 2020?"

 

 In the short run the F-35 is totally safe, but in the long run UAVs are going to take over a lot of its missions.

 

Future air combat will resemble something most similar to an IADS.  You will have drones with sensors, drones with weapons, tankers, and a handful of command and control nodes with human operators.  Some of these vehicles will be fast and maneuverable, but most will optimized to loiter stealthily.  It really won't be that different from an advanced SAM system in the air. 

 

 

I don 't have much spare time before the get behind the wheel again (3 hours) . So I can 't answer everybody .

I begin with usajoe :

Yay, people, could we avoid degenrating systematically into a pissing kiddie contest with arguments like "Rafale is best plane ever ! Spectra is best ECM in the world ! Mica is best missile in the world !" on one side because to say something is best, you have to know all about it and about its competitors, which I'm pretty sure none of us here do. And from the other side the "Rafale is French so it's crap, ze evil surrender monkeys can't make anything better than America (F*ck Yeah !)" drivel. I won't name anyone, but the culprits are pretty evident. 

FFS France and the USA are allies, they're not going to make war on each other. It's also unlikely Rafales will ever fight F22s (obviously) or Typhoons. F35 might, I'm thinking about a Greece vs Turkey scenario, but even then I won't hold my breath in expectation.

Anyway. It seems that Rafale is finally getting back on track with th F3 standard in service, and various upgrades and improvements clearly on the way and budgeted (AESA, new countermeasures, new ordnance...). 

Late, sure. I blame the end of the Cold War and the stupidly short-sighted "peace dividends" thing. 

The Rafale's primary customer, that is the Frnch AdA and MN, are quite evidently happy overall. Even better, the Rafale program didn't blow its alloted budget away like others did, which is a perfomance in itself. 

It also seems its going to finally get a foreign customer. Naturaly, if/when that happens the usual Rafale bashers here will switch from their "it's not exported so it's crap compared to its competitors" routine to a "it's a political contract ! the plane itself is crap compared to its competitors !" one. It has alread started actually. I'm sure that the couple posters in question would still bash the rafale if it had an invisibilty cloak, Culture effectors, could reach low orbit and had the Death Star superlaser on it while costing the same as a Cessna 150. 

You are even more mistaking with a SH Joe . The SH does not have the thrust and aerodynamics it needs to compete .Check the various charts

 

Tell me BW, when did I mention that all of the birds were the same when it comes to dogfighting? Stop your fabricated lies. Here is what I said: The HMS is there to give the SH, and for that matter, SU-27/30/35, Mig 29/35, Typhoon, F16/15, more of an edge in WVR combat. Your first lie. The F-16 vs the SH is another one of your childish made up fantasies. How did you get the 8 out of 10 number, LOL. The SH and the newer F-16's are both very capable fighters but there is no way you can tell me that 80% of the time the F16 is going to be win. What study proves this lie. Let me answer that question none, and therefore that is lie number two. I know this much is true, A Viper with HMS and AIM9X will have a advantage over the Rafale for sure. Now as far as the Sukhoi and Typhoon, that depends on the situation. Let me also say that if the Viper is being piloted by a below average pilot than the Rafale will most likely win. BW, this is not 1965! the aerodynamic claim is old, with todays advances in ECM, Radars, HMS's and new genarations of SR AAM's the old days of dogfighting are gone.

 

 

 

""The F-35 is not even going to have a HUD, becasue of the advantage of the newer HMS being developed for that bird."" 

 

Personaly ( I might be wrong) , an HMS can 't put on screen everything an HUD can put on screen because all the infos needed by the pilot are simply taking to much place to put on a very small "eye screen" .
No it is not a high risk, it is the future of MR Fighters. Go check up on it you might learn something.

 

To try and defuse the "France vs USA" pissing contest that's utterly uninteresting. I'm going to repost here some infos I saw on other forums (mostly Keypublishing) as I couldn't go to the Paris Air Show nor have access to the French magazines cited (DSI) at the moment. 

And the future "basic" CAS configuration :

The 2018-planned updates are damn exciting. Side AESA antennas, a LIDAR, satcom, active missile detector (sounds a lot like Typhoon's MAWS). The new DDMs look nice too, from what I've read so far they might end up being something like the F35's DAS.

"I wish that you knew what you are talking about , we could have a fair debate . Besides its average range (150km) , the Pesa RBE2 has an agility and some interleaved modes other radars are dreaming of . The fusion in between the radar and the other avionics are extremely good . Nobody in the FAF is complaining , at the contrary "

 

Under what conditions, against what type of target, do you cite an average range of 150km? What other avionics are you referring to?

 

I have a couple of other questions, too.

 

Why do you consider the MICA to be superior to the AMRAAM? Because of the passive/IR mode? How do you intend to exploit this feature without relying on your radar? Your OSF is a bearing-only sensor affected by atmospheric opacity. The same goes for your Damocles when it's finally is integrated.

 

Why are you employing your IR MICAs instead of your ARHs? EMCON? Because at long range you cannot properly exercise EMCON and still fully exploit your NEZ.

 

Or are you mirroring Soviet IR/SARH salvo launch tactics to maximize ECM/countermeasures resistance? Because in that case you are still range limited compared to US/Russian AAMs.

 

Beryoza , I am going to try to respond to your post but without going into details . This will probably come later on .