jackjack

What do EU pilots say about the F-35 training simulator, plus flight hours? There has been enough training for independent opinion. L'expérience de la Norvège https://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/fagprat/slik-er-f-35-utdanningen-pa-luke-afb/ What are the EU pilots saying about the F-35 training simulator, along with flight hours? There has been enough trained for an independent opinion.

Posting infrared images, less than a mile from a plane and then saying "a pretty torch in the night" just tells me what you don't know. On how the infrared spectrum works and how it is handled by the F35. There is a lot on google about this. F-16 Le moteur n'est pas éteint, où est le panache ? Posting infrared pictures, at under a kilometer of an aircraft and then saying "a nice blowtorch in the night" Only tells me what you don't know. Of how the infrared spectrum works and how it is managed by the F35. There is a lot on google about it.

SLD est un bon site qui mérite d'être lu. Ils font aussi beaucoup d'articles sur l'Australie. SLD is a good site and well worth reading. They do quite a few articles on Australia too.

Vous pouvez ne pas aimer mon opinion. Je me concentrerais sur les domaines dans lesquels le Rafale se situe par rapport aux autres appareils de la génération 4.5 et a une réelle chance. Il y a une rosée de finitions dans laquelle il se trouve. Je pense que si le F-35 est proposé, il est certain de gagner contre les 4,5 générations. Même si c'était une décision politique à 80%, je serais choqué s'il perdait. Quant aux nations qui contrôlent leurs armes lorsqu'elles sont vendues à d'autres pays. Vous devriez peut-être regarder l'aide que la France a apportée au Royaume-Uni avec les missiles Exocet pendant la guerre des Malouines. You may not like my opinion. I would focus on where the Rafale is up against other 4.5 gen and has a real chance. There are a dew completions it is in. I think that if the F-35 is offered, it's a certainty to win against all 4.5 gen. Even if it was an 80% political decision, i'd be shocked if it lost. As to nations controlling their weapons when sold to other countries. You might want to look at the help that France gave the UK, with the Exocet missiles during the Falkland war.

Tout à fait, LM ne peut rien changer. Tout est une décision des partenaires, les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni en tête. Le F-35 est une proposition à prendre ou à laisser. Ce qui est fait pour un pays est disponible pour tous les autres pays qui achètent le F-35. Il existe une certaine marge de manœuvre permettant d'autofinancer les caractéristiques approuvées par les partenaires. Very much so, LM can not change a thing. Everything is a decision of the partners, with the USA and UK leading. The F-35 is a take it or leave it proposition. What is done for one country is available to every other country that buys the F-35. There is some leeway where you can self fund partner approved features.

Je dirais que le Rafale est un succès et qu'il sert bien les intérêts et la sécurité de la France. Tout le monde, y compris les États-Unis, a ralenti le rythme après la dissolution de l'URSS. Pendant un certain temps, il a semblé que le Rafale n'aurait pas assez de clients à l'exportation. Cette situation s'est inversée. Il s'est vendu suffisamment à l'étranger pour aider à financer le développement passé et futur de l'avion. La France, en tant qu'unique développeur, a fait quelque chose que peu d'autres ont réalisé dans l'histoire récente. Elle a également ouvert la porte au développement par la France de son propre avion de 5ème génération. I would say that the Rafale is a success and serves French interest and security well. Everyone, including the USA slowed down when the USSR dissolved. For a while it did look like the Rafale wouldn't get enough export customers. This has been turned around. It has sold enough overseas to help fund past and future development of the aircraft. France as a sole developer has done something few other have achieved in recent history. It has opened the door to France developing its own future 5th generation aircraft.

Welcome to the American pricing system. They are all correct, from the plane to the cost of acquisition. You need to know what you are seeing and what is included in this price. For example, your "Here are 12 SH and 12 Growlers in Australia for 3.7 billion or 154 million by plane". When we got our 24 Super Hornets, it cost US $ 250 million. https://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-new-super-hornet-warplane-unveiled-20090709-ddmi.html L'Australie achète 24 Super Hornet. Le premier nouveau Super Hornet de l'Australie sera acquis dans le cadre d'un contrat de 6 milliards de dollars US (7,6 milliards d'euros). Welcome to the US price system. They are all correct, from flyaway to acquisition cost. You need to know what you are seeing and what's included at that price. for example your " Here 12 SH and 12 Growler in Australia for 3.7 billion or 154M by plane." When we got our 24 Super Hornet actually worked out to US $ 250 million https://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-new-super-hornet-warplane-unveiled-20090709-ddmi.html Australia is buying 24 Super Hornets. Australia's first new Super Hornet to be acquired under a $ US6 billion ($ A7.6 billion) deal

Je pensais avoir essayé de vous expliquer qu'il n'existe aucun mécanisme permettant d'augmenter ou de diminuer le prix de vente. Au lieu de cela, vous le prenez comme une insulte et sur votre dernier message vous avez répété la fausseté de la baisse du prix. I thought I tried to explain to you that there is no mechanism for a sale price to be raised or lowered. Instead you take it as an insult and on the last post of yours repeated the falsehood of the price being lowered.

The posters here have an honest belief in what they are posting. They repeat what they have read in French magazines and websites. That's what they are told. It's like watching Sky or Fox News. Anything that does not comply is rejected. I just tried to explain why the price of the F-35 cannot be reduced with the JPO. Or even with the normal government, the FMS sale. The price also cannot be increased to reflect a bribe. Bribes and discounts must be obtained by other means. However, on the forum, we answer this question with a "we'll see". I guess that's one of the reasons my post count is low after 12 years. What I say falls on deaf ears, because on leur a dit le contraire. The posters here have an honest belief in what they are posting. Repeating what they have read in French magazines and websites. It is what they are told. It's like just watching Sky or Fox news. Anything that doesn't follow it is dismissed. I just tried to explain why the F-35's price can't be reduced with the JPO. Or even with the normal gov, FMS sale. Neither can the price be raised, to account for a bribe. Any snatches and discounts have to be done in other ways. Yet this is met with a "we'll see" on the forum. I guess it is one reason my post count is low after 12 years. What I say falls on deaf ears, because they have been told differently.

Non, ils ne peuvent pas réduire la facture du Joint Program Office, même pour les ventes militaires étrangères de leurs autres gouvernements, ils ne peuvent pas réduire le prix. L'avion est acheté par le Joint Program Office au nom de tous les partenaires. Il est ensuite vendu à un partenaire ou à un non-partenaire. S'il est vendu à un non-partenaire, tous les partenaires se partagent les bénéfices pour récupérer les dépenses antérieures et peut-être un profit. Il ne s'agit pas d'une FMS gouvernementale. Vente militaire à l'étranger, qui se vend toujours à un prix fixe... Si le gouvernement américain souhaite donner de l'argent aux Suisses, comme il le fait pour les Israéliens, il le peut. Cela ne changerait pas le prix de l'avion que les Suisses ou les Israéliens paieront. Il s'agirait d'un autre accord. Cela ne change pas le prix de l'avion, que le bureau du programme commun achète et vend. Même pour les demandes d'achat, il y a un coût pour tous les documents. No they can't reduce the Joint Program Office bill, even for their other government foreign military sales, They can't reduce the price. The aircraft is bought by the Joint Program Office on behalf of all the partners. It is then sold to a partner or non-partner. If sold to a non-partner all partners share in a profit to recoup previous expenses and perhaps a profit. It is not a government FMS. Foreign military sale, which still sells for a set price.. If the US gov wishes to give money to the Swiss, as they do the Israelis, they can. It wouldn't change the price of the aircraft that the Swiss or Israeli will pay. It would be another agreement. It doesn't change the price of the aircraft, that the joint program office buys and sells for. Even for purchase enquiries, there is a cost for any documents.

Je m'excuse, on m'a demandé précédemment de poster en anglais, car google translate n'était pas assez précis. Ils ont utilisé mon post en anglais comme référence pour traduire. Je suis membre depuis quelques années, je poste rarement et je respecte les autres. apologies, Previously I was asked to post in english, as google translate wasn't accurate enough. They used my english post as a reference to translate. I've been a member for few years, post seldom and respect others.

Why do you think that? We brought the Super Hornet back in 2007 and it worked out we paid US$250 million each. They are not a cheap aircraft. There is also added costs to their 'fly away' costs. The US system is a very complicated way. You really need to look at the end cost and not the fly away. https://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-new-super-hornet-warplane-unveiled-20090709-ddmi.html Pourquoi pensez-vous cela ? Nous avons ramené le Super Hornet en 2007 et nous l'avons payé 250 millions de dollars chacun. Ce n'est pas un avion bon marché. Il y a aussi des coûts supplémentaires liés à leurs coûts d'envol. Le système américain est très compliqué. Il faut vraiment regarder le coût final et non le coût du vol. https://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-new-super-hornet-warplane-unveiled-20090709-ddmi.html

Impossible. The price is set by all the partners, it can not be changed. The price is what the partners can buy at then some more, which is divided. Why US is often a lower cost, is because they don't pass on the development costs. For the F-35 it would be a large amount per aircraft. Impossible. Le prix est fixé par tous les partenaires, il ne peut pas être changé. Le prix est ce que les partenaires peuvent acheter, puis un peu plus, qui est divisé. Si les États-Unis sont souvent moins chers, c'est parce qu'ils ne répercutent pas les coûts de développement. Pour le F-35, cela représenterait un montant important par avion.

Previously I was asked to post in English, because google French didn't work properly. It was easier to have my English post as a reference in the translation. If it makes it easier, I can post in English and a google translation? Auparavant, on me demandait de poster en anglais, car Google Français ne fonctionnait pas correctement. Il était plus facile d'avoir mon article en anglais comme référence dans la traduction. Si ça facilite les choses, je peux poster en anglais et une traduction google ?

Indeed. JORN can do stuff that will give you goose bumps. It can monitor aircraft taking off and ships leaving harbour. It can give an areas, but not a targeting location still, as far as i know. They are trying to get it to be able to target weapons onto ships and it is constantly being upgraded. It is a world class facility. They did send a request to Guam, where F-22 were newly stationed. Giving take off times and direction of an aircraft and asking them to confirm. Guam could be described as being on JORN's side lobe.

The Swiss gave the answer to cost. That is a big statement to make. That Boeing self sabotaged their Super Hornet. I find highly that questionable. Is this your opinion, or do you have a credible source?

In the early ones. this was indeed the case. You may have heard that they are too expensive to bring up to current build and are being used as trainers. The design if fairly stable now, I don't see many large physical changes ahead. Most upgrades will be in software and sensors going forward.

As this is the Swiss thread. it should be alright to use them as a source. They say the F-35 was cheaper for the platform and the sustainment cost, than of all who competed. Do you think they are wrong?

I haven't posted for a while and I am a bit reluctant at this emotional time. Your source uses APA air Power Australia discredited diagrams, enough said. The RCS of the F-35 is classified but we can speculate all day long. I don't have the RCS of either the F-35 or the Rafale. It is publicly released what types of features go into the design of a stealth aircraft, including the new French designs. The best I could do is to compare what ones are used on a platform. https://www.portail-aviation.com/blog/2013/10/04/rafale-vs-f-35-la-furtivite-comment-e/

It is fine that you think the f-35 is rubbish, just don't base your opinion on APA and their work or you will look silly. the RAND exercise you mentioned was done by APA http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42891479/Air-Combat-Past-Present-and-Future This infamous exercise and the distortions around it has caused much discussion, RAND even issued a rebuttal. RAND went on further to claim that material within the power point that APA and Repsim did was an unauthorised analysis which does not represent the views of Rand http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html “Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-09-24/new-us-bought-air-force-fighters-inferior/520278 “Editor's note: Following a complaint, this report has been found to lack proper context on the nature of the Rand report, which the company has claimed is an unauthorised analysis which does not represent the views of Rand.”

zx I think that anyone that uses air power australia as a source has already lost the debate, they have no credibility. the missile range they show of the aim-120 and r-27 is very funny and even the Russians do not claim that http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2dbe833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2dbe833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%2F0000%22 "Airpower Australia and RepSim claim that the F35 will not be competitive in 2020. Airpower Australia's criticisms mainly centre around F35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities. These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence's assessment. I think that the Airpower Australia and RepSim analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information." google translate Je pense que toute personne qui utilise la puissance aérienne en Australie comme une source a déjà perdu le débat, ils n'ont aucune crédibilité. la portée des missiles qu'ils montrent de l'AIM-120 et R-27 est très drôle et même les Russes ne prétendons pas que "Critiques Airpower l'Australie et la revendication RepSim que le F35 ne sera pas compétitive en 2020. Airpower Australie principalement centre autour de la performance aérodynamique F35 et capacités de furtivité. Ces sont incompatibles avec des années d'analyse détaillée qui a été entrepris par la Défense, le bureau du programme JSF, Lockheed Martin, les services des États-Unis et les huit autres pays partenaires. Alors que les développements d'avions tels que le PAK-FA russe ou le chinois J20, comme l'a soutenu par la puissance aérienne en Australie, montrent que les menaces que nous pourrions être confrontés sont de plus en plus sophistiquée, il n'ya rien de nouveau en ce qui concerne le développement de ces appareils pour changer l'évaluation de la Défense. je pense que l'Australie et l'analyse Airpower est fondamentalement viciée RepSim par des hypothèses erronées et un manque de connaissance de l'information classifiée F-35 performances. "

normally I dont reply in the rafale topic and keep to the australian page, but seeing as I was named, I will reply No need to TMor, I havent seen wild claims for the Damocles and see no reason why it wont be upgraded OK, there are some Nordic's who excell in infrared to source from Pas besoin TMor, Je nai pas vu réclamations sauvages pour la Damoclès et ne vois pas pourquoi il ne sera pas mis à niveau sur OK, il ya quelques Nordique qui excellent dans l'infrarouge à la source à partir

Toutes mes condoléances aux familles.

""So why asking for future Growler abilities on the airframe? Maybe because it will be easier to return them to the US Navy at this time? Maybe because it will be easier to return them to the U.S. Navy at this time? """ no, it makes no difference to u.s navy either way, initially it was wired for a possible future growler purchase for australian use in manufacture the difference between a sh and a ea-18g is simply the wiring (and not fitting the gun, as that room is needed by part of the growler kit) the decision has now been made to go with the 12 wired for growler, an ordered 6 sets of growler sensor kits to be delivered with the aircraft they are a significant asset, and we have people on exchange with USN developing TACAIR doctrine for escorting strike packages ""Or maybe the RAAF fears the LM's (in-)ability to deliver the F-35 on schedule? Or perhaps the Royal Australian Air Force, she feared the (in-) ability of SM to provide the F-35 time? Ou peut-être la Royal Australian Air Force craint-elle l'(in-)capacité de LM à fournir le F-35 à temps ?"" although the raaf said they were happy to have the f111 retire and that our current updated fa-18ab would be adequate for any perceived regional threat, the decision to purchase 24 sh was for the inital and any further delay of the f-35 and i guess so they last, to reduce the strike mission training flight hours on our older fa-18ab fleet, as that will be the role of the sh at this stage we are getting 2 f-35 in 2014 for testing and delivery of fleet 2017 this gives an overview, but has no mention of the ordered 6 growler kits http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/AUST071309-1.xml&headline=Australian%20Plan%20Relates%20F-35%20Details

From an Australian poster gf0012-aust, our slang name for super hornet is ‘elvis’ because of song ‘return to sender’ It is definite they will not be kept, we aren’t even going to put ‘our’ radar absorbing material on them because of this there will be an electronic attack version f=35, it is not worth the effort to have sh and f-35 because of training, maintenance and logistic issues and compared to the f-35, the sh will be substandard and offer no benefit to us the us navy is committed to a high low mix of platforms and will have sh in service for some time A partir d'une affiche australienne gf0012-Aust, notre nom d'argot pour Super Hornet est «Elvis» parce que la chanson «retour à l'expéditeur» Il est certain qu'ils ne seront pas conservés, nous n'allons pas même de mettre «nos» radar matériau absorbant sur eux à cause de cela, il y aura une version d'attaque électronique f = 35, il ne vaut pas l'effort pour que sh et F-35 en raison de la formation, l'entretien et les problèmes logistiques et par rapport au F-35, le SH seront déclassés et offrir aucun avantage à nous l'Us Navy s'est engagée à un dosage faible élevé de plate-forme et aura sh en service pendant un certain temps