F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5071
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Nov 2017, 22:32

cavok wrote:i see rirnun has answered, sorry can't read you, you are on ignore list (what a relief)


You can't even ignore people correctly

Your most childish post yet.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously
Choose Crews
Offline

magitsu

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post06 Nov 2017, 13:15

XanderCrews wrote:I have seen gripen cost per flight for the NG as estimates to be "cheaper than the original" to $28,000 per hour. I'm not exaggerating either. I've seen both

Saab is very active in muddling the waters. That old paid-for Jane's study, which had absurd 4k costs for Gripen. Then they have this kind of pictures, which look suspiciously too good. Giving Gripen A data for proof of your ability to stay in schedule when the indication based on other fighters in comparison is clearly that these are supposedly for Gripen E, plane with IOC due only in 2023. :doh:

Image
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Nov 2017, 14:41

XanderCrews wrote:
playloud wrote:That study was funded by Saab IIRC.



It's been widely debunked. Even saab fanboys on key pubs "self correct" when it's posted.

It's loathed by all but the most blind fanboys.

What's worse is the CPFH is off for other aircraft as well which could be a "clue"


Yes, that was the stupidest "study" ever. https://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/files ... h%202012(1).pdf

They took the following for Gripen:

1) The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of
cost per flight hour (CPFH). This is based on reported costs covering only:
– Fuel used
– Pre-flight preparation and repair
– Scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel
costs


Then they give the following, which is probably pretty close to truth

3) IHS Jane’s has been unable accurately to determine the constituent costs of
fuel, spare parts, repairs and personnel that constituted each of the aircrafts’
4
stated CPFH. However, based on a 2005 USAF study of F-16s, IHS Jane’s
believes the CPFH is composed of approximately:
– 10-15% Consumable Supplies (small parts, wiring, basic electrical
components)
– 20-25% Sortie Aviation Fuel
– 60-70% Depot Level Repair and Systems Maintenance


So they come up with $4,700 USD for Gripen basically covering only the fuel and then later say that aviation fuel is only only 1/5th to 1/4th of total CPFH. Other fighters except F-16 in that study have wildly varying criteria for costs. F-35 costs cover 30 years of operation as calculated by RAAF. I'm sure the Gripen has the smallest fuel costs of all modern fighters as it's the smallest and least powerful. However that is only small part of overall costs.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post07 Nov 2017, 00:40

hornetfinn wrote:
They took the following for Gripen:

1) The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of
cost per flight hour (CPFH). This is based on reported costs covering only:
– Fuel used
– Pre-flight preparation and repair
– Scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel
costs


Then they give the following, which is probably pretty close to truth

3) IHS Jane’s has been unable accurately to determine the constituent costs of
fuel, spare parts, repairs and personnel that constituted each of the aircrafts’
4
stated CPFH. However, based on a 2005 USAF study of F-16s, IHS Jane’s
believes the CPFH is composed of approximately:
– 10-15% Consumable Supplies (small parts, wiring, basic electrical
components)
– 20-25% Sortie Aviation Fuel
– 60-70% Depot Level Repair and Systems Maintenance


There's your difference. Not counting depot level maintenance, depending on the amount of phases necessary for the lifetime of the aircraft, could be years worth of overhauls. The cost of paying the maintenance crews alone would be staggering.
Offline

sunstersun

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post09 Nov 2017, 15:18

USN exchange pilot on Rafale

Image
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post10 Nov 2017, 11:01

LM PR clumsy communique in Belgium (i have no real issues with the plane, but with program management and PR), at least an "alternative fact".

"An active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar that provides a constant 360 degree view using the newest generation of radar technology."

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/belgium/
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 14:05

F4 standard now officially scheduled in law.

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/15/pd ... II-a13.pdf
p.181

Image
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 278
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post13 Nov 2017, 00:49

cavok wrote:LM PR clumsy communique in Belgium (i have no real issues with the plane, but with program management and PR), at least an "alternative fact".

"An active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar that provides a constant 360 degree view using the newest generation of radar technology."

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/belgium/


APG81 and AAQ39, you know?

Ofc not, lol.
Offline

optimist

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 437
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34

Unread post13 Nov 2017, 12:57

better add passive radar to the list, but it seems a waste of 10 antennas not to have a transmit function too.
AN/ASQ-239
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5071
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Nov 2017, 16:09

cavok wrote:LM PR clumsy communique in Belgium (i have no real issues with the plane, but with program management and PR), at least an "alternative fact".

"An active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar that provides a constant 360 degree view using the newest generation of radar technology."

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/belgium/



The butthurt is palpable.

"Active cancelation" or "stealth is obsolete" are ok apparently
Choose Crews
Previous

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: popcorn and 5 guests