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

Reality is an unknown concept? There is quite a bit of revisionist history. I didn't expect anything different.
Kevin Rudd , your ex PM , still goes about telling whoever's interested to hear that he wasn't responsible for nixing your participation in the Malabar exercises under Chinese pressure. His own counterparts in the Liberal Party then & now have the exact opposite to report while his ex colleagues in the Labour Party usually look the other way when the question is raised.

True to form Rudd even now is spending time shuttling between capitals today , heading a think tank in The US , busy convincing whoever is willing to listen that the world's big enough for a US + 1 world order with the +1 being who else but his illicit lover from yester years , China .

In the event India was so pissed off at Australian policy over Malabar that when rhe Quad was revived & Malabar became an annual feature , India let Oz's proposal to rejoin Malabar fester till the US successfully pleaded Oz's case after repeated attempts in the past by the US failed & Oz tendered an unconditional apology for Rudd's recalcitrance.

So you're right Pops , there's quite a bit of revisionist history except it's coming from you not us .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
No F-15 is superior to MKI with or without AESA radar. MKI's daddy aka Su-27 was primarily designed to beat Eagle in both BVR and WVR. People don't realize it but MKI is beast of a different league/order. In WVR it destroys every other fighter of the world with guns or with HOBS + TVC + HMS combo. Hell one MKI defeated two Typhoons during Indradhanush 2015. No plane in the world can claim that. Eurofighter is a WVR monster.

Coming to BVR, only having AESA doesn't ensure that MKI could be defeated. Only US plane that can claim superiority over MKI in BVR is F-22 Raptor. And the exchange ratio would be close and not lopsided like people tend to assume.

Same case with Rafale. No US plane can match or exceed it except Raptor. And the exchange ratio would be very very close.

So the gist of my post is that no American fighter suits us. More Rafale is the way to go along with MKI MLU.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hydra
I accept that that is your belief, from what you have been told or read. A lot of air forces disagree with you.
Ugh..only American vassal states' Air Forces would disagree with me. Most importantly, IAF agrees with me and for us Indian defence enthusiasts that's all that matter.

And my belief has borne out of various reports and exercises our AF has participated against foreign nations. Again, you're free to diagree but for us Rafale>>F-35, period.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RASALGHUL
But when compared to the F-35, the Rafale has been designed as an air superiority fighter, whereas the F-35 isn't. Although people don't like to believe it, the Rafale is pretty stealthy, and when combined with its air superiority qualities like supercruise, acceleration, agility and integrated avionics, its base qualities far exceed the F-35 in the air to air role. Otoh, the F-35, having been designed as a ground strike fighter with a secondary A2A capability, it exceeds the Rafale's strike capabilities. The only problem is the F-35 is better than the Rafale on paper, it needs to first meet the paper specs before it can be compared to the Rafale, which has proven real world strike capabilities that exceed the capabilities of existing jets. But I'm sure that once it's been fully developed, with a new engine and upgraded avionics, the F-35 will significantly exceed the Rafale in strike capabilities, ie around 30 years after the Rafale was introduced, which is the natural state of things.

Hello. Let me try to correct you.
1- Rafale has not be designed to be an air superiority fighter "only".
When France start the programme Rafale, they have multiple needs. Navy need to replace immediately its very old F8 Crusader. They didn't had any fighter able to fight in the air. Only the Super-Etendard which was a quite good attack aircraft. But in the same time, French Air Force had the Mirage 2000, which was an incredible interceptor. But they didn't had a good air to surface attack plane. when the programm was officially launch in 1988, they didn't have a real all time attack fighter. At this time, only Jaguar mainly. They also need to get a fighter able to take the role for nuclear deterrence, which require a fighter aircraft able to penetrate deeply inside ennemy territory.
So, basically, they needed a fighter able to do ANYTHING ! not Air2Air only, and not even secondary A2G capabilities. It was a main concern of the specifications.

2- F-35 is cover by the F-22 in the USAF, it is true. But F-35 has been designed to replace the F-16 in all its major roles. F-35 is not an attack airplane with secondary A2A capabilities. Otherwize it should have been nammed as A-35 instead of F-35. (you can ask : what about F-117 ? But there is an explanation)

3- not completely untrue but I would like to be more specific. The F-35 today is not fully developped yet. Maybe it will arrive in 2029/2031 with block 4/TR3 with very good abilities within air to ground missions. But in the same time, Rafale will be at F5 standard.


The F35 have for itself two major capabilities which made him a very good aircraf : VLO and Huge set of sensors associated with data fusion.
The fact is the F35 and Rafale are verry similar in their concept. But Rafale is on continuous development, evolving quite without any limit, and set of sensors and data fusion will be very similar.
If we cannot consider Rafale as VLO, we can anyway consider it as LO fighter (you remind it yoursel, and it is true) . The passives caracteristics that help the F-35 to be VLO will be outdated when it will arrive fully operationnal in some years. Why ? Because all the sensors evolves also (Radar and optronics). So in some times, the VLO caracteristics advantage will decrease a lot.
 
Reality is an unknown concept? There is quite a bit of revisionist history. I didn't expect anything different.

Nothing revisionist about facts. The F-35 is indeed better than the Rafale on paper, but is yet to finish development. It is still like a child yet to grow into adulthood. And even the USAF has pointed out that the F-22 needs upgrades in order to stay viable.

Are you really trying to suggest the F-35 is ready without the Block 4 upgrades?

2016:
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is already looking at upgrading the F-35 with a follow-on Block 4 configuration—which would add new capabilities and address some known deficiencies. The Block 4 package would include a medley of new capabilities including upgraded electro-optical sensors, improved electronic warfare abilities and radar modifications. Block 4—which will be awarded in 2018 as a distinct new contract to Lockheed—will be run as a separate program from the main F-35 effort. Fielding of the Block 4 configuration is expected in 2022.

2023:
Development of Block 4 is now three years late and will continue until 2029, the GAO said in April 2022.

Revisionist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Hello. Let me try to correct you.
1- Rafale has not be designed to be an air superiority fighter "only".
When France start the programme Rafale, they have multiple needs. Navy need to replace immediately its very old F8 Crusader. They didn't had any fighter able to fight in the air. Only the Super-Etendard which was a quite good attack aircraft. But in the same time, French Air Force had the Mirage 2000, which was an incredible interceptor. But they didn't had a good air to surface attack plane. when the programm was officially launch in 1988, they didn't have a real all time attack fighter. At this time, only Jaguar mainly. They also need to get a fighter able to take the role for nuclear deterrence, which require a fighter aircraft able to penetrate deeply inside ennemy territory.
So, basically, they needed a fighter able to do ANYTHING ! not Air2Air only, and not even secondary A2G capabilities. It was a main concern of the specifications.

This is impossible to achieve. The Rafale is a jack of all trades, a master of none, which is why it sits between the F-22 and F-35 in terms of performance.

It was designed as an air superiority fighter, but some of its design also catered to strike and carrier performance. The end result is the Rafale is not the best ASF, not the best strike fighter and nor is it the best carrier fighter. But the Rafale can do all these things with compromises in aerodynamic design.

The Rafale has inferior supercruise, climb and acceleration performance compared to the F-22 at high altitude, and has only 5.5G and subsonic performance with large payloads at sea level versus the F-35A's ability to go supersonic and have 9G performance with large payload and internal fuel. This is a product of compromise in exchange for versatility. One jet that does everything versus many jets capable of doing one thing best. The former is more important to small air forces or poor countries because we have to manage costs, while the latter is more important to rich superpowers with deep pockets.

2- F-35 is cover by the F-22 in the USAF, it is true. But F-35 has been designed to replace the F-16 in all its major roles. F-35 is not an attack airplane with secondary A2A capabilities. Otherwize it should have been nammed as A-35 instead of F-35. (you can ask : what about F-117 ? But there is an explanation)

It's the aerodynamic qualities that matter. The F-35 is a multirole aircraft, so it can't get an A designation. To get A designation, you must have zero A2A capability. When it comes to aerodynamics, the F-35 has been designed for low-medium altitude. It can't compete in the air with a high performance aircraft like the F-22 and Rafale, even the F-15C and Flanker, at high altitude. Aircraft like the F-16 and F-35 lack the high altitude climb performance and acceleration of dedicated ASF with two engines, and that's a terrible disadvantage in a BVR fight.

People think all you need is avionics, but they forget that you need a jet capable of performing BVR and anti-BVR tactics in the air to actually fight.

3- not completely untrue but I would like to be more specific. The F-35 today is not fully developped yet. Maybe it will arrive in 2029/2031 with block 4/TR3 with very good abilities within air to ground missions. But in the same time, Rafale will be at F5 standard.

Maybe in terms of electronics both will be a match, or both may have different sets of advantages and disadvantages. But I believe the engine upgrade on the F-35 will be a pretty big deal.

For example, the F-35A may have a 20-30% range advantage on internal fuel over the Rafale today, but this could climb to 60 or 70% with a new engine. It will obviously enhance low altitude performance even more than it is today. With the extra range, the ability to go supersonic at low altitude and the ability to retain its payload when challenged due to IWB (the Rafale has to abandon its payload when challenged), the F-35 can run away and try again in the same sortie, and this time the enemy could be unprepared to challenge the F-35, whereas for Rafale it would be a mission kill and a complete waste of time. This is a very serious generation difference.

The F-35 already has some of these advantages today, but the difference between the Rafale and F-35 will widen a lot by the end of the decade.

I don't think we will see a direct competitor to the F-35 in the strike role in the next 20 years.

The F35 have for itself two major capabilities which made him a very good aircraf : VLO and Huge set of sensors associated with data fusion.
The fact is the F35 and Rafale are verry similar in their concept. But Rafale is on continuous development, evolving quite without any limit, and set of sensors and data fusion will be very similar.
If we cannot consider Rafale as VLO, we can anyway consider it as LO fighter (you remind it yoursel, and it is true) . The passives caracteristics that help the F-35 to be VLO will be outdated when it will arrive fully operationnal in some years. Why ? Because all the sensors evolves also (Radar and optronics). So in some times, the VLO caracteristics advantage will decrease a lot.

The Americans are also developing active stealth capabilities for their jets. New digital antennas are being developed for EW suites that are capable of transmitting and receiving. For example, a lot of the receive-only antennas on the F-35 and Rafale can be replaced with these new antennas which can further contribute to active cancellation.

The French may have deployed this capability first, but it doesn't mean others cannot catch up. We could enter the 2030s with active stealth in pretty much all 4.5th and 5th gen and higher jets in varying degrees.
 
F-35= JSF = Joint Strike Fighter. As the name suggests that it is first and foremost a strike fighter. Even though it can do all roles, but its forte is breaking IADS and taking out key ground based targets.

Euro-Canards were always conceived as multi-role aircrafts. But Rafale is the ultimate realization of that concept. Yes, it's not ONLY an ASF(but OMNI role) and if a Euro-Canard has strongest claim towards ASF title then it has to be Typhoon. But Rafale excels in every role, IMO.

Defeating Su-27 and its derivatives was a prime goal of Rafale(and other Euro-Canards) while defeating S-300/S-400 was for JSF/F-35.

Just looking at the placement of EOTS vs OSF/PIRATE should make everything crystal clear.
 
This is impossible to achieve. The Rafale is a jack of all trades, a master of none, which is why it sits between the F-22 and F-35 in terms of performance.
Best argument anti Rafale ever, given by anti Rafale and Pro Typhoon. It is based on nothing. Capable of everything, better in nothing. which by the way is untrue. And irrelevant.

nor is it the best carrier fighter
At least for that, I'm sure it is false. At the moment we are talking, there is no other carrier fighter more capable than the Rafale. F35C is not yet operationnal, and Super Hornet block II is definitely inferior (block III still in development).

People think all you need is avionics, but they forget that you need ALSO a jet capable of performing BVR and anti-BVR tactics in the air to actually fight.
Like you told, it is a compromise of a lot of things. So you need a compromise of all this features.

For example, the F-35A may have a 20-30% range advantage on internal fuel over the Rafale today, but this could climb to 60 or 70% with a new engine. It will obviously enhance low altitude performance even more than it is today. With the extra range, the ability to go supersonic at low altitude and the ability to retain its payload when challenged due to IWB (the Rafale has to abandon its payload when challenged), the F-35 can run away and try again in the same sortie, and this time the enemy could be unprepared to challenge the F-35, whereas for Rafale it would be a mission kill and a complete waste of time. This is a very serious generation difference.
This is not relevent either.
In a scenario when a fighter with heavy A2G weapon is attacked at close range, in any case the mission is over. Because if you fight in BVR, you consume so much petrol that you have to go home... If you survived.
Then, physic is what it is. Supersonic at low level... In your dream. The energy needed to go faster is the same for every one. If F35 is not able to sustain supersonic speed more than very few minutes now, it is not related to the engine, but the heat and the risk of damaging the skin of the plane itself. New engine will not improve that.
By the way, I never found a proof that F-35A is able to sustain 9G with A2G bombs. And in an emergency, is still recommanded to jetison them due to the energy loss. Within 9G, the extra weight will cost a lot to your ability to maintain your energy.
In such situation, Rafale have the ability to have 6 A2A missiles with 6 bombs, while the F-35... is limited by Amramm internaly. So... even without VLO, I prefer to be in a Rafale...

The F-35 already has some of these advantages today, but the difference between the Rafale and F-35 will widen a lot by the end of the decade.

I don't think we will see a direct competitor to the F-35 in the strike role in the next 20 years.
Already ? You told it yourself... Only with Block 4. So not today, but in 2029... At best ! So I will change this sentence by telling that I don't think we will see a direct competitor to the Rafale in the next 10 years ;)
 
Best argument anti Rafale ever, given by anti Rafale and Pro Typhoon. It is based on nothing. Capable of everything, better in nothing. which by the way is untrue. And irrelevant.

The Rafale is inferior to the Typhoon at high altitude, but superior at low-med altitude, which explains why the Rafale beats the Typhoon in dog fights.

At least for that, I'm sure it is false. At the moment we are talking, there is no other carrier fighter more capable than the Rafale. F35C is not yet operationnal, and Super Hornet block II is definitely inferior (block III still in development).

True, at the moment it's the best carrier fighter in service, but it's still a compromise between air force and navy requirements. The Rafale-inspired TEDBF has been designed to improve on the Rafale's deficiencies on a carrier, and that comes with performance penalties in speed and G performance. Navies prefer strike jets, so the Rafale's extra capabilities as an ASF is simply a compromise for the navy. My point is France can develop a better carrier fighter than the Rafale if the air force and navy requirements are separated.

This is not relevent either.
In a scenario when a fighter with heavy A2G weapon is attacked at close range, in any case the mission is over. Because if you fight in BVR, you consume so much petrol that you have to go home... If you survived.
Then, physic is what it is. Supersonic at low level... In your dream. The energy needed to go faster is the same for every one. If F35 is not able to sustain supersonic speed more than very few minutes now, it is not related to the engine, but the heat and the risk of damaging the skin of the plane itself. New engine will not improve that.
By the way, I never found a proof that F-35A is able to sustain 9G with A2G bombs. And in an emergency, is still recommanded to jetison them due to the energy loss. Within 9G, the extra weight will cost a lot to your ability to maintain your energy.
In such situation, Rafale have the ability to have 6 A2A missiles with 6 bombs, while the F-35... is limited by Amramm internaly. So... even without VLO, I prefer to be in a Rafale...

Supersonic speed during ingress and egress is only for a few dozen Km, the F-35A can manage that. Almost all modern fighters can go supersonic without payload at sea level. The F-35's IWBs help a lot.

The F-35 with its new engine will have more than enough range.

G performance is limited by external payload. Internally, as long as the bombs can handle 9G, it shouldn't be a problem.

Already ? You told it yourself... Only with Block 4. So not today, but in 2029... At best !

Yes, I had pointed out that by 2030, the F-35 will have capabilities far superior to the Rafale for strike missions. It considers the B4 delay as well as the introduction of the new engine.

So I will change this sentence by telling that I don't think we will see a direct competitor to the Rafale in the next 10 years ;)

Would disagree. I was referring to performance, not avionics. Rafale's performance can be matched by pretty much any 3rd or 4th gen strike jet. What separates the Rafale from the rest is the more advanced avionics.
 
The Rafale is inferior to the Typhoon at high altitude, but superior at low-med altitude, which explains why the Rafale beats the Typhoon in dog fights
At hight altitude, typhoon has just maybe more speed and acceleration. But it can compete with the fact in 1vs1 the typhoon have both higher RCS and less andvenced sensors and data fusion/situation awareness. Before the arrival of the meteor missile, when Mica and Aamram was the main weaponry, the Typhoon had the advantage of missile range.
True, at the moment it's the best carrier fighter in service, but it's still a compromise between air force and navy requirements. The Rafale-inspired TEDBF has been designed to improve on the Rafale's deficiencies on a carrier, and that comes with performance penalties in speed and G performance. Navies prefer strike jets, so the Rafale's extra capabilities as an ASF is simply a compromise for the navy. My point is France can develop a better carrier fighter than the Rafale if the air force and navy requirements are separated.
Penalties on speed or G performance ?! Can you be more specific because I don't follow you.
And why are you saying that navy prefer strike aircraft? Navy need to cover the full range of missions, from strike to interception and air superiority. I'm talking for french but also US navy.
The F-35 with its new engine will have more than enough range.
The new engine will perhaps come with a more fuel efficiency in some areas, but when combat phases come, a more powerful engine will offer you more power, but also more consumption. The point is, in what we discussed previously, the better range will not protect you for cancelling a mission if you get to close from a danger.
G performance is limited by external payload. Internally, as long as the bombs can handle 9G, it shouldn't be a problem.
It's due to the weight. 9G with 1T bombs is 9t. Huge Structural efforts. For a strike aircraft by the way, it is not an issue. When you come close to a combat to the death... And because the F-35 is not the most agile fighter, it would be a huge mistake to not jetisson your heavy payload. That's why I don't understand this argument of 9G capable with all the internal weapons. (By the way, I never saw any proof of that, if you have it, you are welcome)
Yes, I had pointed out that by 2030, the F-35 will have capabilities far superior to the Rafale for strike missions. It considers the B4 delay as well as the introduction of the new engine.
In 2029, and IF there is no more delays (they still have 7 years to add an extra delays, so let's say 2 or 3 more years)

At that time, Rafale will come with F5. The standards development for Rafale are smooth, not delayed, well mastered. So let's say that in around 2030, we will see.
With external fuel tanks and 6 bombs as well as 4 to 6 a2a missile, in most of the cases, F35 cannot compete.
 
I don't know where to start with our new member, it's straight fantasy. Rafale stronk. Best plane in the world. Just ask any frog. Mind you, none of the major air forces agree. Only when the F-35 isn't offered, it gets a chance of a sale, often losing to a F-16.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate
I don't know where to start with our new member, it's straight fantasy. Rafale stronk. Best plane in the world. Just ask any frog. Mind you, none of the major air forces agree. Only when the F-35 isn't offered, it gets a chance of a sale, often losing to a F-16.
I've got news for you pops. The new member's not so new & he's le Francais . Besides every le Francais sees the Rafales as la parfum & the Lightnings as l'eau de toilette which in a way is true from the PoV of a 3rd party up until those Lightnings don't receive their B4 upgrades scheduled around 2030 .

Of course being an Aussie nobody expects you to tell the difference . Between la parfum & l'eau de toilette that is . At least le Francais don't as far as you're concerned which is why they wouldn't be surprised in the least if you think in general l'eau de toilette is better than la parfum .
 
I don't know where to start with our new member, it's straight fantasy. Rafale stronk. Best plane in the world. Just ask any frog. Mind you, none of the major air forces agree. Only when the F-35 isn't offered, it gets a chance of a sale, often losing to a F-16.
Every major Air Force except Indian Air Force😉
At hight altitude, typhoon has just maybe more speed and acceleration. But it can compete with the fact in 1vs1 the typhoon have both higher RCS and less andvenced sensors and data fusion/situation awareness. Before the arrival of the meteor missile, when Mica and Aamram was the main weaponry, the Typhoon had the advantage of missile range.

Penalties on speed or G performance ?! Can you be more specific because I don't follow you.
And why are you saying that navy prefer strike aircraft? Navy need to cover the full range of missions, from strike to interception and air superiority. I'm talking for french but also US navy.

The new engine will perhaps come with a more fuel efficiency in some areas, but when combat phases come, a more powerful engine will offer you more power, but also more consumption. The point is, in what we discussed previously, the better range will not protect you for cancelling a mission if you get to close from a danger.

It's due to the weight. 9G with 1T bombs is 9t. Huge Structural efforts. For a strike aircraft by the way, it is not an issue. When you come close to a combat to the death... And because the F-35 is not the most agile fighter, it would be a huge mistake to not jetisson your heavy payload. That's why I don't understand this argument of 9G capable with all the internal weapons. (By the way, I never saw any proof of that, if you have it, you are welcome)

In 2029, and IF there is no more delays (they still have 7 years to add an extra delays, so let's say 2 or 3 more years)

At that time, Rafale will come with F5. The standards development for Rafale are smooth, not delayed, well mastered. So let's say that in around 2030, we will see.
With external fuel tanks and 6 bombs as well as 4 to 6 a2a missile, in most of the cases, F35 cannot compete.
Typhoon is a better air to air platform than Rafale. It flies higher, faster and has better turn rates at supersonic speeds(both ITR and STR). Plus it has 2-way data link for Meteor.

However, Rafale being omni role is much more value for money. The time for single role fighters has gone. Now every fighter must be multi-role/omni-role. And Rafale hands down beats Typhoon here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante
At hight altitude, typhoon has just maybe more speed and acceleration. But it can compete with the fact in 1vs1 the typhoon have both higher RCS and less andvenced sensors and data fusion/situation awareness. Before the arrival of the meteor missile, when Mica and Aamram was the main weaponry, the Typhoon had the advantage of missile range.

The speed, climb, acceleration advantages are important. How else will you get into a firing position first or even escape missiles?

Penalties on speed or G performance ?! Can you be more specific because I don't follow you.
And why are you saying that navy prefer strike aircraft? Navy need to cover the full range of missions, from strike to interception and air superiority. I'm talking for french but also US navy.

Navies do not need high end performance. The MN could have been better served with a folding wing and more jets on the ship than a fixed wing with 9-11G performance. My point remains the same. Had the MN had, say, 3 carriers, and they needed 150-200 jets, then their own specific design would have been far better than the Rafale M.

Navies want multirole jets designed for ground strike.

The new engine will perhaps come with a more fuel efficiency in some areas, but when combat phases come, a more powerful engine will offer you more power, but also more consumption. The point is, in what we discussed previously, the better range will not protect you for cancelling a mission if you get to close from a danger.

The F-35's new engine will provide up significant savings in fuel. Plus extra electrical power and thrust. Naturally other sorts of logistics advantages too. It's not a stretch to say the F-35's next engine will be two generations ahead of the M88-4E. The F135 is already a generation ahead in comparison.

It's due to the weight. 9G with 1T bombs is 9t. Huge Structural efforts. For a strike aircraft by the way, it is not an issue. When you come close to a combat to the death... And because the F-35 is not the most agile fighter, it would be a huge mistake to not jetisson your heavy payload. That's why I don't understand this argument of 9G capable with all the internal weapons. (By the way, I never saw any proof of that, if you have it, you are welcome)

Payload can be subjected to even greater G forces depending on the type of payload. For example, AAMs can do 30-40G or even 100G. So it's not difficult to develop a bomb that can handle 9G. It's not a problem for the aircraft to achieve 9G, we already know that.

There are two points being made here. F-35 has IWB, so the bomb doesn't need to be discarded when challenged, the aircraft can run away with full internal payload. Otoh, Rafale has to drop everything except AAMs before running away. This is a problem for all jets without IWBs. The second point is the F-35 can even get into a dog fight with a full payload, the Rafale can't. So it can fight, it can run, it can reenter the fight again, it can reenter the fight after refuelling again. The F-35's IWBs give the jet far too much operational flexibility. Otoh, the punishment for failure for Rafale is comparatively much higher, enough to create a generation difference.

In 2029, and IF there is no more delays (they still have 7 years to add an extra delays, so let's say 2 or 3 more years)

At that time, Rafale will come with F5. The standards development for Rafale are smooth, not delayed, well mastered. So let's say that in around 2030, we will see.
With external fuel tanks and 6 bombs as well as 4 to 6 a2a missile, in most of the cases, F35 cannot compete.

I haven't considered avionics in this discussion. My arguments were centered around physical characteristics that separates 4th gen from 5th gen. It's irrelevant even if the Rafale has better avionics, it will still have to drop its payload when challenged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion

Sweetie, instead of lurking , you might as well make your no good a r s e sorry bad a r s e - pun unintended , useful by posting on your home thread which is this particular thread just as Paddy's home thread for the past one year has been the thread on the Ukraine conflict & confront le francais who've had a field day ever since you fled here like the chicken you are.

Poor @Optimist is trying his level best to convince everyone around when he himself doesn't look quite convinced on the so-called superiority of the Lightnings over the Rafale in it's present form.


On topic, pls comment on what's the down time to be considered for every flight hour of the F-35 flying in Europe. Before you do that, pls comment on the training protocol. Is it still the same old recommendation by LM & DoD on emphasising 10:1 ratio in favor of simulators vis a vis actual training on the F-35 or is there a change ?

Besides pls accept our congratulations for pushing in a further 100 F-35s to the shit scared Europeans which'd never see action against Russia but has boosted the sales of LM all thanks to Irish Joe. Man, US may be headed for a recession but the oligarchy has sure enriched itself thanks to the war & my appreciation of Irish Joe has increased that much more .

Hope you took my advise last March or was it April & invested in defense stocks even if it meant borrowing money & or pilferage at the 7/11 you're employed at & hope you advised your trailer park folk to invest similarly. No need to thank me if you've made a killing. Kick yourself on my behalf if you haven't hopefully on your crotch by getting someone to do it on your behalf. @Innominate
 
Last edited: