USAF has more F16 than Flying Turkey F35.Greece has more F-16s than Rafales
Last edited:
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Austalia will be without subs for yearS.
It's even possible that the Virginia subs will never be delivered, as USN is short versus chinese navy. To avoid losing face, some virginia WITH US CREW will be said to be australian...
Europerans don't like working with France? Don't take the german case for a generality (Germany is a US dog, with a strong collar) : we sell FDI to Greece and Sweden, we sell Rafale to Greece and Croatia, and the Portugal may choose it. We are developping Stratus missiles with UK. SAMP/T, Akeron ATM, Ariane, Airbus, Caesar artillery....
The best news for GCAP would be a Germany entry......I don't normally post what I read on other forums, but this one says it all, It was about the UK/LP GCAP, Something that is eating them to the bone with jealousy and so they need to attack it,
The French has no mirror to themselves, The UK is stuck in the 80's and forget everything they did on the f-35, Yet it's not an issue for France, who hasn't developed a fighter for 40+ years,
a nice sour grape, it's good that we just have the Rafale and not that 6th gen rubbish
Connexion - AIR-DEFENSE.NET
forum.air-defense.net
"I also believe this is a "waiting for Daddy's proposals on the F-47 export" project, because the reality is that none of the protagonists have the necessary building blocks to advance their technology.
Given that the technological leap from the 80s to 2026 is too significant and fragmented, and given that they currently have more interests in the F35 and earn more while owning nothing, the BEs need to be kept busy .
The Rafale does not have this problem"
The world is rubbish now
They also are happy for BAE
Currently in diagram, the farthest AIM-120's fin is 101 cm from center.
From real pics, considering space for hinge & its drive motor, the door edge could be around 115 cm from center.
Then there is a thin aux-door to cover hinge gap, so add say 5 cm more.
So at around 120 cm the belly edge would curve up towards SWB.
The belly & SWB surfaces would meet around say 125 cm from center.
But the diagram's SWB doesn't match with AIM-9L/M dimensions.
So this entire CAD based on inaccurate diagram is inaccurate & needs many small adjustments.
I'll try to find a high resolution head-on pic taken from far distance to superimpose & check.
we are not talking about the USAF though. Remember your point with Greece was they operate a larger number of what they think is best, and by you own words, that would mean the F-16 is more than the Rafale.
you do this frequently. I point out that Greece does something, you change countries and air forces. How can we have any conversations in such a fashion when you constantly change the parameters of measurement and the subject of the debate with every post??
This is what I mean when I say posting in bad faith. You will attempt to "Win" every post even if it was not at all with anything that anyone claimed or even brought up at all.
i love how petty and insecure you are. You are on a 1 man crusade to prove every stereotype to be true.
I think this has already been explained. you are walking example of how France loses-- you don't take customer feedback. You don't pay attention to markets. you TELL people what to want, instead to learning what they want.
correct. and its not just in defence matters but that is a separate subject. this is all very Meta as you demonstrate to us why they don't like working with the French while trying to explain to us that such a thing is not true, meanwhile i keep saying that you don't pay attention to what people tell you in plain English.
perhaps you would continue to be dismissive, nasty, brutish and deaf to show us how likable and easy to work with French people are?
and humble too. Very humble. not at all the sort to brag, and "forget" to apologize when they are wrong. not at all stubborn and pig headed and snobbish
ah yes, everyone loves to work with you.
except all the people who don't and prefer to work with someone else-- they're all just dogs.
I swear to everyone on this forum. Bon Plan and I are not friends doing an act online where he proves me right with every post. this is not scripted and he is not a paid actor.
This is an actual French person showing you exactly how obnoxious he can be while telling us they are actually very well liked and people enjoy their company and being contractually attached to them.
one would think the light bulb would go on at one point, but yes they are "at war" with everyone all the time and naturally Bon Plan is not throttling back
The sheer number of nations buying F-35s in Europe and in the amounts they are purchasing them basically shows they prefer to work with others. As you said before, the customers are the ambassadors. boy your own standards your "ambassador" has let you down in Europe. Lets look at this in the reverse? how projects are active in Europe that don't have French involvement? Even Sweden which was Neutral until a few years ago had projects and collaboration with other countries in Europe. How does France even compare to Sweden? and this is before getting into all the "Dogs" as you call them. By the words of French posters here the US of A has more influence in Europe than France does. And a lot of Europeans much prefer the Americans hell most of them prefer those "dogs" the Germans over France.
the Swiss did not even want to tell the French they were going with F-35. they told "french insiders" up until the final announcement that Rafale was going to win. very funny but not surprising. You can't talk to them anyway, so just tell them what they want to hear until you can get away from them. this very thread is proof that the French are exhausting to "Work" with. fun fact about Switzerland. The Rafale has won in India. but even with all the winning in India the French will lament Switzerland with a special bitterness that is sstill here. Why? because the French would trade 3 India's for 1 Swiss win because Switzerland is Europe. yes they have won in Greece and Crotia, but we all know these are not the crown jewels of Europe. Look at the list of European countries buying F-35s. Belgium, Netherlands, Swiss, Germany, Italy, Denmark, UK and then a number of smaller eastern yuro countries-- and the Greeks still! No offense to crotia, and its absolutely a yuro country but its not what the French really want.
Some idiot shows up and spouts nonsense about French people or French systems—which actually violates the site's rules, since you aren't supposed to attack nationalities. Personally, I just let it slide, but @Bon Plan likes to reply; it’s pointless, but he enjoys it, so the result is several pages of completely useless back-and-forth.
Barracuda was choosen by Australia.
Barracuda program was running well.
Aukus was only a political move, agreed by an idiot Australian PM (what else could one expect from a descendant of an English convict ?) that will cost nuts to Australian people.
I just hope France will not divert its Rafale to air cover Switzerland when the F35 fleet will be grounded....
Are you still delusional about how bad it was?
Why Australia wanted out of its French submarine deal
Canberra has signaled for months it was seeking to walk away over cost blowouts and delays.
www.politico.eu
September 16, 2021 6:50 pm CET!!! You didn't yet have the comparison with the cost and timelines of AUKUS; it’s just that you believed a fairy tale.Are you still delusional about how bad it was?
Why Australia wanted out of its French submarine deal
Canberra has signaled for months it was seeking to walk away over cost blowouts and delays.
But france was told for most of the year, Australia was looking for other options, France just thought they had australia over a barrel, and kept cutting work share from 90% down to 60% and wanted to cut it further, While the price increased
Big mistake guys, We decided to pay more and go nuke
Getting what is said to be the best sub in the world, secondhand virginal well before what the French sub could have been delivered
The SSN-AUKUS is being laid next year
www.defenceconnect.com.au
Big mistake guys, We decided to pay more and go nuke
Getting what is said to be the best sub in the world, secondhand virginal well before what the French sub could have been delivered
The SSN-AUKUS is being laid next year
Steel to be cut on first SSN-AUKUS next year: Former UK defence secretary says
Now former UK defence secretary John Healey has used one of his final official press conferences, alongside his Australian counterpart, to confirm a significant milestone for the SSN-AUKUS program as concerns about the program continue to surface.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
50$ billion Barracuda deal. for 12 subs. Some said 80$ billion....Are you still delusional about how bad it was?
Why Australia wanted out of its French submarine deal
Canberra has signaled for months it was seeking to walk away over cost blowouts and delays.
repeat me what is the estimated Aukus deal ? 4 to 5 times more, no? and late, very late (if ever !)
And the last program review of Barracuda, just before the deal was broken, was fully positiv from the Australian point of view. If not, how to explain Naval Group was compensated, my smart kangaroo ?
Good luck with the US bill... ask Switzerland about the F-35 bill.But france was told for most of the year, Australia was looking for other options, France just thought they had australia over a barrel, and kept cutting work share from 90% down to 60% and wanted to cut it further, While the price increased
Big mistake guys, We decided to pay more and go nuke
Getting what is said to be the best sub in the world, secondhand virginal well before what the French sub could have been delivered
The SSN-AUKUS is being laid next year
Steel to be cut on first SSN-AUKUS next year: Former UK defence secretary says
Now former UK defence secretary John Healey has used one of his final official press conferences, alongside his Australian counterpart, to confirm a significant milestone for the SSN-AUKUS program as concerns about the program continue to surface.
You never ask for nucelar sub. Never. You are the cuckold of a GB & US farce.
At least we have a date to laid the keel... Now we will laught for years end decencials about the entry in service date...
PS : what about the collins refurbishment? May I suggest a very complete and deep one, because you are far away any replacement.
The Methodological Disaster of the F-35 Program
The lack of a phased methodology regarding ground test benches—specifically the software integration laboratories, or System Integration Labs (SIL)—is one of the F-35 program's most critical bottlenecks. This is where an engineering error turns into industrial paralysis.In a conventional aerospace program, ground test benches allow the aircraft to be simulated component by component before the code actually flies. However, for the F-35 (TR-3 / Block 4), these laboratories have become methodological "black holes" for three major reasons:
1. The impossibility of "Fault Isolation"
When an engineer tests an intermediate software version on an integration bench and a system crash occurs, the first question to answer is:
2. Physical saturation of test benches (The "Bottleneck")
Because bugs cannot be isolated quickly, the time each software version spends on ground-based test benches has skyrocketed.
This is the ultimate pitfall of the F-35’s centralized data fusion. Even when a software version finally runs without crashing on ground test benches, it crashes again as soon as it is installed on an actual flight-test aircraft. Why? Because a ground-based test bench simulates sensors (radar, electronic warfare) in a theoretical and deterministic manner. In actual flight, sensors contend with real-world "noise": electromagnetic interference, extreme airframe thermal fluctuations (linked to PTMS shortcomings), and asynchronous raw data streams.
The TR-3 processor, which operated smoothly in the controlled environment of the lab, becomes overwhelmed by this chaos of real-world flight data. The mission software then collapses under the load, triggering the notorious black screens or radar reboots that test pilots are currently experiencing.
In summary
By skipping the crucial step of hardware stabilization via simple software, Lockheed Martin has turned its test labs into facilities that treat symptoms rather than root causes. Engineers are no longer performing rigorous validation; instead, they are engaged in constant crisis management on the ground—which explains why the "combat-ready" TR-3 versions remain hopelessly stuck at the factory.
4. Simulation vs. Stimulation
The terminological distinction between simulation and stimulation is common in combat systems engineering. This is precisely how the architecture of a modern System Integration Lab (SIL) should function.
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/14/4675
The nuance lies in how the F-35 program implemented these two modes for its most complex sensors, and why the stimulation phase turned into a technical trap.
4.1. Mode 1: Simulation (Validation of simple logic)
As you noted, this mode replaces the physical sensor with a purely software-based model. For the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), the digital data words (speed, pitch, roll) that the accelerometers would have generated are injected directly into the aircraft's processor.
To take things a step further, we move to stimulation. Here, the actual sensor computer (the AESA radar or electronic warfare processor) is physically installed on the ground-based test bench. Instead of injecting clean digital data, the system is bombarded with physical signals so that it operates under real-world conditions.
It was precisely during this stimulation phase that the lack of a phased methodology—specifically, the absence of a stable Block 3i equivalent to validate the TR-3—caused the laboratories to become overwhelmed.
In the F-35, the data streams generated by stimulating physical sensors are massive. Systems such as the AN/APG-85 AESA radar or the ASQ-239 electronic warfare suite, when stimulated by ground-based wave generators, produce terabytes of raw data.
Because "Stimulation" mode caused random, baffling crashes (due to the lack of a pre-hardened TR-3 hardware base), engineers were forced to step back and rely for too long on "Simulation" mode—which involves injecting simplified, perfect digital data—in order to validate their code and meet political deadlines.
This explains the dramatic discrepancy I mentioned: the software appeared to function correctly in ground-based simulation mode (because the injected data was too clean), but failed as soon as the aircraft flew in real-world conditions, confronted with the harsh reality of physical environmental stimuli.
The distinction between these two modes is precisely the key to understanding why an aircraft can be cleared for service on a test bench yet prove incapable of keeping its radar powered on once airborne.
5. Testing an "F-35-in-the-Box" equipped with TR-3 within the JSE?
That is the central challenge right now, but it recreates the exact same computing bottleneck.
The goal of the historic April 2024 agreement between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin was precisely to secure the intellectual property rights needed to code new versions of the "F-35-in-a-Box" (FIAB) adapted to the TR-3 architecture, so they could be integrated into the JSE (Joint Simulation Environment).
https://www.congress.gov/118/meetin...es/HHRG-118-AS25-Wstate-SchmidtM-20240416.pdf
Upgraded F-35s won't be accepted by Pentagon come July - Breaking Defense
However, porting the TR-3 "brain" into the JSE's virtual environment is proving to be an exact replay of the issues encountered on ground-based test benches (SIL) and in actual aircraft. Recent audit reports (notably the DOT&E annual report) document a new integration crisis.
Where The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Stands
F-35 Full Rate Production Finally Approved
The Aviationist
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3264330/f-35-conducts-first-flight-with-tr-3/
DOT&E Says No Combat-Capable TR-3-Configured F-35s Were Delivered in FY2025
Here is what happens when attempting to test the TR-3 "In a Box" block in the Navy simulator:
5.1. The software version issue (The 30R08 impasse)
The JSE was developed and validated using mission software from TR-2 generation aircraft (the stable 30R08 version).
To test the TR-3, Lockheed Martin must provide the Navy laboratory with an exact software replica of the behavior of the new L3Harris processors and the transition code (the "4F" or 40R software series).
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2022_SARS/F-35_SAR_Dec_2022_25_July_2023.pdf
Where The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Stands
The JSE is not an ordinary flight simulator; it is a very high-density virtual stimulation environment. The JSE uses government software (such as the NGTS system) to generate dozens of ultra-complex Russian and Chinese radio-frequency threats (jammers, latest-generation missiles, enemy AESA radars). Sam Acquisition 360
When the TR-3 "F-35-in-a-Box" virtual module is "plugged into" this simulator:
The Aviationist
In conclusion
It is possible to test a TR-3 "F-35-in-a-Box" within the JSE, but one runs into the exact same methodological roadblock: the testing tool (the JSE) is ready and high-performing (thanks to the Navy's laboratory), yet the object being tested (Lockheed's TR-3 code) remains too unstable and ill-suited to handle the demands of high-intensity combat, even in a virtual environment.
https://simpleflying.com/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-dod-2024-report/
F-35 Full Rate Production Finally Approved
The lack of a phased methodology regarding ground test benches—specifically the software integration laboratories, or System Integration Labs (SIL)—is one of the F-35 program's most critical bottlenecks. This is where an engineering error turns into industrial paralysis.In a conventional aerospace program, ground test benches allow the aircraft to be simulated component by component before the code actually flies. However, for the F-35 (TR-3 / Block 4), these laboratories have become methodological "black holes" for three major reasons:
1. The impossibility of "Fault Isolation"
When an engineer tests an intermediate software version on an integration bench and a system crash occurs, the first question to answer is:
- Where is the bug located?
- Is it a failure in the low-level TR-3 hardware (a device driver, a faulty memory chip, localized overheating)?
- Is it a bug in the adaptation of the mission code (the "4F" software)?
- Is it a timing synchronization conflict on the high-speed data bus?
2. Physical saturation of test benches (The "Bottleneck")
Because bugs cannot be isolated quickly, the time each software version spends on ground-based test benches has skyrocketed.
- Lockheed Martin’s integration labs in Fort Worth operate 24/7, yet they are physically saturated.
- To break the logjam, engineers are forced to create "patches upon patches." Instead of cleaning up the code at the root, they add lines of code to work around crashes. This accumulation makes the software even more bloated and unpredictable, while increasing processor load.
- The GAO highlighted that this lab saturation creates a bottleneck effect: until a version is (artificially) stabilized on the test bench, the next team cannot test the subsequent functions. Consequently, the entire Block 4 schedule has suffered a cascading collapse.
This is the ultimate pitfall of the F-35’s centralized data fusion. Even when a software version finally runs without crashing on ground test benches, it crashes again as soon as it is installed on an actual flight-test aircraft. Why? Because a ground-based test bench simulates sensors (radar, electronic warfare) in a theoretical and deterministic manner. In actual flight, sensors contend with real-world "noise": electromagnetic interference, extreme airframe thermal fluctuations (linked to PTMS shortcomings), and asynchronous raw data streams.
The TR-3 processor, which operated smoothly in the controlled environment of the lab, becomes overwhelmed by this chaos of real-world flight data. The mission software then collapses under the load, triggering the notorious black screens or radar reboots that test pilots are currently experiencing.
In summary
By skipping the crucial step of hardware stabilization via simple software, Lockheed Martin has turned its test labs into facilities that treat symptoms rather than root causes. Engineers are no longer performing rigorous validation; instead, they are engaged in constant crisis management on the ground—which explains why the "combat-ready" TR-3 versions remain hopelessly stuck at the factory.
4. Simulation vs. Stimulation
The terminological distinction between simulation and stimulation is common in combat systems engineering. This is precisely how the architecture of a modern System Integration Lab (SIL) should function.
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/14/4675
The nuance lies in how the F-35 program implemented these two modes for its most complex sensors, and why the stimulation phase turned into a technical trap.
4.1. Mode 1: Simulation (Validation of simple logic)
As you noted, this mode replaces the physical sensor with a purely software-based model. For the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), the digital data words (speed, pitch, roll) that the accelerometers would have generated are injected directly into the aircraft's processor.
- Objective: To verify that flight control or navigation algorithms respond correctly to a theoretical trajectory.
- Limitation: This mode works perfectly on F-35 test benches. It is thanks to this mode that the transition software "4F" displays apparent stability during initial laboratory tests.
To take things a step further, we move to stimulation. Here, the actual sensor computer (the AESA radar or electronic warfare processor) is physically installed on the ground-based test bench. Instead of injecting clean digital data, the system is bombarded with physical signals so that it operates under real-world conditions.
- For the inertial reference system: The physical IMU is mounted on a motorized tri-axial oscillating table (motion platform) to mechanically stimulate its microscopic sensors (MEMS/gyros).
- For radar and electronic warfare: The aircraft's nose (or antennas) is placed inside a ground-based anechoic chamber, and actual radiofrequency (RF) waves are emitted to "trick" the radar into believing it is facing targets.
It was precisely during this stimulation phase that the lack of a phased methodology—specifically, the absence of a stable Block 3i equivalent to validate the TR-3—caused the laboratories to become overwhelmed.
In the F-35, the data streams generated by stimulating physical sensors are massive. Systems such as the AN/APG-85 AESA radar or the ASQ-239 electronic warfare suite, when stimulated by ground-based wave generators, produce terabytes of raw data.
- The computing bottleneck: When these actual physical sensors send this tsunami of data to the new central processor (the TR-3’s ICP), the internal communication links (PCI Express buses or fiber optics) and the TR-3 operating system collapse under the load.
- The inability to reproduce the bug: The nature of physical stimulation is that it is not 100% deterministic. An RF signal on the ground might experience micro-interference lasting a fraction of a millisecond. If the TR-3 processor crashes at that moment, engineers are unable to reproduce the exact same crash on the next attempt.
Because "Stimulation" mode caused random, baffling crashes (due to the lack of a pre-hardened TR-3 hardware base), engineers were forced to step back and rely for too long on "Simulation" mode—which involves injecting simplified, perfect digital data—in order to validate their code and meet political deadlines.
This explains the dramatic discrepancy I mentioned: the software appeared to function correctly in ground-based simulation mode (because the injected data was too clean), but failed as soon as the aircraft flew in real-world conditions, confronted with the harsh reality of physical environmental stimuli.
The distinction between these two modes is precisely the key to understanding why an aircraft can be cleared for service on a test bench yet prove incapable of keeping its radar powered on once airborne.
5. Testing an "F-35-in-the-Box" equipped with TR-3 within the JSE?
That is the central challenge right now, but it recreates the exact same computing bottleneck.
The goal of the historic April 2024 agreement between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin was precisely to secure the intellectual property rights needed to code new versions of the "F-35-in-a-Box" (FIAB) adapted to the TR-3 architecture, so they could be integrated into the JSE (Joint Simulation Environment).
https://www.congress.gov/118/meetin...es/HHRG-118-AS25-Wstate-SchmidtM-20240416.pdf
Upgraded F-35s won't be accepted by Pentagon come July - Breaking Defense
However, porting the TR-3 "brain" into the JSE's virtual environment is proving to be an exact replay of the issues encountered on ground-based test benches (SIL) and in actual aircraft. Recent audit reports (notably the DOT&E annual report) document a new integration crisis.
Where The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Stands
F-35 Full Rate Production Finally Approved
The Aviationist
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3264330/f-35-conducts-first-flight-with-tr-3/
DOT&E Says No Combat-Capable TR-3-Configured F-35s Were Delivered in FY2025
Here is what happens when attempting to test the TR-3 "In a Box" block in the Navy simulator:
5.1. The software version issue (The 30R08 impasse)
The JSE was developed and validated using mission software from TR-2 generation aircraft (the stable 30R08 version).
To test the TR-3, Lockheed Martin must provide the Navy laboratory with an exact software replica of the behavior of the new L3Harris processors and the transition code (the "4F" or 40R software series).
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2022_SARS/F-35_SAR_Dec_2022_25_July_2023.pdf
Where The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Stands
- However, because Lockheed Martin is significantly behind schedule in delivering functional iterations of the "F-35-in-a-Box" for TR-3, the JSE has stalled. F-35 Full Rate Production Finally Approved https://www.facebook.com/thef35/posts/march-f-35-fast-facts-have-arrivedthe-f-35-continues-to-support-warfighter-readi/1368366971988239/
F-35, les travaux du Technology Refresh (TR) 3 terminés !
L’avionneur Lockheed Martin a terminé les travaux sur la mise à niveau majeure Technology Refresh (TR) 3 destinée à l’avion de combat multirôles F-35 « Lightning II ». L’occasion de faire le point sur certaines améliorations rendues publiques.www.avianews.ch
- Laboratory engineers had to conduct certain test sessions using "truncated" TR-3 software (the stripped-down training version), which is of no value for validating combat effectiveness against cyber threats or advanced enemy radars.
The JSE is not an ordinary flight simulator; it is a very high-density virtual stimulation environment. The JSE uses government software (such as the NGTS system) to generate dozens of ultra-complex Russian and Chinese radio-frequency threats (jammers, latest-generation missiles, enemy AESA radars). Sam Acquisition 360
When the TR-3 "F-35-in-a-Box" virtual module is "plugged into" this simulator:
- The TR-3 code is designed to simultaneously ingest and process all these raw threats in order to perform its centralized "data fusion." Sam Acquisition 360
- The simulation crash: The computational load required by the JSE to stimulate the simulated TR-3 processor is so massive that the simulator's computing architecture experiences the same timing synchronization losses as an aircraft in actual flight. The TR-3 FIAB software crashes mid-simulation. F-35 Full Rate Production Finally Approved
The situation is so strained that the Pentagon’s testing office (DOT&E) has sounded the alarm. The official report notes that delays in Lockheed Martin’s delivery of the "F-35-in-a-Box" modules for the TR-3 configuration are jeopardizing the entire Block 4 operational testing schedule. The DOT&E even describes the current contractual schedule as "totally unacceptable," as the military lacks the necessary software tools to test the viability of the TR-3 F-35s that are nonetheless rolling off the assembly lines. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2025/dow/2025f35lightning.pdf?ver=anyzotKts3A0Ec5g7-TO8g== F-35 Full Rate Production Finally ApprovedThe Aviationist
In conclusion
It is possible to test a TR-3 "F-35-in-a-Box" within the JSE, but one runs into the exact same methodological roadblock: the testing tool (the JSE) is ready and high-performing (thanks to the Navy's laboratory), yet the object being tested (Lockheed's TR-3 code) remains too unstable and ill-suited to handle the demands of high-intensity combat, even in a virtual environment.
https://simpleflying.com/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-dod-2024-report/
F-35 Full Rate Production Finally Approved
Last edited:
Dude, All that for nothing, You need a better AI bot,
The virtual environment is where it's tested, it can't be tested in real life
In the post virtual environment is for the F-35 it means with F-35-in-a-Box instead of real F-35.
the French are funny in their bubble, There isn't much to test with the Rafale and their sim is for flight training
They have to test the virtual F-35 in a sim, simply because some tests can't be done in real life
The existing sims weren't clever enough to test the F-35 blk 3F, Which was the delay for full production, They had to design a new sim,
Again the F-35's Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) upgrade delivers a massive computational leap featuring a 25 to 37-fold increase in processing power and a 20-fold increase in memory capacity compared to the legacy TR-2 system, The sim isn't good enough and has to be designed again, to develop the software to combat status, It is taking longer than expected
To keep you happy, I got an AI bot to tell you
AI Overview
The F-35's Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) required major software and hardware updates to accurately model and test the advanced capabilities introduced in Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3).
SAM.gov +1
They have to test the virtual F-35 in a sim, simply because some tests can't be done in real life
The existing sims weren't clever enough to test the F-35 blk 3F, Which was the delay for full production, They had to design a new sim,
Again the F-35's Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) upgrade delivers a massive computational leap featuring a 25 to 37-fold increase in processing power and a 20-fold increase in memory capacity compared to the legacy TR-2 system, The sim isn't good enough and has to be designed again, to develop the software to combat status, It is taking longer than expected
To keep you happy, I got an AI bot to tell you
AI Overview
The F-35's Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) required major software and hardware updates to accurately model and test the advanced capabilities introduced in Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3).
SAM.gov +1
Last edited:
Of course we all know what is under picoil's skin, The french have no money
F5, UAE pulled out and a €3.5 billion short fall, The F5 is currently unfunded and at best will be 2033, This date will probably not happen
FCAS, dead, the French have no money to do it themselves and are trying to get someone to pay the bill for them, no one is silly enough so far
They wanted Sweden to partner them, but Sweden is going with Germany, They know the French are losers and charge a lot
the French are saying ''Ultimately, the average export price for the 299 Rafale aircraft sold in 2026 amounts to €228 million, ranging from €187 million for Indonesia to €267 million for India.''
F5, UAE pulled out and a €3.5 billion short fall, The F5 is currently unfunded and at best will be 2033, This date will probably not happen
FCAS, dead, the French have no money to do it themselves and are trying to get someone to pay the bill for them, no one is silly enough so far
They wanted Sweden to partner them, but Sweden is going with Germany, They know the French are losers and charge a lot
the French are saying ''Ultimately, the average export price for the 299 Rafale aircraft sold in 2026 amounts to €228 million, ranging from €187 million for Indonesia to €267 million for India.''
Last edited:
We are not stupids kangaroo cuckolded by sleppy Joe and Bo Jonhson....
All the differents Rafale standards were issued on time. F5 will have the same end, because not a single one is built on a faulty previous one as in F-35.