jackjack

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

i think this will interest you, thales australia, with our aussie government approval, brought 'australian defense industries', a major supplier to our military 'thales australia' now makes the australian aug , here its called F88 Austeyr Je pense que cela va vous intéresser Thales australien , avec l'approbation du gouvernement (ownes/ brought) a industries de défense australiennes, un fournisseur majeur pour nos militaires Thales rend maintenant l'Australie " australien aug", ici elle est appelée lorsque F88 Austeyr

it may be best to post both english and 'google french' and we can have a competition to see who can understand what i write =) mai il est préférable d'afficher à la fois anglais et "Google français" et nous pouvons avoir une compétition pour voir qui peut comprendre ce que j'écris

Désolé, le nom de l'argot est (growler) pour l'ea-18G nous avons trouvé les 6 ensembles attaque elctronic I am using Google Translate, donc il peut paraître drôle we have ordered 6 sets of electronic attack to go with the 12 wired as ea-18g

Nous gardons les ASRAAM sur notre fa-18ab + Le frelon super auront l'AIM-9 car nous ne voulons pas dépenser l'argent ou de temps pour incorporer ASRAAM sur eux Dans le but-ll 9 Block ( aim-9x block ll ) avec serrure après le lancement et la liaison de données grâce au service 20012-14, mai nous serons très heureux avec eux, je n'ai pas accès à la véritable performance

Je pensais que j'allais dire bonjour et l'aide à certains malentendus Kopp est une blague ici, son but était de faire de l'argent sur une mise à niveau f111, nous n'avons jamais voulu que le F-22. Son trop cher et la capacité limitée de mettre à niveau, comme en témoigne la fermeture, un développement sans issue Nous avons des ensembles ordonnés growler 24 Super Hornet, dont 12 câblé comme EA-18G bourguignons et 6 Le Super Hornet a été choisi parce qu'ils sont compatibles avec notre etcetera entretien existant et le seul avion disponible à court préavis merci à la générosité de l'US Navy On nous a donné de l'espace sur nous pour la marine et rachète la Us Navy et non pas de Boeing, ils sont exactement le même air que les bateaux de l'US Navy utilisation (pas de déclassement) et le même prix qu'ils paient Nous n'allons pas les conserver après la livraison du dernier F-35, ils seront revendus aux États-Unis ou d'un pays approuvés