Again a vacuous trolling post that contains no fact or reality. Your trolling of late has reverted to a rather obvious nature, you’d subtly changed that for a period.
I guess it’s difficult not to remain true to oneself.

Fully funded program versus not fully funded program.
If not trolling are you suggesting French engineers are more capable than US ones so they should have been able to produce the Rafale sooner despite not being fully funded to do so?
It seems the only logical conclusion from your postings, unless they are indeed as I suspect simply trolling, how’s your back btw the jackjack?

not excuses, just reality… but as usual, the only way to make the JSF look at least remotely good is to distort reality

Newsflash: The end of the Cold War had a massive impact on defense planning and anyone who denies this is an imbecile or a liar.

Nobody, not even the most vociferous critics of the MIC, argues that the reduction in F-22 or B-2 numbers, after contract award, was solely driven by higher-than-expected acquisition and operating costs, but somehow JSF fans feel able to ignore the impact of PCW changes on Rafale or Typhoon (where the Germans wobbled for several years on the entire program as reunification took effect).

All these attempts to explain why the Rafale program moved more slowly than the F-35.

This wasn’t a question about why the Rafale program moved so slowly.

Here is where we got started:

imagine a fighter whose specs were set in 1945 that tries to enter service in 1965… the environment it would have to cope with would be beyond science fiction for its pilot

while aircraft of today take longer to enter service, the evolution is still very active for all nations. As a result, it seems obvious that systems LM is trying to put together today in the F-35 will probably be either obsolete or at least “nothing special” by the time the aircraft reaches operational service (and I speak of real operational service, with useful combat capabilities and so on, not a joke planned for this summer when USMC will get an equivalent of Cessna 172 on steroids)

The fact is the Rafale took longer than the F-35. Cold War, funding issues, none of those somehow paused time. Get it yet?

Honestly you guys are starting to sound like a kid that lost a race… “My shoe was untied, I stepped in a puddle, your legs are longer than mine…”

In the end that doesn’t mean you got to the finish line first, and the Rafale most certainly took longer than the F-35. Sooner or later you might as well put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

Still more on engine upgrades:

While Pratt makes it clear that there is currently no firm requirement for an upgraded F135, the company is working with the U.S. Navy on a fuel-burn improvement program for the engine, which combined with other turbine cooling technologies recently tested on the XTE68/LF1 demonstrator engine could be packaged as the first block of a two-step enhancement. “The Navy is working with us to develop technology for an engine test next year that would demonstrate a 5% fuel-burn reduction in the F-35,” says Pratt & Whitney’s Advanced Programs and Technology Director Jimmy Kenyon. This would be grouped potentially with blade-cooling technology demonstrated in late 2013 on XTE68/LF1, which Kenyon describes as “a fantastically successful test. It was the highest-ever turbine temperature in a production-based engine.”

The block one improvement will offer between a 7% and 10% improvement in thrust, as well as between 5% and 7% better mission fuel burn, and could be available around 2018. “So far, no one has decided they need the capability but we are making sure we are providing the options,” says Pratt & Whitney Military Engines President Bennett Croswell.

Although higher thrust and better fuel burn have obvious payload, range and mission advantages, Pratt expects the main benefit to come from trading the performance for lower operating temperatures and longer time on wing. “We are planning a life-extension for the F135, like we did on the [F100] -229 with an engine enhancement package where you had a 50% improvement in life. So we have set a goal to reduce sustainment costs for the F135 by a factor of 30%. A big piece of that will be increasing the life, which means reducing the number of depot overhauls you do over the life of the engine,” says Croswell. “The real focus for the Joint Program Office and Navy is on reducing life-cycle cost,” adds Kenyon.

For a longer-term block two upgrade path, Pratt is studying the possibility of configuring the F135 with elements of a technology suite in development for the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP). Tipped for possible start-up funding later this year, AETP is primarily designed to prepare the ground for an adaptive, 45,000-lb.-thrust-class combat engine for sixth-generation fighter aircraft. However, the stated provisions for the program also make it a possible future reengining candidate for the F-35, the prospect of which is also driving advanced engine development work at General Electric.

…

“We are looking at how we can take technology from that engine and use it within an F135-based architecture. We could potentially get a lot of that capability improvement for a lot less cost because we are already starting with a known engine and looking at an upgrade,” says Kenyon. “So we are working on different trades about how much the technology would bring in, how much that would cost and what kind of capability it would provide us as we go forward. The great thing about AETP is you are going to build and test and really wring out this technology, so by the time we get to the end of it that technology will be pretty mature.” As a result, Kenyon adds that “getting it into an F-35 would really not be as difficult or expensive as it would be to now take it forward to a brand-new engine.”Block two would therefore take elements of the advanced engine—in particular a new compressor and turbine— and feed it into the F135 for as much as a 15% thrust increase and a 20% reduction in fuel burn. “The compressor has more stages. It fits and is compatible with the current engine,” says Croswell, who adds the upgrade could be available in the 2022 timeframe if development of this, and the associated block one improvement, is approved soon. Although there is “still flow capacity in the inlet that we are not using,” Croswell acknowledges that the tightly packed F-35 fuselage does not allow for much leeway when it comes to providing space for a third stream. “Lockheed would like us not to tear up the airplane a lot, so I don’t know if we can integrate a third stream, but we will do those trades. We have defined what we could offer, and it is not part of the block upgrade plan as yet.”

http://aviationweek.com/defense/pratt-unveils-sixth-generation-fighter-engine-f135-upgrade-options

So the Pentagon will have a couple options available to it for a major improvement in engine performance, both potentially available in the early 2020s.

Looks like Pratt and Whitney are trying to position themselves as the lower cost/risk option.

I do find it kind of amusing how people here like to state my positions for me, and find it curious how they find ways to “misunderstand” me.

This isn’t simply about an F-22/PAK FA comparison, nor a USA/Russia comparison… it is about taking a look at essentially every fighter jet produced to date, and those in development. We could look at the Rafale, Super Hornet, Gripen, Eurofighter, F-22, F-35, F-16, F-15, etc. (not to mention developmental projects like the J-20 and J-31)

Nobody questions whether it is possible to make a fighter with extremely long range, nor does anyone doubt that an aircraft with supercruise capability, good low speed maneuverability, good high speed maneuverability, good acceleration, good internal carrying capacity, etc, could be created.

Doing it all at the same time is what is at issue. A number of these goals are contradictory.

Certainly there have been and will continue to be advances in technology, both in materials and conceptually, but there has been no fundamental breakthrough that would allow a PAK FA to simultaneously out range, out supercruise, out accelerate, and out maneuver something like a Su-35, all while weighing less and needing the same or less fuel.

Seriously though, it is quite obvious you have all decided to believe what you want to believe. Just don’t be surprised…

not “as long” but longer… 😀

Math is hard?

if the initial goals/capabilities were decided by mid-90’s (and later reduced as they could’t be reached for some), it soubd logical that they may need to be revised up now (about 20 years later)

imagine a fighter whose specs were set in 1945 that tries to enter service in 1965… the environment it would have to cope with would be beyond science fiction for its pilot

while aircraft of today take longer to enter service, the evolution is still very active for all nations. As a result, it seems obvious that systems LM is trying to put together today in the F-35 will probably be either obsolete or at least “nothing special” by the time the aircraft reaches operational service (and I speak of real operational service, with useful combat capabilities and so on, not a joke planned for this summer when USMC will get an equivalent of Cessna 172 on steroids)

It is just a good thing it hasn’t taken as long as the Rafale…

😎

I can’t stand these kinds of reasoning, no matter which side they’re coming from. And I see it so much here it’s not even funny.

Most of the people here are working the problem backwards. They have their desired conclusion, then they try to invent justifications that make it true.

You would think asserting that fighters require compromises wouldn’t be controversial, but for a few here it is a totally unacceptable where their favorite plane is concerned.

I posted this presentaton in the Modern Military Aviation thread.

Good for you?