https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Rafale-compare-to-the-F-35-and-F-22-in-terms-of-performance-and-cost

Le F35 pulvérise le Rafale

SpoilAfficherMasquer

A lot of ChatGPT answers here, and as usual they're terribly wrong. For starters, the Rafale isn't cheaper than F-35 by any stretch. The F-35A had $77.9 million flyaway unit cost in Lot 14 last year and will remain under <$80 million even for Block 4 F-35A in Lot 15-17 with massive upgrades.[1] While Rafale have a unit cost ranging around $95 to 104 million (or more). Contrary to what some might imagine, Rafale isn't particularly cheaper to operate either with an operational cost of €27k CPFH equating to about $30k (2013).[2] That's comparable to F-35A which had an operational cost of $33k in 2020 with a USAF service contract with Lockheed for $30k CPFH in FY2023 (in 2012 USD).[3]

Both aircraft have very similar sustainment cost and that is ignoring their support platforms. 4th gen. platforms like Rafale despite their advanced sensors are still heavily dependent on dedicated platforms like AWACS or EW assets in order to operate over contested airspace. The F-35 on the other hand are far less reliant on dedicated platforms, largely because the kind of threat environment they're meant to operate are often non-permissive to support platforms and thus, they were designed to operate with little to no support from AWACS. This means you need a far bigger fleet of support platforms to operate Rafale or any 4th gen. platform and since the operational cost of either Rafale or F-35 pales in comparison to that of their support platforms, the cost of operating Rafale far exceeds that of F-35. This is exactly the reason why F-35 is so popular in Finland, Denmark and other countries with small Airforces as it offers enormous capabilities with very little support footprint.

The F-35 also has the advantage of able to use PGMs like JDAM or SDBs even in heavily contested airspace where Rafale would be restricted to using cruise missiles like SCALP-E. Being able to rely on $25k to $40k munitions or even $195k for GBU-53 with advanced tri-seeker vs. $2-3 million cruise missiles have a huge implication on your real world operating cost.

Rafale doesn't have greater payload capacity either because in real world a good portion of your theoretical payload goes into carrying external fuel tanks (EFTs). So things like the internal fuel fraction plays a significant role in determining your real world weapons payload. The F-35 with a single-engine carries 1.7 times the internal fuel of twin-engine Rafale-C (8,300 vs. 4,700 kg), even with Conformal Fuel tanks on Rafale the F-35 is still carrying 25% more fuel. That not only results in a significant difference in their combat radius but forces Rafale to carry at least two EFTs as a standard config. and three in almost any deep penetration strike mission. Of the 5 hardpoints rated for heavy payload between 2 to 3 are used for carrying EFTs. So where F-35 in a Beast Mode can carry 6 GBU-12 (2 internal + 4 external) or 6 GBU-31 (2,000 lb JDAM), in real world Rafale is limited to maximum carriage of 3 GBU-31 or 2,000 lb class weapon . In terms of a ‘bomb truck' the F-35 is second only to the F-15E.

Bref, LE MONDE ENTIER préfère le F35 et il y a de bonnes raisons à cela, c'est comme ça.

Tu t'en remettras khey