Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

WHOHE said:
The french will never have a stealth fighter if and when Germany selects the F-35. In 10 years the french will realized their 4th gen fighters are vulnerable to IADS, Russian and Chicom stealth fighters and will likely ask the US for the F-35s... at least the french navy will. :)
Click to expand...
In ten years the technical, operational and industrial disaster that the F-35 represents will be obvious to everyone and France will not risk hanging up on a sinking programme.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
In ten years the technical, operational and industrial disaster that the F-35 represents will be obvious to everyone and France will not risk hanging up on a sinking programme.
Click to expand...
Lol. In ten years US F-35s will be using direct energy weapons while you fanboys will still have a 50-55% MCR for your french planes.
 
WHOHE said:
Lol. In ten years US F-35s will be using direct energy weapons while you fanboys will still have a 50-55% MCR for your french planes.
Click to expand...
It is really not worth discussing with someone who does not understand anything:

  • I have already explained to you that MCR means nothing, it is the FMCR (Full Mission Capable Rate) that has an operational meaning, especially for Multi Role aircraft.
  • I have already explained to you that the FMCR is not a characteristic of the aircraft alone, but of the aircraft + the organisation that is put in place around it and that allows the aircraft to be put back in a position to carry out its missions quickly or not.
  • I have already explained to you that the Rafale has enough qualities to make it possible to increase its FMCR to 98%, as is the case with our aircraft carrier when it is on a mission or for our Rafales in OPEX.
  • On the other hand, the French operational contract is easy to fulfil in peacetime, which makes our Rafale fleet plethoric and that is why we let the Rafale's FMCR drop to around 50%, which allows us to save money.
As for putting directed energy weapons on an aircraft, this is possible on any aircraft that has sufficient electrical generation, which is not the case with the F-35 for which we are considering changing the engine. :cry:
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
It is really not worth discussing with someone who does not understand anything:

  • I have already explained to you that MCR means nothing, it is the FMCR (Full Mission Capable Rate) that has an operational meaning, especially for Multi Role aircraft.
  • I have already explained to you that the FMCR is not a characteristic of the aircraft alone, but of the aircraft + the organisation that is put in place around it and that allows the aircraft to be put back in a position to carry out its missions quickly or not.
  • I have already explained to you that the Rafale has enough qualities to make it possible to increase its FMCR to 98%, as is the case with our aircraft carrier when it is on a mission or for our Rafales in OPEX.
  • On the other hand, the French operational contract is easy to fulfil in peacetime, which makes our Rafale fleet plethoric and that is why we let the Rafale's FMCR drop to around 50%, which allows us to save money.
Click to expand...

Yet it's so easy to bait into discussing it and seeing you squirm.
Picdelamirand-oil said:
As for putting directed energy weapons on an aircraft, this is possible on any aircraft that has sufficient electrical generation, which is not the case with the F-35 for which we are considering changing the engine. :cry:
Click to expand...

Well duh. Which is why it's getting a more powerful engine because F-35 is evolving into a direct energy based fighter while your french plane still uses the same old engine it entered service 20 plus years ago as it gets heavier. F-35 is an evolutionary fighter while your french plane is de-evolution. There's nothing evolutionary about your cute little plane. :(
 
WHOHE said:
Yet it's so easy to bait into discussing it and seeing you squirm.


Well duh. Which is why it's getting a more powerful engine because F-35 is evolving into a direct energy based fighter while your french plane still uses the same old engine it entered service 20 plus years ago as it gets heavier. F-35 is an evolutionary fighter while your french plane is de-evolution. There's nothing evolutionary about your cute little plane. :(
Click to expand...
The Rafale has no need to improve its TWR:

Lockheed Martin F-35 A0.87 with full fuel (1.07 with 50% fuel, 1.19 with 25% fuel)
Dassault Rafale0.988Version M, 100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missiles

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
WHOHE said:
According to Safran CEO it does... big time!

Of course you would use wiki. Wiki is meant for people with your mental condition.
Click to expand...
  1. The CEO of Safran has the right to say something stupid if it has a chance to improve his business
  2. So that means you have better sources that contradict these figures. We are eager to see them so that we can understand how wrong we are. :ROFLMAO:
 
WHOHE said:
Lol. In ten years US F-35s will be using direct energy weapons while you fanboys will still have a 50-55% MCR for your french planes.
Click to expand...
There will be a small nuclear reactor in it? If not the engine is already too busy just to keep the obese turkey on flight so where will they found the energy?
 
WHOHE said:
2008 and we know for a fact that two F-35 pilots have taken it to mach 1.6 with a full internal load in interviews unlike your french plane where there is not even a year given of when your plane super cruised with 4 missiles and a tank. Yours is just a claim with no substance to back it up other than it can while the F-35 has at least two pilots in interview talking about taking it to that speed with a full internal combat load.

But nice try, champ.
Click to expand...
You call that a response? I can give you a lot of answers like that and with a bit more credibility than you. No, the only admissible answers from you are with a link to a serious, rather official source and not from the JPO or Lockheed Martin who are patent liars.
 
Optimist said:
Now add 3 tanks so it has the same fuel fraction and run the numbers again..You have to admire the deceit of frog trolls.
Click to expand...
I've done the work to calculate in a decent way the range of the Rafale, taking into account its fuel fraction and its aerodynamics, I'm still waiting for you to do the same for the F-35 and then we can compare.
 
n8144y3wuya81.jpg
 
You think that the payload bay does not count for the increase in drag, but it does count even when it is not loaded, i.e. even when returning from a mission.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
You call that a response? I can give you a lot of answers like that and with a bit more credibility than you. No, the only admissible answers from you are with a link to a serious, rather official source and not from the JPO or Lockheed Martin who are patent liars.
Click to expand...
Than was the USN making those statement. You lose again.

Picdelamirand-oil said:
I've done the work to calculate in a decent way the range of the Rafale, taking into account its fuel fraction and its aerodynamics, I'm still waiting for you to do the same for the F-35 and then we can compare.
Click to expand...
Is dementia kicking in? we have already done the fuel fraction. Please go back and look again.
 
Optimist said:
Than was the USN making those statement. You lose again.
Click to expand...
We just want a proof, a link for example, it is what you ask when we give you information on the Rafale, then we apply the same approach.

Is dementia kicking in? we have already done the fuel fraction. Please go back and look again.
Click to expand...

The fuel fraction is very insufficient to estimate the range of an aircraft because it assumes that the aerodynamic performance is the same. In the interest of honesty I have made a complete calculation and I thought that the example of my calculation would allow you to do the same for the F-35, but if you prefer to stick to the fuel fraction only, I prefer to warn you that a Rafale with nearly 5t of internal fuel and 6t of external fuel will have an unbeatable fuel fraction.
 
In 1985 the estimated cost of 250 UK Typhoon aircraft was £7 billion. By 1997 the estimated cost was £17 billion; by 2003, £20 billion, and the in-service date (2003, defined as the date of delivery of the first aircraft to the RAF) was 54 months late.

Just to keep military procurement context lol.
 
You probably don't realise how much it makes us laugh that we can use the Typhoon as an example, almost as much as if we used the F-35 or the Tejas as examples.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
You probably don't realise how much it makes us laugh that we can use the Typhoon as an example, almost as much as if we used the F-35 or the Tejas as examples.
Click to expand...

Meh, you can try and group the F-35 in their but it remains your fictional reality.

Rafale is really good, it's not the F-16 or the F-35.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom