* Suppositions : futurs achats des FRA *

Rappel du premier message :

Le Maroc n'a pas besoin de AWACS et AEWC Aircraft..

Les qu'il est ont commandés se sont fait avoir pour la plupart.

Après faut voir quelle est la région..

chwihi a écrit:

Stinger a écrit:

Le f1 ne tiendra probablement pas aussi longtemps,  sans parler d'une mco qui coûte les yeux de la tête

Et ceux qui arrivent à dire qu'il va rien se passe entre temps ne sont pas sérieux

Il devra pourtant bien tenir encore 5 ans, je ne vois pas comment on ferait sinon surtout qu'on aura pas 48 Viper avant 2027.
Pour la MCO tu parles du F1 ou bien du Rafale? C'est si cher que ça pour le F1?

Question secondaire dans le cas du Rafale, si on veut du nombre tout en se le permettant ne pourrait-on pas envisager un mixte Occasion/Neuf? 12 et 12? Sachant que les grecs avaient dans un 1er temps signé un contrat à 2,5 Mds€ pour 12 occasions et 6 neufs. Tous en F4 bien sûr. Ça permettrait d'obtenir les 12 premiers en un temps record et de revendre les F1 (Ukraine? En passant par une reprise de la France dans le même contrat?).
Soit 12/6 pour 2,5 Mds€ soit 12/12 pour 3,7 Mds€, même si je préfère la seconde je crois que la 1ère est plus raisonnable, tout dépend des finances. Maintenant si on peut récupérer 250 millions€ sur les 26 F1 ça peut se faire.

Pour conclure je pense que c'est la meilleure solution, ça résoud les problèmes de temps de livraison, de coûts et le nombre. Et puis tant qu'on récupère des Rafale occaz ayant moins de 15 ans c'est acceptable.

Je parle bien du F1 , la mco est très cher

Je suis d'accord avec toi mais la on touche aux limites avec le f1 on va pas pouvoir éloigner la limite indéfiniment

Stinger a écrit:

Darkvador a écrit:

Stinger a écrit:

Le f1 ne tiendra probablement pas aussi longtemps,  sans parler d'une mco qui coûte les yeux de la tête

Et ceux qui arrivent à dire qu'il va rien se passe entre temps ne sont pas sérieux

Le plus logique c'est de prendre des M-346 (24) à 0.85 milliards  et prendre une décision plus tard pour rafale....

Leonardo ils sont très très correct dans les délais de livraison ( il y a le nouveau Bloc II qui et pas mal )

On le prendra très probablement mais je trouve qu'il est très cher personnellement.

Il y a un soucis on va pas assez vite et on voit les chantier augmenter ce qui au final fera augmenter la facture ou pire va créer un abandon de certains programme

Le Block 20 il vaut son prix. (Il peut récupérer quelques rôle du F1 et du F5 et même de l'alphajet et avoir du temps pour décider quoi faire rafale ou plus de f-16 ou f-15 juste pour gagner du temps)


https://www.leonardo.com/en/focus-detail/-/detail/m-346-block-20

chwihi a écrit:

@Antares sorry but your methodology is completly wrong. If you want to compare those planes you must compare the rate of accidents HOURLY.
Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. I understand it's almost impossible to access the amount of hours of flight for each of them.
But the rates you give are irrelevant, you compare the numbers of planes then you divide by the number of accidents?? While F35 is recent and F16 has 50 years of service?? And this difference of TIME of use is nowhere to be seen in your evaluation

I am waiting on numbers you showcase. It's easy to criticize when you don't give anything or do any effort. I gave the f-15 and F-16 just as interesting data points, none of my key points were about them and despite the arguably large numbers no one is claiming these are unsafe planes. I am primary comparing to the rafale in all my posts since that's where the conversation is (and where some members criticized the lack of safety)

I think the comparison with the rafale is apt, both are fairly new platforms and I think with almost 5x the number of planes in activity across a number of countries the flight hours of the f-35 is likely much higher than the low number of rafales which are primarily operated in France.

Either way, at this point most of us would be happy with any form of decision on the replacement of some of the planes that should be retired. It's been 6 years since the last order and will probably take 6 years from order to get anything. Unless we plan to keep the F1 until 2032 we should probably move now

I feel like dreaming about something very hard to accomplish in the coming 4/5 years, we should not expect any new deal before 2028/2029 we have so much big investment to launch this 2 coming years our commitment with the world cup will probably absorb 60/70% of our ressources and we have several urgent needs in our military programs that will cost at least 6/7 billions i don't see how can/will we be managing all these expenses and using which resources/incomes especially we are at the middle of the implementation of huge/demanding social security plan
If we got any deal with the Frenchie or the cowboy it must be with full funding/financing offer pack otherwise it's irrealistic

I agree Si romh, we have a lot of investments coming but our military budget for procurement shouldn't be too impacted by the other topics, particularly that you see every 6 months a rather good increase in government revenue and tax collection to be able to finance the social programs and infrastructure investments for the WC

Likely the priority will be to see what is on offer with advantageous financing since the prices differences become less pronounced when you account for payment facilities, loans at no rates, local service procurement. The french did that with Egypt with reportedly amazing loans so I am sure something could be found (hopefully nothing below the F4.2 or even F5 if that's 6years down the line in deliveries); the US I am not sure, particularly when targeting a vector that is selling well (although the f15ex still doesn't have the expected response from customers, probably due to cost)

We will likely hear something by end of year with Macron's visit

Antares a écrit:

I agree Si romh, we have a lot of investments coming but our military budget for procurement shouldn't be too impacted by the other topics, particularly that you see every 6 months a rather good increase in government revenue and tax collection to be able to finance the social programs and infrastructure investments for the WC

Likely the priority will be to see what is on offer with advantageous financing since the prices differences become less pronounced when you account for payment facilities, loans at no rates, local service procurement. The french did that with Egypt with reportedly amazing loans so I am sure something could be found (hopefully nothing below the F4.2 or even F5 if that's 6years down the line in deliveries); the US I am not sure, particularly when targeting a vector that is selling well (although the f15ex still doesn't have the expected response from customers, probably due to cost)

We will likely hear something by end of year with Macron's visit

Yes agree it will be more expected from the French than the cowboys Hopefully our decision makers have better plans than what we are figuring out

Antares a écrit:

chwihi a écrit:

@Antares sorry but your methodology is completly wrong. If you want to compare those planes you must compare the rate of accidents HOURLY.
Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. I understand it's almost impossible to access the amount of hours of flight for each of them.
But the rates you give are irrelevant, you compare the numbers of planes then you divide by the number of accidents?? While F35 is recent and F16 has 50 years of service?? And this difference of TIME of use is nowhere to be seen in your evaluation

I am waiting on numbers you showcase. It's easy to criticize when you don't give anything or do any effort. I gave the f-15 and F-16 just as interesting data points, none of my key points were about them and despite the arguably large numbers no one is claiming these are unsafe planes. I am primary comparing to the rafale in all my posts since that's where the conversation is (and where some members criticized the lack of safety)

I think the comparison with the rafale is apt, both are fairly new platforms and I think with almost 5x the number of planes in activity across a number of countries the flight hours of the f-35 is likely much higher than the low number of rafales which are primarily operated in France.

Either way, at this point most of us would be happy with any form of decision on the replacement of some of the planes that should be retired. It's been 6 years since the last order and will probably take 6 years from order to get anything. Unless we plan to keep the F1 until 2032 we should probably move now

It's not about ''easy to criticize'', i already said i understand the hours of flight are hard to get. It's not an excuse to conclude with wrong interpretations and i am not not gonna say it's wrong to please you or to not hurt you.
It's just objectivly wrong, at least nothing allows to say they are true or even close to truth.

Since you ask me to, here are my efforts:

By the way there are a little over 600 F35A in service not 1000, so we have maybe 2.5 times more F35A than Rafale.
We will assume they fly the same hours yearly so our results will be in accidents per year of use and we will average the years of delivery given in the sources found.
Israeli F35I is not counted as a F35A.
We will exclude accidents that are not due to the aircaft malfunctions (human mistakes, birds hits...).
A collision between 2 planes counts as 1 accident, provided that it's not because of human mistake.

Rafale :

-France
13 models since 2002
48 more models since 2006
59 more models since 2010
58 more models since 2018

-Egypt
24 models since 2017

-Qatar
24 models since 2020
12 more models since 2021

-India
36 since 2020

-Greece
Already counted in France since they are used ones

----> As of 2024, it makes 2768 years of cumulative use. I counted 3 accidents (including the last one that we don't know yet the reasons) so we get 1 accident per 923 years of use.



F35-A :

- Australia
63 since 2020

- Denmark
10 since 2022

- USAF
302 since 2018

- South Korea
40 since 2020

- Italy
27 since 2020

- Japan
37 since 2022

- Netherlands
40 since 2021

-Norway
46 since 2020

-----> As of 2024, it makes 2610 years of cumulative use. I counted 7 F35-A accidents worldwide (6 USAF and 1 Korean that are plane malfunction). So we get 1 accident per 373 years of use.
plus the Korean crash that does not appear in this source.

With this estimation we find the Rafale is 147% (2.5 times) safer than F35-A.
Of course it's an estimation with approximations and assumptions, however it is detailed and explained.

Sorry but to get an accurate or not biased data analysis and better assessment you should get the data on each accident ( the exact age of each broken/lost jet, the exact context, which country the quality of the maintenance etc etc ) you need a model including all the most influent variables..... And go case by case

Stinger a écrit:

On le prendra très probablement mais je trouve qu'il est très cher personnellement.

Il est cher, mais cela dit, il peut remplir aussi beaucoup plus de rôles qu'un avion d'entraînement basique.

Il peut faire de la police du ciel, de l'appui-feu léger, de la reconnaissance, etc. ce qui permet d'économiser des avions plus coûteux pour des missions qui doivent être assurées, mais ne sont pas vitales.

F35 will eat Rafale and its “mAGiC sPeCtrA” for dinner , and every other fighter on production today.

Every country that had the choice between the two has chosen the F35 , its not even a competition

elite17 a écrit:

F35 will eat Rafale and its “mAGiC sPeCtrA” for dinner , and every other fighter on production today.

Every country that had the choice between the two has chosen the F35 , its not even a competition

This is not the question the problem is .... Are we allowed to get the F35, we are not part of the OTAN alliance and we don't have enough resources to offer to get the jet with very higher price to guarantee the approval from the Congress so it's something to forget for now
We can not have it at least for the next 10 years even trump will not allow us this we need to be realistic

elite17 a écrit:

F35 will eat Rafale and its “mAGiC sPeCtrA” for dinner , and every other fighter on production today.

Every country that had the choice between the two has chosen the F35 , its not even a competition

C'est quand même le minimum pour un avion 15 ans plus récent et dont l'heure de vol coûte le double, néanmoins ça ne change rien au fait que cet avion a beaucoup de problèmes.
Le Pentagone a refusé de réceptionner de nouveaux F35 pendant 1 an à cause de problèmes logiciels et a accepté de les reprendre cet été mais en diminuant le montant des paiements, la mise à jour logicielle n'étant toujours pas prête et une demi solution temporaire fais le boulot pour l'instant.

Alors oui le F35 a des qualités incomparables avec le Rafale F4 en terme de furtivité, mais c'est à peu près le seul domaine où il y a une grande différence en faveur du F35. N'oublions pas que sa deuxième plus grande qualité c'est la diplomatie américaine. Le Rafale est totalement polyvalent et bon dans tous les domaines. Et puis il faut voir ce que réservera le Rafale F5.

Si on avait la possibilité d'obtenir des F35 pour moins de 250M de dollars alors oui malgré le coût d'usage exorbitant, on pourrait se contenter d'un nombre légèrement moindre, mais on est ni européens ni israélien. Autrement dit on n'aura pas les cadeaux commerciaux que les USA ont fait à travers l'Europe pour s'assurer d'une dépendance européenne à leur industrie de Défense et donc à leur politique géostratégique, et on aura pas de F35 à 200M, quand bien même ils accepteraient de nous le vendre (Espagne!).

De plus il nous contraint au 100% US et c'est tout simplement suicidaire.

romh a écrit:

elite17 a écrit:

F35 will eat Rafale and its “mAGiC sPeCtrA” for dinner , and every other fighter on production today.

Every country that had the choice between the two has chosen the F35 , its not even a competition

This is not the question the problem is .... Are we allowed to get the F35, we are not part of the OTAN alliance and we don't have enough resources to offer to get the jet with very higher price to guarantee the approval from the Congress so it's something to forget for now
We can not have it at least for the next 10 years even trump will not allow us this we need to be realistic

The prices of Rafale and F35 are pretty much the same
F35 has more operating costs but that will get lower and lower when the plane matures
The only problem with F35 right now is disponibility, when it matures around 2030 anyone who'll chose a Rafale over it would be doing a strategic mistake



And even if F35 operating costs stay 60% higher than Rafale that would be a good investment considering the significant deterrence you get from F35

Samurai a écrit:

The prices of Rafale and F35 are pretty much the same
F35 has more operating costs but that will get lower and lower when the plane matures
The only problem with F35 right now is disponibility, when it matures around 2030 anyone who'll chose a Rafale over it would be doing a strategic mistake

Strategicly speaking, going 100% US is the mistake.
Going with Rafale F4 then F5 is never a strategic mistake, it's an excellent asset.
Remember F35 have a mediocre combat radius and will need to carry tankers for 1st phase of deep strikes, loosing it's furtivity edge. It has a low max speed and a bad climbing rate, it is not well suited to intercept Mach 2.0 Su30 fighters over a vast territory, particularly if we only have a few of them.

chwihi a écrit:

Samurai a écrit:

The prices of Rafale and F35 are pretty much the same
F35 has more operating costs but that will get lower and lower when the plane matures
The only problem with F35 right now is disponibility, when it matures around 2030 anyone who'll chose a Rafale over it would be doing a strategic mistake

Strategicly speaking, going 100% US is the mistake.
Going with Rafale F4 then F5 is never a strategic mistake, it's an excellent asset.
Remember F35 have a mediocre combat radius and will need to carry tankers for 1st phase of deep strikes, loosing it's furtivity edge. It has a low max speed and a bad climbing rate, it is not well suited to intercept Mach 2.0 Su30 fighters over a vast territory, particularly if we only have a few of them.

Même le Rafale est handicapé par le fait que ce soit un avion de marine aussi. D'où ma préférence pour un pur avion d'air force comme le F15 ou le Typhoon.

chwihi a écrit:

Strategicly speaking, going 100% US is the mistake.
Going with Rafale F4 then F5 is never a strategic mistake, it's an excellent asset.
Remember F35 have a mediocre combat radius and will need to carry tankers for 1st phase of deep strikes, loosing it's furtivity edge. It has a low max speed and a bad climbing rate, it is not well suited to intercept Mach 2.0 Su30 fighters over a vast territory, particularly if we only have a few of them.

Nope nope and nope

Rafale with a meteor restricted to use by the Germans when you are above Mahbes intercepting enemy’s SU30 is a strategic mistake

F35 doesnt have a mediocre combat radius at all , its far better than what is stated officially (850 lo-hi-lo) and it is really more than enough for our situation to reach anywhere at the ennemy’s territory


You know that Rafale has lower combat radius than an F16V with CFT right?

And yeah tell that su30 to run fast when the AN/APG-85 locks on it and an AIM120D is behind its back , i am sure its 2 mach will help lol

Look , we wont get F35 anytime soon , but comparing rafale to f35 on a technical side is a joke .

That french thing doesnt have GMTI capability on its radar til today , Israelis had it on their Heron drones a decade ago , its not a funny joke.

Si il y avait une réelle menace de l'EST nous aurions assistée a un achat d'urgence pour étoffé notre aviation. Mais je crois que nous temporisant pour le prochain choix de vecteur qui sera vraisemblablement un Bi-réacteur.

Vampiro a écrit:

Stinger a écrit:

On le prendra très probablement mais je trouve qu'il est très cher personnellement.

Il est cher, mais cela dit, il peut remplir aussi beaucoup plus de rôles qu'un avion d'entraînement basique.

Il peut faire de la police du ciel, de l'appui-feu léger, de la reconnaissance, etc. ce qui permet d'économiser des avions plus coûteux pour des missions qui doivent être assurées, mais ne sont pas vitales.  

Moue , pour la police du ciel il faut vraiment quelque chose capable de descendre une cible et pour l'appuie feu au sol pourquoi pas sur ce point mais à ce moment là le fa 50 il est mieux que le m346

Samurai a écrit:

romh a écrit:

elite17 a écrit:

F35 will eat Rafale and its “mAGiC sPeCtrA” for dinner , and every other fighter on production today.

Every country that had the choice between the two has chosen the F35 , its not even a competition

This is not the question the problem is .... Are we allowed to get the F35, we are not part of the OTAN alliance and we don't have enough resources to offer to get the jet with very higher price to guarantee the approval from the Congress so it's something to forget for now
We can not have it at least for the next 10 years even trump will not allow us this we need to be realistic

The prices of Rafale and F35 are pretty much the same
F35 has more operating costs but that will get lower and lower when the plane matures
The only problem with F35 right now is disponibility, when it matures around 2030 anyone who'll chose a Rafale over it would be doing a strategic mistake



And even if F35 operating costs stay 60% higher than Rafale that would be a good investment considering the significant deterrence you get from F35

L'heure de vol d'un Rafale c'est dans les 50 00 euros

Celle d'un f16v dans les 16000 dollars

Celle d'un f35 dans les 100 000

Ces chiffres ne sont pas bons

Avec tout ces problèmes et ses soucis j’arrive toujours pas à comprendre comme t le F35 peut-etre considéré comme un potentiel candidat…il nous faudra un biréacteur et pour moi 2 candidats F15 ou Rafale politiquement, le choix le plus safe c’est le Rafale
Sans compter qu’avec le F16V il faudra commencer a remplacer les alphajets, de ce fait je suis d’accord avec le frere darkvador le M346 est un bon candidat qui peut aussi faire du CAS/ et du CAP, il faudra tot ou tard un demultiplicateur de force je pense a un AEWC (les G550 ou un embraer qu’on customisera) +chantier helicos et avions transports +tanker,donc prendre quelque chose (F35) qui va nous bouffer $$$ en mco est yn mauvais calcul

Bruce Wayne a écrit:

Avec tout ces problèmes et ses soucis j’arrive toujours pas à comprendre comme t le F35 peut-etre considéré comme un potentiel candidat…il nous faudra un biréacteur et pour moi 2 candidats F15 ou Rafale politiquement, le choix le plus safe c’est le Rafale
Sans compter qu’avec le F16V il faudra commencer a remplacer les alphajets, de ce fait je suis d’accord avec le frere darkvador le M346 est un bon candidat qui peut aussi faire du CAS/ et du CAP, il faudra tot ou tard un demultiplicateur de force je pense a un AEWC (les G550 ou un embraer qu’on customisera) +chantier helicos et avions transports +tanker,donc prendre quelque chose (F35) qui va nous bouffer $$$ en mco est yn mauvais calcul

I think the real numbers are not known or shared publicly, and i am not sure the mco is the exact same by operator or location; it would be interesting to get a lot more clarity on the topic. One thing to consider is that the F-35 capacities will probably make a AEWC redundant (at least that's what some in the US are reporting) so definitely a force multiplier than can also do jet tasks and honest with all the key weaponry we have be it himars or apache or the F-16V. I think there is more to it than meets the eye, although of forces in general are not dense enough to take full advantage of it. The whole conversation started because the contract cost for F-35 for Romania is much more competitive than any of the rafale contracts sold so at equal price (and not knowing what's the real MCO numbers) which of the two fighters fit our doctrine best and would give us the longevity we expect with upgradeability paths

For those who are not aware, but any rafale below the F4.2 will not be able to be upgraded to F5 or beyond, so that probably should play a role in our mind. If the key role is to dissuade would you rather the F-35 or the Rafale? do you think the US would like to see one of its jewels in a hot fight with Algeria? just the deterrence of knowing the US will come down harder to preserve the reputation of such a plane is important. Why do you think we got HIMARS? Patriot? is it purely for their capabilities on the ground while some israeli pieces are likely cheaper, as capable, and can be delivered quickly? or is it because the enemy will think twice to attack them or show a failure to not anger the US industrial machine?

There is probably a lot more to these topics than pure cost/capabilities; if it was a simple equation then the grippen will be sold much more widely with a stronger adoption rate considering what the reported performance looks like and its low operating cost (but it lacks the political/security umbrella that goes with such purchases)

Food for thought either way, but I hope one way or another that we are starting to look, talk to partners, etc. generally i don't think there is smoke without fire when we get recurring rumors of Rafale (and to a lesser extend the F-35) but either way we hope for movement on this front as you can't secure your world cup with an F1 that could crash at any time

Bruce Wayne a écrit:

Avec tout ces problèmes et ses soucis j’arrive toujours pas à comprendre comme t le F35 peut-etre considéré comme un potentiel candidat…il nous faudra un biréacteur et pour moi 2 candidats F15 ou Rafale politiquement, le choix le plus safe c’est le Rafale
Sans compter qu’avec le F16V il faudra commencer a remplacer les alphajets, de ce fait je suis d’accord avec le frere darkvador le M346 est un bon candidat qui peut aussi faire du CAS/ et du CAP, il faudra tot ou tard un demultiplicateur de force je pense a un AEWC (les G550 ou un embraer qu’on customisera) +chantier helicos et avions transports +tanker,donc prendre quelque chose (F35) qui va nous bouffer $$$ en mco est yn mauvais calcul

D'accord sur le commentaire mais par pitié le rafale c'est pas safe le choix safe c'est de faire de l'américain je précise que c'est le soutien politique le plus important à conserver

Pour le m346 un bel avion qu'on achètera sûrement d'ailleurs mais environ 25 millions piece ... et en euros pas en dollars on est pratiquement au peux d'un j10...

elite17 a écrit:

You know that Rafale has lower combat radius than an F16V with CFT right?

What are your sources and numbers?
Rafale can also carry CFT, half smaller though. Then we compare what is comparable.
But we were comparing F35 and Rafale after all... F16V having a good combat radius doesn't enter in consideration.

elite17 a écrit:

And yeah tell that su30 to run fast when the AN/APG-85 locks on it and an AIM120D is behind its back , i am sure its 2 mach will help lol

Speed and altitude ALWAYS help. If you shoot at 100 km and your missile going Mach 4 has a max range of 200km, target going Mach 2 will go out of missile reach while Mach 1.6 would not. And changing quickly altitude lowers the range of the missile.

elite17 a écrit:

That french thing doesnt have GMTI capability on its radar til today , Israelis had it on their Heron drones a decade ago , its not a funny joke.

Rafale F4 has GMTI

Stinger a écrit:

L'heure de vol d'un Rafale c'est dans les 50 00 euros

Celle d'un f16v dans les 16000 dollars

Celle d'un f35 dans les 100 000

Ces chiffres ne sont pas bons

Perso j'ai vu 20.000 euros Rafale (rapport de l'Armée de l'Air) et 40.000 dollars F35 donc pour moi ces chiffres ne me semblent pas extravagants.
Après bien sûr il faut questionner la sincérité de ces sources qui peuvent être intéressées ou sous pression

Le f16V ne suffit pas face au su30?
18 ou 24 viper supplémentaires + 2 awacs casher et attendre après 2030 pour un bi réacteur
afin de se concentrer sur les helico de manoeuvre, les vci et surtout la marine
J’espère quelque gowind avec la visite de macron