3 ms·

Just 2 points missing. 1. The sale of planes like the F-35 is not just about the plane. It’s about the ability to be a nation with nuclear power by “renting” t

Just 2 points missing. 1. The sale of planes like the F-35 is not just about the plane. It’s about the ability to be a nation with nuclear power by “renting” the US nuclear missile it can launch. People bought it mainly for that. The pilot and YouTuber ATE Chuet did a video talking about this if you want to dive into it. 2. The plane in itself is not as capable as say the Rafale. They tried to do way too many things with it. The vertical takeoff capability in particular made the plane worst in every other aspect and its own design is very questionable. A Dassault engineer talks about it in this video [1] [1] https://youtu.be/AVUn0e9Ic2o?si=1mTiFpZLCvRRlrIU https://youtu.be/AVUn0e9Ic2o?si=1mTiFpZLCvRRlrIU

alephnerd 2y ago
The Dassault Rafale and F35 are meant for two different types of missions, and can't be viewed as competitors. Also F35s don't need to be ALIS enabled. Israel's Adir version of the F35 uses a separate set of parts and systems co-developed with France and India. Realistically, I don't see Ukraine getting the Dassault Rafale in the near future. They'll probably go with either the Gripen due to it's lower cost or the Eurofighter due to Germany's strong relations with Ukraine. I also wouldn't rule out the potential of Ukraine potentially rolling out it's own jet fighter program - much of China's jet program owes it's origins to Ukrainian firms in the 2010s
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  These Ukrainian firms were remnants of the USSR aerospace program. The only reason they were in Ukraine is the USSR's policy of geographically distributing technological investment. And the only reason China benefitted so much was that these firms were in a state of complete abandonment and nobody in the dysfunctional government cared that the IP was sold off wholesale. There is nothing useful left.
  - avmich 2y ago
    Ukraine had the most technologically advanced rocket industry in late USSR and a pretty good aviation industry. Alumni of Ukrainian aerospace schools are showing up in Europe and Americas. We all witnessing the work of current technological pace in Ukrainian defence capabilities.
    - riehwvfbk 2y ago
      If California were to secede I guess by that logic you could claim the future independent Californistan had always had advanced rocket industry. After all, look at all the Lockheed Martin and NASA facilities. This statement would of course completely ignore who funded this work, when, and why.
      - avmich 2y ago
        Why ignored? Just like in USSR Ukraine was generating a lot of produce - and share in the USSR economy - the California also generates a lot of money it spends on rockets. So - I don't see ignoring.
        riehwvfbk 2y ago
        But that's the point. You are trying to deny that Ukraine's aerospace industry was a component of the larger USSR constellation of design bureaus. The Ukrainian bureaus were important, yes. But not the most important. By and large they were the B team. Still highly skilled, mind you. In the 1990s and 2000s the funding dried up and they mostly fell apart. They were sold to China for parts.
        avmich 2y ago
        > But not the most important. Why do you think so? Moscow was a good magnet for educated and active people, and Leningrad too, but Kiev was next, and there were other big cities in Ukraine with institutes and factories which were modern at the time as well. In USSR there were a distribution of expertise, and in some areas Ukrainian organizations were best in USSR. Ukraine was also quite big in terms of territory and population. So why they wouldn't have their proportional share in at least the mentioned areas? > They were sold to China for parts. Mostly, but not quite. A lot of people went to the West - we still see them appearing in aerospace companies. A lot of expertise in theoretical sciences also went global, as it's easier. Mriya was supported until 2022 - and rocket industry kept making Zenith and then Antares well into 2010-th. So clearly working industry remained - even though it have suffered quite a few years of problems.
- bdelmas 2y ago
  I agree that they are meant for slightly different types of missions. In practice they are not as different as other planes like the F-22 or other stealth planes. But for its design I think you should check out the video because it’s not just a question of which type of missions one plane can do but more how much the vertical takeoff impacted the overall capability of the plane, and this with its VTOL on or not. My point was that countries buy those planes for the types of missions it was designed for but beyond that also strongly because they can fire nuclear missiles and are able to lease nuclear missiles from the US and have nuclear deterrence capabilities for lease. Also agree with Ukraine not having the Rafale, it’s way too advanced for a proxy war. They didn’t get F-35 either but F-16 for the same reason.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > My point was that countries buy those planes for the types of missions it was designed for but beyond that also strongly because they can fire nuclear missiles and are able to lease nuclear missiles from the US and have nuclear deterrence capabilities for lease. Yep, that's the point of all MCAs, but the biggest difference between the F35 and other MCAs is the stealth technology aspect. The F35 (along with the SU-57 and J-35) incorporated learnings from other MCA projects from the 1990s and 2000s. You won't be able to fly a Rafale undetected on a bombing raid in Tehran or Isfahan, but that's not the point of the Rafale anyhow. Most applications I've seen of Rafale and Rafale comparable MCAs is acting as a missle platform with some dogfighting capabilities and basic bombing capabilities if needed. If the Super Rafale project takes off then you might see an F35 comparable jet from Dassault. > Also agree with Ukraine not having the Rafale, it’s way too advanced for a proxy war. They didn’t get F-35 either but F-16 for the same reason Yep! Hence why I think if Ukraine rebuilds it's airforce after this war, they will probably try to procure Saab Gripens because all they need is dogfighting plus missle platform capabilities.

alephnerd 2y ago

The Dassault Rafale and F35 are meant for two different types of missions, and can't be viewed as competitors. Also F35s don't need to be ALIS enabled. Israel's Adir version of the F35 uses a separate set of parts and systems co-developed with France and India. Realistically, I don't see Ukraine getting the Dassault Rafale in the near future. They'll probably go with either the Gripen due to it's lower cost or the Eurofighter due to Germany's strong relations with Ukraine. I also wouldn't rule out the potential of Ukraine potentially rolling out it's own jet fighter program - much of China's jet program owes it's origins to Ukrainian firms in the 2010s

riehwvfbk 2y ago
These Ukrainian firms were remnants of the USSR aerospace program. The only reason they were in Ukraine is the USSR's policy of geographically distributing technological investment. And the only reason China benefitted so much was that these firms were in a state of complete abandonment and nobody in the dysfunctional government cared that the IP was sold off wholesale. There is nothing useful left.
- avmich 2y ago
  Ukraine had the most technologically advanced rocket industry in late USSR and a pretty good aviation industry. Alumni of Ukrainian aerospace schools are showing up in Europe and Americas. We all witnessing the work of current technological pace in Ukrainian defence capabilities.
  - riehwvfbk 2y ago
    If California were to secede I guess by that logic you could claim the future independent Californistan had always had advanced rocket industry. After all, look at all the Lockheed Martin and NASA facilities. This statement would of course completely ignore who funded this work, when, and why.
    - avmich 2y ago
      Why ignored? Just like in USSR Ukraine was generating a lot of produce - and share in the USSR economy - the California also generates a lot of money it spends on rockets. So - I don't see ignoring.
      - riehwvfbk 2y ago
        But that's the point. You are trying to deny that Ukraine's aerospace industry was a component of the larger USSR constellation of design bureaus. The Ukrainian bureaus were important, yes. But not the most important. By and large they were the B team. Still highly skilled, mind you. In the 1990s and 2000s the funding dried up and they mostly fell apart. They were sold to China for parts.
        avmich 2y ago
        > But not the most important. Why do you think so? Moscow was a good magnet for educated and active people, and Leningrad too, but Kiev was next, and there were other big cities in Ukraine with institutes and factories which were modern at the time as well. In USSR there were a distribution of expertise, and in some areas Ukrainian organizations were best in USSR. Ukraine was also quite big in terms of territory and population. So why they wouldn't have their proportional share in at least the mentioned areas? > They were sold to China for parts. Mostly, but not quite. A lot of people went to the West - we still see them appearing in aerospace companies. A lot of expertise in theoretical sciences also went global, as it's easier. Mriya was supported until 2022 - and rocket industry kept making Zenith and then Antares well into 2010-th. So clearly working industry remained - even though it have suffered quite a few years of problems.
bdelmas 2y ago
I agree that they are meant for slightly different types of missions. In practice they are not as different as other planes like the F-22 or other stealth planes. But for its design I think you should check out the video because it’s not just a question of which type of missions one plane can do but more how much the vertical takeoff impacted the overall capability of the plane, and this with its VTOL on or not. My point was that countries buy those planes for the types of missions it was designed for but beyond that also strongly because they can fire nuclear missiles and are able to lease nuclear missiles from the US and have nuclear deterrence capabilities for lease. Also agree with Ukraine not having the Rafale, it’s way too advanced for a proxy war. They didn’t get F-35 either but F-16 for the same reason.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > My point was that countries buy those planes for the types of missions it was designed for but beyond that also strongly because they can fire nuclear missiles and are able to lease nuclear missiles from the US and have nuclear deterrence capabilities for lease. Yep, that's the point of all MCAs, but the biggest difference between the F35 and other MCAs is the stealth technology aspect. The F35 (along with the SU-57 and J-35) incorporated learnings from other MCA projects from the 1990s and 2000s. You won't be able to fly a Rafale undetected on a bombing raid in Tehran or Isfahan, but that's not the point of the Rafale anyhow. Most applications I've seen of Rafale and Rafale comparable MCAs is acting as a missle platform with some dogfighting capabilities and basic bombing capabilities if needed. If the Super Rafale project takes off then you might see an F35 comparable jet from Dassault. > Also agree with Ukraine not having the Rafale, it’s way too advanced for a proxy war. They didn’t get F-35 either but F-16 for the same reason Yep! Hence why I think if Ukraine rebuilds it's airforce after this war, they will probably try to procure Saab Gripens because all they need is dogfighting plus missle platform capabilities.