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

F-18C but still the same. You should see the video of F-18D vs SU-30MKM which is a MKI, rajlion says it can't be beaten in a dogfight the video begs to diffa, yawl.
View attachment 29576
Nothing is invincible. But as per IAF, TVC+ R-73 + HMS Sura combo makes MKI as close it to as possible.

And once again, Gonky in that video said that MKM kills of Hornet weren't recorded and MKM is the toughest dogfighter "other" than F-22. So your video goes against what you're trying to insinuate bro. Try hard.
 
with the Rafale the (almost!) 60 percent readiness rate for the full "omnirole" Rafale
This 60% is a french choice for franch air force only : we decided not to finance a full support for all the fleet. We prefer to have more fighters but less support (because in case of a war a new fighter need 3 years to be built, instead a more efficient support is nearly immediate).
=> The small fleet of Rafale M have a >>85% readiness during all the french carrier mission.
=> The Indian fleet of Rafale has a more than 75% readiness thanks to a full option support contract (75% is the target of the contract. Result is better according to IAF).
 
This 60% is a french choice for franch air force only : we decided not to finance a full support for all the fleet. We prefer to have more fighters but less support (because in case of a war a new fighter need 3 years to be built, instead a more efficient support is nearly immediate).
=> The small fleet of Rafale M have a >>85% readiness during all the french carrier mission.
=> The Indian fleet of Rafale has a more than 75% readiness thanks to a full option support contract (75% is the target of the contract. Result is better according to IAF).


Of course 60% is nonsense..Your government said the rafale availability is 48.5%
 
Last edited:
all testing on F-35s is a joint military and civilian operation and overseen by the pentagon DOT&E

"The JOTT at Edwards is part of a joint enterprise that conducts operational test and evaluation of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The unit consists of all U.S. services that will operate the different F-35 variants along with coalition partners such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands who will also operate the JSF."

civilians, military, international military and civilians. it is impossible for LM to do any of this all by itself even if it wanted to. its a hybrid my friend.

is now the "UOTT"

The UOTT, formed in December 2019, is a joint team comprised of approximately 60 Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy personnel. The team performs operational test and evaluation on the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C models, and operates with congressional oversight. As part of AFOTEC and the Navy’s Commander Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COTF), the members of this team conduct testing that delivers unbiased, operational truth about the F-35 platform. This testing ensures the F-35 can meet both the current and future needs of the warfighter.
They are clueless.
The F-35 was ready for testing 3F in 2018. It has completed them all except for the ones in the Sim. It is the war Sim that isn't ready for the tests. The F-35 is too advanced for the current war sim.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Panzerjager
indeed you can't wash away hard facts! which is why you shifted the argument from the disproportional number of F-35s in the Pacific vs the Atlantic and instead are now talking about personnel numbers!! There are more F-35s in the pacific which is what I said. why did I say that?


because you keep assuring me that the F-35 can't fight China but the US has been sending them this entire time all along and specifically to counter China. You still have not learned my friend that actions are louder than words. one would think that at this point it would be obvious but they are not really telling the truth my friend. in fact they are saying multiple things and you pick the one you want to believe!

INDOPACOM is the largest of the commands and the commander is always going to want more firepower, because that is what commanders always want. but there are multiple other commands that also need firepower. If there is a war with China the numbers change because more forces are added. You can look at the americans in 1941 vs 1945. 375,000 is 1 out of every 4 military people... 3.4 in fact but we cannot cut people up my friend. So we have this. I wonder what would be happy for this commander? 1 in 3 in INDOPACOM? 1 in 2? its already very many of people as it is. and it can be expanded when war comes anyway because the US has reach. INDOPACOM is just a US command too. let us not forget Japan, ROK, Australian etc which is also a factor.

No, there are not. There are 1000 F-35s, about 350 with the USAF, and most of those are still in the US.

I don't forget that at all, however you seem to when it comes to the magical 36 Rafale that will take on China with no issues. (other than the issues they already have of course)

36 is only for deterrent. We need 200. There is a tender coming out soon for the remaining. And we have other programs too.

In any case, you don't have to worry about India. Although our air force inventory is still WIP today, we have acheived a massive ground superiority, helped even more by the fact that the Chinese are finding it very difficult to survive in their new conditions on the ground. Mother Nature doesn't want them there. Their lack of melanin has been "quite problematic" in the very harsh Tibetan sun and they are still struggling in the cold winter.

Makeup for men:

They don't want to just "fight china" they want to dominate. The F-35 can fight China right now. Block 4 makes shifts even more in favor of the F-35 and again this is a political game that you struggle to understand.

The USAF has lost that race. Today they are talking about contesting the airspace. The US Army is also adjusting to that reality.

And NGAD and B-21 are necessary to ensure parity, alongside 1700 F-35As. Literally, just parity.

And for the next few years, the USAF actually has theater level inferiority in Taiwan. The F-22s are too few and too short-legged, the F-35A is still not ready and the NGAD and B-21 are yet to exist, whereas the Chinese are building 3 times more J-20s than the USAF is inducting F-35As.
 

Software problem during ‘rumble’ of turbulence caused Air Force F-35 to crash, report says


WASHINGTON – Glitchy software and possibly human error were responsible for the crash of an F-35 fighter jet at an Air Force base in Utah last fall, according to investigators.

Four F-35s were returning to Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, after a training flight last October when one of them encountered unforeseen turbulence as it prepared to land. A few second later, the pilot ejected and the fighter jet crashed.

The pilot was not seriously injured, but the plane was destroyed.

According to a 39-page Air Force investigation report issued Thursday, the problem was in the F-35A’s avionics software – namely the air data application (ADA) -- which wrongly interpreted flight data when the jet encountered the disruption of air flow, which was created by the plane ahead.

Wake turbulence is a common occurrence in aviation that happens when aerodynamic forces generated by a plane’s energy disrupt the flow of air around it – particularly to the rear. The turbulence can violently shake a trailing aircraft if it gets too close.

In this case, the Air Force said the “rumble” of that turbulence caused the plane’s flight data system to produce faulty information.

“This atmospheric disturbance resulted in erratic inputs to the air data application,” the report said. “This, in turn, caused erroneous outputs from the ADA and resulted in a condition in which the aircraft flight controls did not respond correctly to the actual current conditions.”

“In response, the [pilot] selected full afterburner power … to abort the landing and set up for another landing attempt,” it added. “The cause of the mishap was that the [F-35] departed controlled flight due to [software] errors immediately prior to landing, in which there was no opportunity to recover.”

Investigators also discovered the pilot of the crashed F-35 didn’t follow wake turbulence procedures that were in effect that day – which said all pilots had to keep a minimum separation distance of 9,000 feet between planes. Before ejecting, the pilot involved in the crash had kept a separation between 3,000 and 4,000 feet, investigators said. The report called this failure a “significantly contributing factor.”

“This is the first known occurrence where wake turbulence had this impact on the air data system,” the report added.

The Air Force said it’s unlikely a similar incident will happen in the future.

The crash was only the second over the past decade involving the F-35A, the variant flown by the Air Force. The loss of the destroyed plane – which was part of the 421st Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base -- was worth $166.3 million, the Air Force said.

The Air Force began flying the F-35 in 2016 and has more than 400 of the fighter jets in its fleet. The planes are based at various locations around the world.
 
Of course 60% is nonsense..Your government said the rafale availability is 48.5%
as already said :
This 60% 48% is a french choice for french air force only : we decided not to finance a full support for all the fleet. We prefer to have more fighters but less support (because in case of a war a new fighter need 3 years to be built, instead a more efficient support is nearly immediate).

=> The small fleet of Rafale M have a >>85% readiness during all the french carrier mission.
=> The Indian fleet of Rafale has a more than 75% readiness thanks to a full option support contract (75% is the target of the contract. Result is better according to IAF).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil

F-35 test squadron works to wring out upgrade problems

Delays to the TR-3 upgrade have dozens of jets on hold.


EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, California—With deliveries of new F-35s on hold while bugs are worked out of a planned upgrade, the plane’s lead test squadron is doing its part to spot problems where the new hardware and software interact.

As the lead developmental flight test unit for the F-35 program, the 461st Flight Test Squadron sits at the “nexus” between development and the operator, said squadron commander Lt. Col. Philip “Joker” Jackson.

“Even if we're going to get something that doesn't entirely work, because we're test, because we can fly it, we're going to take it up, and we're going to discover what we can and try to rip off all those Band-Aids early,” Jackson said in an interview here.

Jackson’s squadron is testing a suite of hardware and software improvements, known as Technology Refresh 3, or TR-3, that will be the backbone for Block 4—the Pentagon’s effort to equip the F-35 for fights in the decades to come. New F-35s are being produced with TR-3 gear—but the Pentagon has stopped accepting them until the hardware can reliably run the current TR-2 software, a spokesman for the F-35 joint program office said.

TR-3 will bring 20 to 25 times more computing power, plus more memory and a new panoramic cockpit display, said Maj. Adam "Hawk" Fuhrmann, the squadron’s chief of projects.

If you look at the F-35 as a flying supercomputer, “you're really replacing all the major components of the computer,” Fuhrmann said.

Jackson’s squadron, which currently has 12 F-35s of all three variants, swaps aircraft every six months or so with the Pentagon’s other test sites, mainly the test squadron at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Jackson said.

In January, the squadron took the F-35 for its first flight in the new configuration, an “important milestone” that uncovered software problems “the contractor did not identify in software labs,” according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. That has tightened the program’s timeline to complete additional tests and fix software problems.

Since the first flight, the squadron has flown the new configuration 59 times, Jackson said.

But out of 59 tests, only seven flights have fully counted toward the 214 needed to complete developmental testing.

“We have specific objectives that we're trying to knock out and so we have not been able to knock out a lot of those yet,” he said. “We do 40 missions a month, and we are able to do as many of those TR-3 as possible that would support the testing. And right now, the aircraft and the software is not stable enough for us to anywhere come close to that throughput.”

Jackson’s squadron averages about 40 test flights a month. Once TR-3 hits its stride, the unit will devote about 30 of those flights to reaching the end goal of 214.

The squadron has not been maxed out for testing capacity, but if it was, there are “all kinds of levers we could pull for surging,” Jackson said, so testing at Edwards wouldn’t be a bottleneck to TR-3 production.

“I say we're developmental test, not development, and so we do sit right there at the edge of it. We try our best to speed things along, but at the end of the day, we can only test things that are stable,” Jackson said.

The squadron is ready to go faster, Fuhrmann said, and is prepared for when the TR-3 technology is stable enough to reach 30 missions a month.
Right now, the problems the squadron is working through are not specifically on the hardware or software side, but the “interaction of both,” he said.

“What we're going through right now is trying to drill down on where some of those interactions are causing that instability just to get us to a stable platform,” he said. ”There's a lot—an order of magnitude—more technology in these aircraft than previous generations, and with that comes a lot more complexity that you have to work through.”

However, TR-3 doesn’t have to reach 214 flights before it’s deemed ready for operations. Similarly, the F-35’s current computing system, TR-2, is flying even though testers haven’t finished all of its required developmental tests.

“TR-2 is a very important thing and if you hear a lot of the generals, that's the one we're going to fight with currently,” Jackson said. “It's going to be a long time till TR-3 is carrying that load.”

Edwards will keep sustaining the development of TR-2 as long as those aircraft are in the fleet, until “whatever number of those jets are converted to TR-3 kits, whenever that happens,” Fuhrmann said.

TR-3 software and hardware improvements are already one year behind schedule, and the Pentagon has recently said it will not accept new F-35s from Lockheed Martin until TR-3 testing is complete—meaning more than 80 F-35s could be left in limbo. Deliveries of new F-35s are on hold until December at the earliest and April at the latest, the JPO said. Lockheed will have to sit on 45 jets if the delay extends to December and 81 jets if it extends to April, as the company’s contract stipulates it must deliver nine planes per month with the tech upgrade.

To get deliveries flowing again, the program first has to get the new hardware running with the old software, TR-2.

“Although we cannot provide the metrics involved due to security concerns, at a minimum TR-3 must meet TR-2 equivalency before it can be accepted for operational use,” JPO spokesperson Russ Goemaere said in a statement.

The squadron is flying jets that have been retrofitted to TR-3, not new TR-3 jets, so the hold shouldn’t affect Edwards, Jackson said.
Edwards will eventually get new jets off the line for “future development of TR-3,” but when those new builds will get released is up to the JPO and Congress, Fuhrmann said.

Testing with new TR-3 jets will be “critical,” Fuhrmann said. “Getting new hardware here to flight test—that'll allow us to rapidly iterate with Lockheed and to field faster.”

While Edwards continues testing the new tech for F-35s, back in D.C., lawmakers are deciding whether to fund a new, adaptive engine for the F-35 or press on with Pratt & Whitney’s proposed upgrade to the current engine—a discussion that became a public spat between defense companies in recent weeks.

From a pilot’s perspective, the current engine is “fantastic” for today’s needs, but there’s no denying it’s exceeding the plane’s cooling capabilities and must be improved for the future, Fuhrmann said.

When asked about the squadron’s perspective on what engine the aircraft needs, Fuhrmann said “I’d test whatever the JPO determines is the best route going forward for the jet.”

No matter the engine, Jackson said, “we love testing stuff” and “we have some pretty good airspace for it too.”
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Bon Plan
Of course 60% is nonsense..Your government said the rafale availability is 48.5%
2016 :ROFLMAO:

The aim of the Ravel programme is to guarantee the capacity to fly 380,000 flight hours over the period 2019 - 2028. This is made possible by a new industrial organisation that can adapt to changes in operational activity. For example, for the Rafale Air, "availability has been maintained at around 55%, with 25,000 flight hours expected by 2021, even though the fleet had been reduced with the first sessions of aircraft for Greece", observed the Director of DMAé. She also pointed out that the French Air Force had achieved "all the hours it needed with this availability. It has met its needs with that 55%.

Dassault Aviation has an availability rate of 84% for the aircraft for which it is responsible, compared with the 76% forecast in the contract. It should be noted, however, that the level of availability of aircraft deployed in external theatres is entirely satisfactory, with an availability rate of over 90% between 2016 and 2021. For example, the availability of Rafales deployed on external operations was 91.4% in 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bon Plan
Of course 60% is nonsense..Your government said the rafale availability is 48.5%

It's actually very impressive. The numbers don't mean the same thing.

A 48.5% Rafale availability in France is extremely impressive compared to 60% for F-35A in the US. But if the IAF's Rafales only manage 48%, then that would be really bad.

In India, Dassault is contractually obligated to provide 75%, while they are promising 90%. If we look at French figures, they seem to have underpromised. The high availability rate is why the IAF has decided to trim squadron strength down from 21 to 18.

India and the US calculate availability in a similar fashion, the French don't. But if we bring them up to par, the French number translates to 97%.
 

Small Businesses for Some F-22 Upgrades​

Jan. 14, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak
The Air Force is looking for a host of F-22 Raptor upgrades and will seek small businesses to offer potential solutions, according to a draft “open topic” on the AFVentures Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) page. No timing was stated for the upgrades.
According to a recent but undated “Focus Topics” summary in the AFVentures system, which is run by the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Air Force is looking at 14 potential F-22 upgrades, including:
  • Integrating the Thales Scorpion helmet-mounted display/weapon cuing system :ROFLMAO:
  • A long-range infrared search-and-track sensor
  • Manned-unmanned teaming
  • Pilot-assisted autonomy
  • A GPS-alternative navigation system
  • Simulation of “red air” threats
  • Algorithms for “optimized intercepts”
  • Combat identification of threats
  • Cyber intrusion detection and prevention
  • Predictive maintenance
  • Synthetic data generation
  • Sensor fusion :ROFLMAO:
  • Improved sensing
  • Real-time debriefing
The Air Force has been evaluating the Scorpion helmet for at least seven years. The F-22 is the only frontline Air Force fighter not to have a helmet-mounted display and targeting system; the F-15 and F-16 both use the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cuing System (JHMCS), and the F-35 has its own unique helmet-mounted display system (HMDS).

For various reasons—mostly budgetary, but also due to the size of the helmet hampering pilot movements under the F-22 canopy—the helmet system has been consistently deleted from planned F-22 upgrades over the years.

The AFVentures announcement says the service is willing to entertain small business proposals to process aircraft data and provide an interface to the Scorpion helmet, not to provide the helmet itself. The “desired functionality” is to include “displays of threats, battlespace lines, aircraft state information, weapon information, and navigation information.” The overall goal is to improve battlespace situational awareness; “usability and processing intensity are considerations.”

Another longtime Air Force goal is to equip the F-22 with an infrared search and track system (IRST), but using one of those available for the F-15 and F-16 has been problematic because of the challenge of integrating them with the jet’s stealth profile. The F-35 uses a stealthy faceted aperture under its nose for various infrared sensing functions. The AFVentures draft didn’t give many specifics, saying only that it’s looking for “novel hardware and software solutions” that would work at long ranges.

An IRST is considered a key sensing capability now that adversary air forces are employing stealth aircraft that have greatly reduced radar cross sections. An IRST would have to be integrated with the F-22’s other sensors—mainly its active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar—to provide a holistic view of the battlespace. The AFVentures “improved sensing” subject area speaks to this, saying “methods of interest include machine learning for radar systems, cognitive radar algorithms, radar waveform modernization, sparse sensing, and more.”

In a 2017 interview with Air Force Magazine, Ken Merchant, who was at the time Lockheed Martin’s vice president for the F-22, and more recently headed F-35 sustainment and now has his own company, Life Cycle Solutions, said the F-22’s internal layout does not have the necessary “real estate” available to accommodate an F-35-style electro-optical system. However, he suggested that if the F-22’s early-generation flat panel displays—which are thick and heavy—were swapped out for the latest slim and light versions, then space in the cockpit area might be found for an IRST. At the time, Merchant said only that the Air Force was looking at “other options.”

The F-22 could not use the Lockheed Martin “Legion Pod,” which flies with the F-15 and has been fitted to the F-16 and various drones, because it would require external carriage and defeat the F-22’s low observable features. If the F-22 carried an IRST in its “cheek” internal weapon station, where short-range AIM-9X missiles are carried, it would still require the station doors to open, also negating the jet’s stealth profile and creating asymmetric drag for extended use.

For manned-unmanned teaming, AFVentures is looking for a system to help the F-22 pilot with “monitoring and control” of an unmanned escort aircraft. The application is to take in all available information and provide the pilot with a “god’s eye view of the battlespace;” package and send commands over certain data links; and employ a touchscreen tablet as the user interface.

Likewise, the “pilot assisted autonomy” system would help the pilot by “suggestion actions” based on inputs from sensors, identify immediate risks, “reason about intentions,” and alert the pilot to hazardous situations.

For the GPS alternative, AFVentures said only that it wants “a more layered approach” to navigation and position that can provide “accurate and real-time” position without using GPS. Recent Air Force technology discussions have speculated about using extremely sensitive, nano-scale inertial measurement systems for this purpose.

The “predictive maintenance” system sounds like the F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System/Operational Data Integration Network (ALIS/ODIN), and would automatically monitor all the maintenance calls and aircraft condition reports on the F-22 fleet while providing predictive maintenance recommendations. The product will be evaluated on “accuracy, usability, and effectiveness in improving F-22 maintenance.”

For “synthetic data generation,” the Air Force wants the F-22’s large volume of classified data to be simulated so contractors can develop software for it without accessing secret data. The F-22 system program office wants “a synthetic data generation platform that can generate unclassified data with the same statistical significance as the original classified data for purposes of rapid testing and development;” presumably, of software and hardware being added through open mission systems.

For “optimized intercept,” the Air Force wants a system that will take in all the data available to the F-22 pilot and plot “an optimized pathway to intercept adversary aircraft,” presumably avoiding ground- and air-based radars and threats. The AFRL wants a system that could be flown “by a single Blue fighter against many Red fighters,” with the ability to expand to a four-ship of Blue aircraft. The pilots would need to see a display with a three-dimensional route, which is constantly updated based on sensor inputs.

“Real Time Debriefing” is described as being able to give the pilot immediate feedback on performance during Basic Fighter Maneuver training, rather than having to land and debrief. The envisaged system would compare the pilot’s actions against what the computer calculates as the best tactics to employ.

The Air Force has said it does not plan to retain the F-22 beyond around 2030, due to the advance of counter-stealth systems and the F-22’s small fleet size, but it will continue to upgrade the aircraft to keep it relevant against the toughest threats until the Next Generation Air Dominance system is fielded.
 

HIGH COSTS FORCE BELGIAN F-16 HELMET SWAP

For years, the Belgian Air Force's 1st Fighter Squadron 'Stingers' utilised the Joint Mounted Helmet Cueing System (JHMCS) aboard their F-16AM/BM (MLU) Fighting Falcons. However, Due to an increase in spare parts pricing on the JHMCS, over the last two years, Belgium has decided to convert to Thales' Scorpion Head-Mounted Display (HMD) helmet on its Lockheed Martin F-16AM/BM (MLU) Fighting Falcons

Recognizable via a single eye piece over the pilot’s right eye, the Scorpion is a full-colour HMD. It provides the pilot with a high-level of situational awareness in theatre and the capability to rapidly designate actions with a high degree of accuracy provided by the displays of what the system is seeing such as radar, missiles, and datalinks.
According to this article, the advantages of the scorpion over the JHMCS :
  • Better weight distribution for higher load factors.
  • Colour symbolism
  • Ease of use with JVNs
  • Noise reduction and 3D audio
  • Around 50% of the Belgian F-16 fleet has already switched to the Scorpion.
A Belgian pilot comments on the Scorpion:

"When I first used it, it was a disaster! I could hear the sound of the air conditioning very loudly, my reticule wasn't displaying the whole image and I was really struggling with the system. But after a few adjustments by the company representative, it's now absolutely brilliant and a huge advantage".
 
No, there are not. There are 1000 F-35s, about 350 with the USAF, and most of those are still in the US.

US counts the west coast of the US along with Alaska and Hawaii as the "pacific" because they all border the Pacific ocean. its not cheating to look at a map my friend. Airplanes can fly through the air in order to relocate. it seems like science fiction but it is real! even when an airplane is located in California it is still a part of the pacific theatre.
Books are your friend, try reading one from time to time. or at least consult a map.

36 is only for deterrent. We need 200. There is a tender coming out soon for the remaining. And we have other programs too.

yes my friend! when you are not ready it is a "deterrent" but when the F-35 is not ready enough it is a helpless paperweight!

very good!! but the nationalist propaganda doesn't stop there!

The USAF has lost that race. Today they are talking about contesting the airspace. The US Army is also adjusting to that reality.

And NGAD and B-21 are necessary to ensure parity, alongside 1700 F-35As. Literally, just parity.

And for the next few years, the USAF actually has theater level inferiority in Taiwan. The F-22s are too few and too short-legged, the F-35A is still not ready and the NGAD and B-21 are yet to exist, whereas the Chinese are building 3 times more J-20s than the USAF is inducting F-35As.
Oh no the US lost the race! even the Chinese are barely fielding any of the things the US fields already has been using for decades already!?
We know the Chinese have overtaken the US because the US is already onto the B-21 and NGAD but the Chinese haven't fielded a single stealth bomber ever but already the US is behind! Americans should scrap all B-2s, F-22s and F-35s, Super Hornets and Growlers, B-1s, and thousands of other fighters and just start learning mandarin! it is just so sad because I was under the illusion that the American combat capability mattered but its useless compared to China just building a (copied) airplane and with little combat experience in the key areas that would be needed with engines that are still in development
it just breaks the heart my friend. China is still struggling in many aspects of combat development and even struggles to cope with basic things like indian climate, but one thing is for certain it is now the worlds premier aerial superpower! Sure it doesn't field aircraft in the same quality or of the same quantity as the US, and the US has lots of friends in the region too, and China has its own problems in many ways, but the race is lost. why even 4000 F-35s won't matter now!

J-20s don't mean anything when matched against a handful of Indian Rafales because 36 is just a "deterrent" but one day they will have 200!! sadly, 1700 F-35s won't match up to China. nor will hundreds of F-22s. but even American F-22s are no match for them! of course the Chinese have not yet achieved parity with the US, but the US has already lost!

Thank you for this post random, its really shows just how out of touch you are and the wacky stuff you say. just to go over the rules whatever is the latest is best and all other things are obsolete and doomed, but the rafale is ready despite becoming increasingly old and behind the F-22 and F-35 which the Chinese already surpass. Why don't you make us a little chart with the bestest airplanes on top and the worstest on the bottom so we can understand these weird claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate
This 60% is a french choice for franch air force only : we decided not to finance a full support for all the fleet. We prefer to have more fighters but less support (because in case of a war a new fighter need 3 years to be built, instead a more efficient support is nearly immediate).
=> The small fleet of Rafale M have a >>85% readiness during all the french carrier mission.
=> The Indian fleet of Rafale has a more than 75% readiness thanks to a full option support contract (75% is the target of the contract. Result is better according to IAF).
I do not make the rules my friend. Your friend pickle oil told us that with "Omnirole" the French Air force had to change its entire reporting standard every aircraft (not just Rafales) is either ready for all missions or it is not ready at all. So with that in mind many Rafales "do not work" by the French fan's standards. its very sad but this is what they say. its also very good to say that you don't fund support I wonder what would happen if an F-35 man said "we could fly more, but it would be too costly" when the French say it, its just good business!
Integrating the Thales Scorpion helmet-mounted display/weapon cuing system :ROFLMAO:
this is how you choose to spend your retirement LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate
I do not make the rules my friend. Your friend pickle oil told us that with "Omnirole" the French Air force had to change its entire reporting standard every aircraft (not just Rafales) is either ready for all missions or it is not ready at all. So with that in mind many Rafales "do not work" by the French fan's standards. its very sad but this is what they say. its also very good to say that you don't fund support I wonder what would happen if an F-35 man said "we could fly more, but it would be too costly" when the French say it, its just good business!
I never said that, you're twisting my words. What's true is that only the notion of 'Full Mission Capable' (FMC) is taken into account, but that doesn't mean that the other aircraft don't work. More often than not, they are administratively unavailable and stored at the Châteaudun base because they have reached the number of hours they are required to work in the year. This is particularly the case for aircraft going on external operations: we send relatively small contingents (around 6 aircraft) which are used at a rate of 500% of the peacetime rate (250 hours/year--> 100 hours/month). So in 2.5 months they reach their annual quota of hours and are mothballed until the next year, and these aircraft are unavailable and reduce the availability rate of our fleet: because in addition to counting only FMC aircraft as available, we count all the aircraft without distinguishing between short-term and long-term unavailability.
 
What about you? Do you have nothing else to do? :love:

I think when you start trying to "Score points" on helmet cueing systems and try to post as many of these----> " :ROFLMAO:" as you can it might be time for a break. French peak performance is getting a slice of the helmet market in an attempt to troll Americans? was the Romanian news that hard on you?
I'm happy that belgium uses the Scorpion so you don't cry and complain as much. you are validated now. an American said so!

I never said that, you're twisting my words. What's true is that only the notion of 'Full Mission Capable' (FMC) is taken into account, but that doesn't mean that the other aircraft don't work. More often than not, they are administratively unavailable and stored at the Châteaudun base because they have reached the number of hours they are required to work in the year. This is particularly the case for aircraft going on external operations: we send relatively small contingents (around 6 aircraft) which are used at a rate of 500% of the peacetime rate (250 hours/year--> 100 hours/month). So in 2.5 months they reach their annual quota of hours and are mothballed until the next year, and these aircraft are unavailable and reduce the availability rate of our fleet: because in addition to counting only FMC aircraft as available, we count all the aircraft without distinguishing between short-term and long-term unavailability.
and the whole air force operates like this? because when French readiness numbers come up I get a fine speech about "Omnirole" and then I remember the French Air Force does not just operate Rafales, but everything has been designed around them now? Besides if it is all so well and good, I do not know why there is such concern for the numbers at all. and why there are large attempts to improve something that is under such good shape?

FIgyFhAXIAALl-q


very proud of marginal improvements