This follows on the beautiful thread that is
>Eric Trappier, Executive Chairman of Dassault Aviation, has drawn attention to the closed communication system of the Lockheed Martin F-35, which has been presenting problems for cooperative combat missions planned with the European Future Combat Air System (FCAS). Trappier conveyed this issue to French senators on May 24th.
Basically they're saying they can't acquire technology transfer for MADL datalink by 2040 lol
>Trappier explained that “collaborative combat” ideally creates a cooperative link among fighter jets, permitting one jet’s computer to operate weapons on another jet during a mission. This cooperative link can also extend to other capabilities of the fighters. However, “this can only be achieved with Rafales, within a Rafale patrol,” said Trappier. Collaborative Combat between Rafales and F-16 or F-35 jets is currently not possible, and he doubts it will be in the future.
Link 16 doesn't exist?
>While there is “interoperability” with the F-16 and F-35 fighters, this is primarily facilitated through data exchange via the U.S.-designed Link 16, which is available to NATO forces. French fighters are equipped with Link 16, allowing data link with an F-16.
Looks like the author called out this BS as well
>However, compatibility with the F-35 is more challenging because it adheres to an American, non-NATO standard and remains a closed system. Trappier humorously commented that if allied nations wished to achieve interoperability with an F-35, the easiest way would be to purchase one.
Top kek
>Trappier humorously commented that if allied nations wished to achieve interoperability with an F-35, the easiest way would be to purchase one
lmao how the vassal states are desperately trying to prevent even more domination by the US. If they ever want their independence the US will just killswitch half their military. Silly vassals, do you never learn?
Maybe you should post sources for both threads. I think you're a russian shill.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/522510/dassault-ceo-opposes-belgian-participation-in-scaf-fighter-aircraft-programme
https://www.aviacionline.com/2023/05/incommunicado-collaborative-combat-between-rafale-and-f-35-is-impossible-dassault-ceo-says/
Stop seething
only tangentially related, but is there a generally accepted definition for 6th gen? For instance, is a variable cycle engine a key feature? My perception rn is
>at least as stealthy as F-35
>sensor fusion
>GaN AESA radar
>advanced networking, ability to control drone wingmen in particular
>no vertical tail
>beeg
>variable cycle engine(s)
>integration of energy weapons or compatibility with future ones
the source is in the image, anon
>https://www.aviacionline.com/2023/05/incommunicado-collaborative-combat-between-rafale-and-f-35-is-impossible-dassault-ceo-says/
I think the biggest thing that separates 5th from 6th, as in "this will be the most common factor, regardless of country or design" will be that the plane is a mothership meant to control drones, loitering munitions, and potentially other planes. I firmly believe every single 6th gen proposed or conceived will have this as a stated feature while the rest will vary.
I think that's the most important difference, but it has an implication that makes me hesitate to accept it - namely, that the F-35 will almost certainly be a 6th gen aircraft in the future if the teaming/drone control element is enough. Maybe you could say it needs to not only be capable of doing that, but also needs to have been designed with the mothership thing in mind from the start. After all, that's why you have design choices like the large size and lack of maneuverability, in contrast to the F-35 or F-22
Right. Functionally everything else is negotiable. Range, better stealth material, variable cycle engines, engine count, etc. etc. but I just can't see any 6th gen fighter coming to the table with this feature absent because it's what sort of makes the whole platform worth investing in. The draw of basically putting a whole air wing into the sky while only using one aircraft that's got pilots in it is like a fantasy.
the drone's control system would have to be microwave lase, like those that are in use in satellite imaging. they might have some trouble with cloud cover / distortion.
It would also have to be able to trace a LOS over the horizon, though it would go much further than the visual spectrum. Otherwise it would have to bounce its communications from satellite to satellite for the drones to remain in contact and the communications to be secure. You can not use standard radio or widely broadcast satellite signals.
if you use any other method, it is only a matter of time before your radio transmissions get intercepted and your drone network is hacked.
And frankly, that just sounds like it would cost a god damn fortune. So for now, I guess we stick with the 60 year old missiles docked in the silo's we aren't even sure still work.
Personally, I'd rather do something, even if it were futile, than watch our nations go under and see corporations take over the world. Nationalizing an industry used to mean that the government was in control of the industry, not the other way around.
It is how it is.
when the f-16 went from fly-by-wire to computerized, we lost control. Do you really think an F-16 with an on board computer is going to be able to deliver a nuclear payload?
the electronics system must be ROBUST, it cannot use delicate micro-circuitry. It has to withstand the effects of a potential high atmosphere nuclear detonation and the resulting electro-magnetic pulse.
Or just be shielded
>GaN AESA radar
These are already fielded
I'm aware. That list was supposed to be bare minimum requirements, not just the difference between 5th and 6th gen specifically
Probably 6th generation is to 5th generation what 4th is to 3rd in that they are more of a refined iteration of previous generation than a quantum leap or paradigm shift that characterizes the change from 4th to 5th. I mean some heavily upgraded (reengined, latest avionics, etc) 3rd gen could count as 4th, but 4th gen fighters designed so from scratch are better than them.
>heavily upgraded (reengined, latest avionics, etc)
qualifies as the .5 between gens
eg. Typhoon, Rafale, 15EX
if the f35 is what the 5th gen represents then by no means its a giant leap
the only thing i wont argue about is that the f35 present a whole package that doesnt require additional pods and shit
BUT
what is cheaper and better at its job?
an f35 with eots on stealth mode and 2 bombs at internal bay
or
an f16/f15 with the sniper xr pod (which is literally what the eots is since its the same system) and 6 gbu 10 and 4 aim9x and 4 aim120?
>FREE SPECTRUM FOR EVERYONE
>ALSO JUST USE AS MUCH TRANSMITTING POWER AS YOU LIKE
>meanwhile terrastrial microwave spectrum goes BRRRRRRRRR KABOOOOOOOM
>What's cheaper
Probably the F-35 at this point, the latest FY2023 numbers say just under 70mil a plane
yes i use to think that way too
but the main problem here again is the internal bay assuming you care about being stealth
it either can carry 2 medium gbu's (nothing bigger in dimensions than a paveway otherwise its just one..)or quite literally one jsm or one jassm-er (regular jassm just puts the plane at higher risk anyways)
not sure if they gonna increase the size of the internal bays in the future but as it stands right now using it as a expensive replacement of the a7 corsair its just wont cut it
It's a strike fighter and it can still deliver the same amount of ordnance as an F-117 (2x2000 pound bombs, either Paveways or JDAMs) in an air to ground role while still carrying internal A2A missiles.
>2 medium gbu
Holy shit you're ignorant
It sounds like you're describing the F-117,dipshit.
Those are Small Diameter Bombs ("Stormbreakers" for their official and dumb name) with 250 pound warheads.
>Aviacion online
Into the trash it goes
This is literally exactly what happened when Der Spiegel interviewed the former president of ULA about SpaceX. All he did was seethe at every question, claim that the US was trying to destroy France, and made a spectacle of himself. For his trouble, he was fired like a month later.
>This is literally exactly what happened when Der Spiegel interviewed the former president of ULA about SpaceX. All he did was seethe at every question, claim that the US was trying to destroy France, and made a spectacle of himself. For his trouble, he was fired like a month later.
kek do you have a link?
Ofc, it's hilarious.
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-die-amerikaner-wollen-europa-aus-dem-weltraum-kicken-a-1207322.html
Just translate the page, it doesn't miss anything in the translation. We still laugh about this in the spaceflight circles because of how hard he was seething.
Holy fricking kek the French are such a silly people.
im noticing a trend with French seething, in almost every case they are getting plainly out competed in cost, quality, or both and instead of trying harder, they just sit there and rage about it like children.
the problem with french is that they are predisposed to thinking the quality of their products are better than they really are, because there is something about theirs that they find important that others generally don't care about.
They overvalue a particular trait and charge in excess for it.
The worst part about it is that they did it to themselves. They saw what Boeing did with its engineering department (fire everyone, hire contractors sparingly and outsource instead) and decided to copy that over at ULA to save money. Consequently, Ariane 6 still hasn't launched, has suffered insane cost overruns, and still won't be able to compete with the very rocket it was originally conceived as competing against because that rocket doesn't exist anymore as it's since been replaced with an upgraded version that vastly outperforms Ariane 6. It's literally DOA, has cost them billions, and pretty much killed the company.
I was going to ask because im not a space guy and know nothing about it. I saw the article is like 5 years old and can only assume the gap has widened since then.
Yeah, Ariane exists at this point because the ESA has payloads that they will only fly on ULA (which makes sense because of the connection), and because of Bezos literally buying every single available launch on Ariane's manifest for Project Kuiper since he's trying to keep competitors (to SpaceX) alive while simultaneously getting his own satellite network up and running with said launches since the FCC is breathing down his neck due to not having even a single sat in orbit despite it being 7 years at this point.
Sorry, not ULA, I meant Ariane. They are functionally the exact same though, just different governments. They have fired multiple VPs for making the company look bad while seething about SpaceX.
>ULA
You mean ESA? ULA hasn't been very impressive either, admittedly.
Doesn't Charmeau have a point about the sheer economies of scale SpaceX enjoys?
Look at the date. This was back in 2018 when SpaceX was launching 21 times (less the previous years). At that point, Ariane was still competitive and potentially could have regained it's foothold had Ariane 6 come out on time and on budget. Ultimately though, that didn't happen. It's fricking over because these old space dipshits refuses to get with the times.
It's kind of insane that last year SpaceX managed just over 1 launch per week on average. So far this year they are 35, more importantly SpaceX is going from 27 commericial/government launches last year (with the other 34 being for Starlink to having 50 commercial/government launches this year with 21 starlinks
sort of. Reusability is viable because of the launch cadence, but reusability itself is a somewhat objective edge on cost that F9 has over Ariane rockets, which Charmeau explicitly contradicted multiple times in the article. He was trying to argue the US government was massively subsidizing SpaceX so it could strangle European industry and that USG moneybags were the only reason SpaceX offered cheaper launches
>USG moneybags were the only reason SpaceX offered cheaper launches
they are going to where the aerospace talent is, and right now, thats in China. It doesn't hurt that comparitively, wages are still cheaper there, even for highly educated and skilled people.
>they are going to where the aerospace talent is, and right now, thats in China
ROFLMAO
Chinese aerospace is 90% scamlaunch companies that are ARCA tier that just blatantly steal visual designs from western rockets, cobble them together in renders and then separate the gullible from their money, and 10% state run programs which more purposefully copy western and Soviet rocketry and/or utilize their existing ballistic missile manufacture.
Chinese aerospace capabilities are not at all terrible but please be serious here.
i think China's current stated plan is to have a Falcon 9 competitor by 2030 isn't it? And that's a basica F9 the reusable part won't come till a decade later. Nevermind Starship.
They want to have a Starship/SLS competitor by 2030, but yeah.
>SLS competitor
Genuinely possible but not until 2033 at least. SLS was a shitshow and is a shitshow, as is Artemis as a whole. it would not at all surprise me if the Chinese build a better SLS with a much much higher launch cadence and if they outpace Artemis starting around 2035. Literally nothing has gone the way it should for Artemis and everything is behind schedule and almost everything is over budget, never mind that it’s already unambitious and that gateway and SLS are both bogged down in moronic congress mandated requirements.
The fact that the UAE needs to build the airlock for gateway for Artemis to succeed, and do it soon, and the fact that this isn’t even in my top five concerns about the program really says it all.
Well, sls is getting fricked by the costs still increasing. Now it's like 6 billion for the engines alone.
If Congress wasn't okay with this or doing it on purpose, they would have put the program directors for Aerojet Rocketdyne in jail already.
It remains to be seen what happens since the debt ceiling agreement had in it that budgets cannot be increased.
>The fact that the UAE needs to build the airlock for gateway for Artemis
Who agreed to this? They have nothing to offer and theyre not even an ally
UAE wants to pretend they have a home grown space program and they have shitloads of money.
God I wish every OPEC shithole would be bombed
Every bit of Gateway is built by someone else. This is essentially a trap built by NASA for congress. Since it’s an international agreement, congress will have to keep funding it and thus Artemis. Congress in turn forces NASA to use SLS, which funnels money to certain districts, notably in Washington, Utah and Alabama.
The UAE was chosen to build the docking module because Russia was originally going to. That isn’t politically viable now and quite frankly I’m not sure they could have - Russian space manufacturing is actually worse than their broad military manufacturing. Nauka is worse the more you know about it.
UAE will probably pay a private company to do it with little direct oversight, rather than having a national entity oversee the project and manage the contractors. It is probably fine because worse comes to worse they’ll pay axiom or Northrop to do it. Politically it helps lash an Arab state to the Artemis accords.
It is moronic, but there’s a logic to the moronation. A moronic logic but logic nonetheless.
I can’t stress enough that this isn’t even close to the most worrying parts of the Artemis program.
>I can’t stress enough that this isn’t even close to the most worrying parts of the Artemis program.
W-whats the most worrying part anon?
SLS costs so much that no one knows how much it costs
It’s destroyed any chance of following the decadal and doing outer systems missions because of the costs of Artemis
Bezos essentially gamed the system into getting billions for his lander (it’ll probably work, though, so that’s not that bad)
The launch tower needed to launch the important Artemis missions is behind schedule, facing serious technical problems, and billions over budget
The space suits will probably not be ready for the moon landing. Space suits have been in development for wel over a decade, very recently they admitted this was going nowhere and launched a new contract for space suits. Yes, space suits are the biggest time delay
SLS is proving to be at the very least extremely difficult to build and launch quickly, it’s unlikely to make the 1 launch a year cadence.
SLS is required for every single Artemis mission, despite not being necessary on a technical level
Gateway is completely unnecessary and just makes moon landings more challenging, it’s essentially just a way to shackle congress to funding Artemis and shackle other countries to the Artemis accords and keep them from playing ball with China
Congress wants NASA (and some people in NASA want) to use SLS to go to mars. If you saw the diagrams you’d go apeshit, we’re telling 80+billion just in launch costs, 2 years in transit, 14 day stay and that’s not factoring the development of new hardware
All of this is somehow supposed to result in a fricking moon base. There’s no contracts right now for developing this moonbase hardware
Expendable Alabama river rocks
The space suits are probably the biggest immediate obstacle, it is actually possible that China gets to the moon before Artemis III.
>The space suits are probably the biggest immediate obstacle, it is actually possible that China gets to the moon before Artemis III.
I don't think Elon Musk is going to let it happen because he's got a lot to gain by showing up porkbarrel spending by doing it better, faster, and cheaper himself.
Musk can do whatever he wants, and Polaris 3 and dear moon might happen before Artemis III. I don’t see him being allowed to use his own suites for A3 though. There’s contracts, and he’s a decisive at best figure in NASA and more importantly among congressmen. Id like to be wrong and the suites turn out to be a nothingburger but A3 was originally supposed to happen next year lol.
What are the worrying parts?
>WORRYING PARTS
There's more?
>Nauka is worse the more you know about it.
a quick rundown
>The fact that the UAE needs to build the airlock for gateway for Artemis to succeed
>the UAE
excuse me?
You been living under a rock?
I dont pay attention to space at all, so yeah kind of.
Just doing a quick cruise of headlines on the Artemis program is making it all look grim as frick.
Honestly SpaceX is more likely to do something on the moon, or in lunar orbit, of their own volition as proof of concept for an eventual mars mission before Artemis gets anywhere.
This is exactly why I dont pay attention to space stuff. Its all just massive cluster fricks and wiener teases. Bit discouraging tbh
>This is exactly why I dont pay attention to space stuff. Its all just massive cluster fricks and wiener teases. Bit discouraging tbh
Chin up Anon, the future is almost here, and it's frickin' glorious.
>Chin up Anon, the future is almost here, and it's frickin' glorious.
Maybe.
Tell me about your webm
>Tell me about your webm
Debut launch of the development Starship + Superheavy vehicle: the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful machine to ever fly, aspiring to 150+ metric tons of payload to Low Earth Orbit with a fully reusable, two stage to orbit architecture, and built to travel anywhere in the solar system with orbital refueling.
developmental*
Frick.
Anyway, obviously not perfect, and the vehicle's flight was terminated when they lost control after the hydraulic power systems for the engine gimbals exploded.
It exploded anon
Also engines failed kek
Flight was an L even if it did max Q
>Reddit tier cope image
Why anon, why.
Why not? The French had the most successful commercial launch vehicle for over a decade and the first thing it did in flight was have a memory overflow that sent it tumbling over and exploding in mid-air.
Honestly i'll be expecting more out of the Space Force going forward than NASA, they are apparently planning a mission to reactivate Spitzer to map out everything that we might need to worry about hitting spaceships/satellites going forward
It's important to note that 150tons is for a reusable launch, if they don't care about reusing stuff then a 1 way trip gets them 250-300 tons.
Thrust is a hell of a drug
I think they’re eyeing the commercial LEO station contract competition very carefully. They want a manned station, for some reason. I think they’ll go with the starlab one, because IIRC they want a small one for 2-4 people, and a station that can be deployed in a single launch is incredibly appealing for them.
>developing a new super heavy launch vehicle and launch infrastructure has cost less than SLS that uses existing shuttle technology
Grim.
The cost to develop and fly the first Starship is 1/10th what it cost to develop and fly the first SLS, though they did actually get around the moon in their first flight, so there is that.
Cope. long march 8 mogged starship. We will ban american from our space station when we complete it
I wonder if they actually believe that? It's only had 2 launches total and has 1/4 the mass to orbit as F9
>LM8
>starship
You’re confusing at least one of these for something else
>We will ban american from our space station when we complete it
I’m pretty sure there’s already a mutual ban but LEO stations are cucksheds not worth bothering with. Yes I include the ISS, which is a big bag of shit and a hole for money to be thrown in and burned, which has held back scientific development in space habitation for decades.
He doesn’t have a point for a few reasons
Firstly, everything else aside, A6 made some very bad business decisions. You win some you lose some. But the huge mistake was betting on A6 being right on time and ending A5 production. Now they have a gap in launch capabilities.
At the same time this homosexual seethes basically constantly about starlink and F9. Yes, they’re eating his lunch, but he’s not arguing for improving yuropean launch capabilities, or putting more funding towards private payload companies to generate a European market, or building a rocket that fits into the global launch ecosystem.
And his big cope about not including readability is that it would have resulted in a loss of jobs in the rocket manufacturing plants. He literally said he can’t do it because it would mean less rockets built for cheaper and thus less jerbs, because, again, they aren’t planning to leverage lower cost to orbit and government gibs to unis and companies for satellite development to create a market!
Protectionism in key industries is an important policy to maintain national, sovereign capabilities and political independence. But you have to use that protectionism to actually develop capabilities, not to simply make sure a few hundred people in France have jerbs.
JAXA is doing a much better job of leveraging national launch programs to create expertise in aerospace among Japanese private industries. Even if they’re not succeeding in actually building successful rockets and payloads kek.
>Even if they’re not succeeding in actually building successful rockets and payloads kek.
What, are you saying that putting an actual, very expensive payload on a maiden flight of a new rocket was a stupid fricking idea?
No I’m saying that not running a final software test/simulated landing after changing your landing site multiple times before landing on a new one just before your launch of your country’s first moon lander is a bad idea
That's the upside to rocketry. Even the failures are interesting.
>Starliner.webm
>Cant communicate
Funny Link 16 allows for just that, its been NATO standard for a long ass time. Why is Trapper always being such an obnoxious Black person about the F-35? You'd swear it fricked his wife and daughters with how much he rages about it.
What hes really saying is that everyone needs to stop what their doing and switch over to these proprietary French systems because uhhhh...BECAUSE YOU JUST NEED TO ALRIGHT!
This is peak engineering in Burger's™ nation
Detachable Penis.
mon dieu, l'ogre de france
L'IMMONDE OGRE DES CAVERNES DES PYRENEES
Is Dassault still diverting French Air Force Rafale deliveries to customers?
All French protectionist industry, and ESPECIALLY their aerospace industry, is predicated around coping and most of all seething. They frequently make statements that amount to
>it is not le fair zat our competishon is allowed to sell superior goods and services to ze yuropean market
>if we made zomesing good we would ave to lay off our workers!
>vve need laws to prevent zis
i think thats more in line with the classical definition of protectionism.
From cheese to wine to missiles, it's all the same. Same with the frickin Italians.
That's why I never bought into all that "le wine from Bordeaux" and "la ham from Parma" bullshit.
I have an Italian car, it was inexpensive, it runs great, no maintenance issues, I get compliments on it all the time.
Only problem?
The mirror is installed DIRECTLY into the windshield and the damn thing leaks the tiniest bit when I go through the carwash or it sits in the rain, getting my dashboard wet.
Your fault for not buying a D.O.P. certified car from a 300 year old family garage in Milan
OOOOOO NOOOOO, MOUNT CARCOSA NO A BLOW A UP A AN A PUT DA ASH A ON A U CAR FACTORIA
NO A GOOD A CAR A
>Trappier humorously commented that if allied nations wished to achieve interoperability with an F-35, the easiest way would be to purchase one.
Then proceed to seethe when they do
French saying that rheinmetall produced cannon for the new joint tank program not meeting french standards says enough of them.
/sfg/ containment breach.
you dont know much about the situation eh
MADL is just a stupid gimmick that was purely made as a pr spin
for whatever fricking reason LM decided to use the ku band for it and use the spectrum that is assigned for in usa but NOT in eu
thats why whenever they fly outside of usa to pretty much anywhere else they either need that modified u-2 plane or the bacn platform
>Link 16 doesn't exist?
and thats the problem link16 can be synchronous by simply updating the mmc of the aircraft just like the rafale does it
but that is a big no no for LM
the main problem with fcas is that they gonna use it with true sat's and pseudo sat's that work on eu ku band which at that time f35s wont be able to use
>Using a non-standard band and then blaming America for also having a non-standard system that isn't compatible with the non-standard link
Yep, sounds like France.
>Using a non-standard band and then blaming America for also having a non-standard system
here in europe we actually have regulations and strict band limitations because they are saturated as hell
so no france isnt using nothing non standard they are using the military spectrum assigned by eu on ku band
>here in europe we actually have protectionism
>RF regulations to prevent interference is protectionism
hi illiterate
call me when the US military suffers from these problems
>better at its job
Certainly not the F-16V.
>6 gbu 10 and 4 aim9x and 4 aim120?
You're not going anywhere near the F-35's combat radius with all that bullshit hanging off you.
Here's the thing: the F-35 can carry all that if it wants, and fly like an F-16V. It can ALSO fly clean, and carry 4 weapons stealthily out to 500nm.
Tell me what the F-16V can carry clean.
the US military doesn't suffer from these problems because the US themselves have RF regulations as well
fricking idiot
>You're not going anywhere near the F-35's combat radius with all that bullshit hanging off you.
remind us again whats the f15 AG combat radius?
> F-35 can carry all that if it wants,
yes but nobody will sacrifice stealth now are they
> It can ALSO fly clean, and carry 4 weapons stealthily
can it?
>out to 500nm
lmao ok
did the f35 somehow changed its bclk2 specs and nobody realised it?
Are you moronic?
You're fricking outdated, we're here telling you how fricking outdated you are, and all you have to say is a snarky "no u"?
>f15
Irrelevant, because you said F-16V.
And even then I'd still say, the F-15EX can't do what the F-35 can, though with upgrades it will provide stand-off attack. The F-35 however can stand IN.
>can it?
Why don't you take your head out of the ass you've plugged it into and look?
>bclk2
honey, we're up to Block 3F now and Block 4 begins production in just 3 years.
Yes and they can carry either four SDBs per slot or one 2000lb weapon or one AIM-120.
>Yes and they can carry either four SDBs per slot or one 2000lb weapon or one AIM-120.
They're working on increasing the internal AIM-120 capacity to six.
Yes, but only for the A and C versions.
It's rolling out with Block 4.
Canada will get Sidekick baked in, and so will everyone buying As and Cs in future.
Far better than the fricking leafs deserve.
>Yes, but only for the A and C versions.
Which is like 80% of all F-35s that will ever be built.
There are like 2700 F-35A orders and like 500 F-35B orders.
>pretending the USN’s pet carrier only F-35B is the norm
I don't understand your comment, sorry
rephrase?
You're acting like the F-35B is the most common model.
Oh. No, no.
>Yes and they can carry either four SDBs per slot or one 2000lb weapon or one AIM-120.
>calls me ignorant
>proves me right
what a mad moron
Look at that picture again. Can you not count to two?
>talks about bombs
>LOOK AT THE PICTURE FULL OF MISSILES
stay ignorant, I'm not going to spoonfeed you
just admit that you are wrong anon you made a mistake and its over
You're literally fricking deluded.
put some era on your keyboard you are digging your self even deeper
MADL is needed for stealthy datalink. The shorter and tighter the wavelength the better and frankly require smaller sensor.
>permitting one jet’s computer to operate weapons on another jet during a mission
someone might haxx your aircraft
>French want all the benefits of membership
>barely cooperate at bare minimum extent
>drag feet and groan like a teen being going to church whenever systems interoperability comes up
>upset that their domestic systems integrate poorly with joint programs they were always welcome to join, but refuse
Frogs are insufferable.
If you can understand this image you can’t see it without wanting to tear your hair out. For those that can’t, every orange rocket you see on the bottom will cost between 4 and 10 billion dollars each, and we currently can only build one every two years
>Manned Venus flyby
I can smell the cancer.
The French have been pissy for years over any and everything because they aren’t the trendsetter or the leader their egos want to be. The idea that their fellow Europeans largely prefer US systems to French ones gets them fuming.
So not only are they going to waste french taxpayer money on a system that already exists, but german and spanish taxpayer money too? Or is the american one a system that you have to license which could potentially be more expensive than developing your own?
Hackable airplanes. Great idea. It's not like the enemy could ever use that against us.
Subzero iq
>muh EU
>buy mutt
i pirated solidworks, frick you dassault
frogs are very protectionist
more news at 12