Fonck

Essaie le site US J-UCAS. http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/4359/logiduc6rk.jpg En attendant pour patienter.

"You know I've already addressed that quote, it was from 1994 and BAE got the TDP talked about in the form of Replica. Dassault also made a similar request to the French government but got nothing." Sorry my friend, Quote is 2004/05. Not so and even from then on it was not what they wanted. Keep lying to everyone else here.... You have too litle to make a show and certainly no TDP which is what Turner wants to keep up.. "Can you show how the AVE-D reduced its IR signature, there’s no evidence that it did. " Keep insulting ewveryone intelligence too... "Also, you don’t have to reply to me if you don’t want to." So you can conveniently keep LYING to everyone? Because posting total interpretations of the truth is quiet disgusting methink........ What a poor copycat with too little understanding of what you are writing about..... First i have to point out that Nod copycat technique, trying to emulate me as i used this image (see the link) to higlight the lack of Low Observability features on Corax doesn't work for Petit Duc. http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/1385/coraxnostealth5wo.jpg "You can clearly see the exhaust on both of the pictures I posted" NO you cannot see the exhaust pipe poping out of the AVEs backside, but you CLEARLY can on Raven and Corax. http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1633/aveirreduction8no.jpg http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/1715/raven36tn.jpg Not knowing what the words exhaust, pipe and recessed means Nod? Apparently not. More to it, you can clearly see the IR supressant material surounding the exhaust area on the AVEs too, going into your usual denial state or spin/twist technics won't change this fact... Second, your interpretation of the UK's and France's researches are totally missleading too: http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/9215/RAFALEMC-01_01.jpg Stealth was already applied to Rafale from pre-90 design. This is where ONERA and Dassault collaboration matters. http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/9581/nm882e44qz.jpg http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/7205/doc2dwig3zr.jpg Here you go. EM signature 50% lower than that of Typhoon and IR sig a lot lower too. 1990 French L.O technology applied. >>>>> Here is a descriptif of the Programmes according to original statments: Strategic UAV Experiment program SUAVE for the UK, Logiduc for France. "Research and development work on low observables (LO), autonomous operation and sensor integration" in the case of BAe.... "Step by step technological approach aimed to enhance Dassault's UAV design capabilities, mastering stealth aircraft design and confronting it to modern air-to air and air-to-ground combat systems" in that of Dassault.... MAIN Design goals for these vehicles had to be: 1) Stealth material: (structural design). 2) Stealth design: (EM return reduction). 3) Engine/Exhaust: (IR reduction). 4) Flight controls: (New configuration and aerodynamic laws). 5) Sensor integration and Operational evaluation. >>>>>Dassault Logiduc Process: Goals 1/2/3/4 have been achieved with the "Petit Duc", AVE-D and with AVE-C which size we don't know for real... "designed and built with rapid prototyping to cost methodology, this UAV has been joined by a second member of the family, the AVE-C, designed along the same lines to experiment unstable yaw aircraft control methods". i.e Dassault "logiduc Process". "Entirely made of stealth materials" "at the end of a work highlighted by the will to reduce radar and infrared signature". French Senat Raport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. http://www.senat.fr/rap/r05-215/r05-215_mono.html http://www.senat.fr/rap/r05-215/r05-2151.pdf Courtesy of OPIT. End result: The FIRST Europen stealth UAV to fly had in July 2000 reached goals 1/2/3 at once. = Full stealth features tested and flown as early as 2000. Goals 4 was achieved by the AVE-C which is actually NOT necessarly a Petit Duc as it shares the same configuration (tail-less/instable) with Moyen and Grand Ducs. " "The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc." Source Flight International; DATE:24/06/03. According to the French Senat Raport d'Information 22 Fev 2006, Moyen Duc "apeared" in July 2001, since the previous date was that of a first flight, there is NO "evidences" that it is different for this one or that i haven't flow as early as 2001... With a weight of 500kg it was a significant step forward to the Grand Duc step. Result: (Le Bourget, June 16, 2003) "Thanks to its unique experience in the development and production of combat aircraft, Dassault Aviation masters all advanced technologies related to this field and considers UCAVs as complementary systems to aircraft of the Rafale class and generation." Dassault; Le Bourget, June 16, 2003. compared to: Flight International and BAe Mike Turner 2005. "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". On the UK's UCAV TDP he expect to be launched and the reason WHY BAe needs it. > The same IR reduction measures as used on M-88 were applied to the AVEs, serrated materials were NOT needed on the wings butthe visit doors are serrated. 5) Sensor integration and Operational evaluation. This is now NEURON objectives. >>>>>BAe's FOAS, now SUAVE programme. 1) Stealth material: (structural design). 2) Stealth design: (EM return reduction). 3) Engine/Exhaust: (IR reduction). 4) Flight controls: (New configuration and aerodynamic laws). 5) Sensor integration and Operational evaluation. > To achive the same goals BAe needed SIX different programmes: 1) Stealth material: (structural design). Replica: A "technology tesbed" otherwise said a mock-up, had materials and manufacture procedures for Main design goal. Nightjar I and Nightjar II, two non-flying testbeds, otherwise said two more mock-ups had different body shapes and researches on EM return (L.O) as Main design goals. To make my point; the difference between the two main goals and advanced in stealth technology is really obvious as Nightjar I and Nightjar II, Corax and Raven share a similar body shape. Replica was using angular shapes much less developed than that of F-117 for example. http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1306/BAeAASMock-up.jpg Scan from Jane's all the world's aircraft. 2) Stealth design: (EM return reduction). "Raven and Corax were flying demonstators researching EM reduction technology and sharing the same flight control systems". (BAe). "Two Raven carbon-fiber composite airframes have been built and flown." "The Raven's central fuselage is common with that of BAE's Corax program." 4) Flight controls: (New configuration and aerodynamic laws). "BAE is exploring modularity in its approach to UCAV/URAV and UAVs. Raven shares the same central fuselage shell as the Corax strategic reconnaissance URAV design, with a common flight control system." 3) Engine/Exhaust: (IR/visual reduction). Chameleon demonstator. IR/visual reduction was the design goal of yet another demonstrator which lacks the EM features to make it a full stealth aircraft in the class of AVEs. >>>>> From all these "vehicles", none is designed to demonstrate BOTH IR, EM reduction measures and Materials at once: > 5) Sensor integration and Operational evaluation would be the logical goal of the much awaited UCAV TDP asked by BAe chairman but also with the clear indication that they need it to fully master the stealth technology as proven by the large number of demonstrators none of which is fully L.O... > As opposed to what Nod/Rob L are trying to have us believe: Three of BAe programmes never were designed to FLY and are in fact Mock-ups. "Testbed stealth aircraft non-flying demonstrator" is BAe description of Nightjar I and Nightjar II. They are NOT stealth UAVs. UAVs are flying vehicles, these are tecnology mock-up which doesn't take into acount the aerodynamic and resu8lting structural design: in the case of Replica most of the stealth features design either (This was the role of the Nightjar I/II). Both were "designed to examined a number of airframe bodies using the company's radar cross-section range at its Warton site". Raven have the same design goal than AVE-C on flight control exploring new areodynamic laws due to a different (instable/tail-less configuration) but share the same flight controls, which is NOT the case of the AVEs showing here a diffeerent level of experience too. NONE have full stealth features, one was solely dedicated to IR/visual reduction measure (chameleon). None have the same stealth characteristics as AVE-D as it is build entirely with stealth material, meaning a third design goal. EM/IR/Material in one UAV. So to achieve the same result than Dassault with their two (or three) AVE-s, BAe needed THREE Mock-ups and three UAVs: Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II, plus two flying UAVs, Corax and Raven for EM reduction and aerodynamics, as well as Chameleon for IR reduction researches. So much for an advantage in experience.... What it shows, is a clear dependency of BAe on MoD funded programmes for design and technology skills developement, consistant with Mike Turner and MoD own staments carefully and consistantly denied and ignored by Nod and Rob L. In fact it was their home work in researches conducted by Dassault and ONERA on materials as well as design which as everyone can apreciate they are far from having anywhere near Dassault design and technologic experience. So to try to make his point here comes everything including the kitchen sink, low tech UAVs and other non-stealth related vehicles or Mock-ups. Comparing mock-ups and non-stealth UAVs with any stealth UAV/UCAV is already mocking anyone intelligence, refusing to admit the facts as they are is even more of their usual. = PURE Flamers. NONE of the UK's UAVs have the stealth technology applied to the level it was to ANY AVEs, none have been qualified of anything else than L.O or "Higly surviveable stealthy UAV" by BAe or MoD NONE are UCAVs. > Quoting Nod; Or how to distort official staments: "Dassault stresses that Neuron is not a production program. A major objective of the project, in fact, is to develop and sustain Europe’s ability to design and integrated sophisticated military airframes once the current generation of fighters enters service." A very twisted version of the reality here: NEURON is a technology demonstrator (As was XF-16) and have different design goals and purposes than his interpretation of it: For quiet obvious reasons of trying to minimise the design and technologic gap between Dassault and BAe. It is: "Open to the European cooperation, favouring the use of existing technology competences". NEURON first have to: Quoting NEURON PDF: "demonstrate the maturity and effisciency of the technologic solutions and European industrial capabilities to answer to future needs" NOT to develop them as they have them since 2003 but the Assemblee Nationals doc mentions "further developement" of stealth on the Grand Duc programme which is only logical. "The Grand Duc aimed to validate the Operational demonstation of a combat mission, while developing the capabilities of furtivity and flight control". Design goals and objective are: Stealth, REAL networked combat capabilities, execution of A2G mission in a C3R network. "Maintain and improve skills of the French and European industry". Is what Dassault says on their own 2006 PDF not develop them like developing muscles one doesn't have, they already are world-top. http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/4619/dassaultneuron20061dp.jpg http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3227/NEURON-Dassault.jpg This is the previous version of it..... If even being the most advanced world-while they weren't aiming at making future improvement they wouldn't have survived since 1945 and being where they are... Only idots doesn't learn and we know who they are.... Dassault 2006 PDF Neuron scan Developing and sustaining design skills is NOT what NEURON design goals ARE about. Somewhat a different and more realistic vue of Dassault real design capabilities and clear difference between them and BAe. >>>>> How to misslead the topic readers: .Rob L list: 1) BAe Replica Project MAIN Goal Material and manufacture researches Mock-up. 2) BAe Chameleon Project MAIN Goal Visuak and IR reduction demonstrator. 3) Nightjar I and Nightjar II MAIN Goal Testbed stealth aircraft non-flying demonstrator Mock-up. 4) SUAV (E) Strategic UAV Experiment program NOT a vehicle on its own. The name of the whole programme (ex-FOAS) including all the researches vehicles/demonstrators/mock-ups. Still to be completed with a UCAV TDP. 5) Herti 1A MAIN Goal Non stealth UAV. 6) Herti 1D MAIN Goal Non stealth UAV. 7) Kestrel MAIN Goal Non Stealth flying wing UAV. 8] Raven MAIN Goal EM reduction demonstator 9) Corax MAIN Goal EM reduction demonstator 10) Eclipse MAIN Goal Non stealth Aerodynamic UAV demonstator. Result: Only two real L.O demonstrator vehicles, none being as fully L.O developed as the AVEs (EM+IR). And the clear evidences he doesn't even know what SUAVE is. > RN Nod list: • 1 x Kestrel gas turbine UAV MAIN Goal Non Stealth flying wing UAV. • 2 x Raven gas turbine UAV MAIN Goal EM reduction demonstator. • 1 x Corax gas turbine UAV MAIN Goal EM reduction demonstator. • ? x HERTI-D gas turbine UAV MAIN Goal Engine Tactical UAV. • 2 x HERTI-1A piston UAV (w/ BMW engine) MAIN Goal Engined Tactical UAV. • 1-8 x HERTI-1A piston UAV (w/ Rotax engine) MAIN Goal Engined Tactical UAV. Same here. What are Kestrel and HERTI-D doing in the list??? As for the interpretation of what BAe are saying on Replica: "A key aim of the Replica programme was to demonstrate Low Observable (LO) technologies in a low cost design and production environment, using paperless aircraft processes". A key aim = "Low cost" demonstration of the MAIN goals of the Replica programme as detailed by Jane's scan: Materials and manufacture procedure. NOT full stealth features implementation. Stealth features were NEVER Replica main design goal so claiming them as such is as usual innacurate. I will personally have the descency to skip the dozen of UAVs of all types France have designed/produced with or without Dassault PARTICIPATION. Nor will I have the curiosity to ask where some of these BAe little marvels were actually designed... The two major French UAVs programmes where Dassault are involved too and we don't mention all ONERA state-funded researches which are at least 30 years old. About the UK's UCAV TDP still to be launced: "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". i.e BAe chairman Mike Turner. It clearly make sense when one knows about these loads of "Stealth UCAVs"... >>>>>On the real advance of the Logiduc and the press: "Dassault officials say construction of the TUAV demonstrator began earlier this year, with that system forming the basis of its joint bid with Sagem for the French army's Multi Sensor Multi Mission UAV requirement." DATE:24/06/03 SOURCE:Flight International > Clearly the author have no clue about the date of the Moyen Duc event OR is talking about a different programme: The French French Senat Raport d'Information 22 Fev 2006 gives 2001. NOT 2003. As the developement took less than a year, according to the french officials (Juil 2000/Juil 2001), it could be flying since 2001 or end 2001. More to the point, we are talking about a totally different configuration here. Slow/Fast and Moyen Duc. Slow/Fast shares a common configuration to AVE-D. http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/7422/sagemdassault6zu.jpg http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/7167/7023002312um.jpg http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/7167/7023002312um.th.jpg Moyen Duc with AVE-C and the predicted Grand Duc. http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2787/7023002417uy.jpg http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2787/7023002417uy.th.jpg One is a buterfly (V-shaped) tail configuration, the other an instable tail-less flying wing. "The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc." http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4981/moyenduc5xg.jpg http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4981/moyenduc5xg.th.jpg So is this a Petit or Moyen Duc? And if it is a Petit Duc why is it equiped with an aerodynamivc experimental probe??? To explore the flight envelope only? For a50 kg aircraft this would take a quiet important load.... "Dassault says a second version of its Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration. The first Petit Duc demonstrator has been flying since mid-2000. The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc." DATE:24/06/03???? And what is exactly Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration? Considering this: The target weith for NEURON is 2/3 tons, the Moyen Duc weight given for 500 kg. 500 kg X 3 = 1.500 kg whi8ch makes the whole thing plausible. Petit Duc weoght on 50 kg: 50 X 3 = 150 kg which doesn't allow for much of a payload. Conclude by yourself, but in my case, in view of the most recent French Senat Raport d'Information of 22 Fev 2006 (Courtesy of OPIT, merci mec et mes respects), the press was missled into thinking that the the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration was "that simple" and late.... Dassault can call Moyen duc a Petit Duc if it pleases them in interviews dated from four years ago. The fact is: AVE-C have flown and there is NO mention of a second "Petit Duc" in the French offical documents, but Moyen Duc, with a weigh of 500 kg. Dassault simply refers to is as AVE-C, "a second member of the familly, designed along the same lines to experiment unstable yaw aircraft control". No mention of size nor weight here nor date for the first flight. Nod sources aere counterdicted by the more recent Official Senat Raport d'Information, which was published on 22 Fev 2006. Here is a montage showing the three disctinctive configuration: Top: Slow/Fast Sagem/Dassault drone with a Petit Duc like fuselage and a different wing configuration supposed to fly wend of 2003 acording to Flight International. http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/4359/logiduc6rk.jpg http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/4359/logiduc6rk.th.jpg Middle: AVEs = AVE-C/Moyen duc/Grand Duc same tail-less configuration. 2001 for Moyen Duc according to the French Senat Raport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. Botom: Petit Duc V-shaped tail. 18 July 2000, firswt Europeenstealth UAV to fly. http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2057/moyenduc5lj.jpg http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2057/moyenduc5lj.th.jpg http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/4615/moyenduc022dj.jpg http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/4615/moyenduc022dj.th.jpg Note, As nod like to copycat me so much, as i noticed that Corax straight wings weren't even serrated as are the wings of Rafale he tried the same with the Petit Duc picture without actually knowing what he was doing nor saying.... Here is the full extend of the design features well shown. The doors on all AVE-D are serrated that of Corax and Raven ARE NOT even if they are significantly larger which lower the effisciency of their stealth features significantly too. Exhaust pipes are NOT visible and recessed on all AVEs. That of Corax and Raven are proheminent, visible, NOT recessed. A dead giveaway io IR seekers/sensors. The AVEs are constructed entirely of stealth material, there is no such detail on Corax and Raven structure. All AVEs share the same stealth technology. Note: If one compares Rafale and AVEs front section, the L.O features of Rafales are more than aapperent. L.O materials were used, serrated edges were used as well as IR reduction measures for the two M-88 (engine and exhaust materials, recessed pipes). Rafale C (D for discret at Roll out) first flight is May 91, its design definition about three years ealier, the main difference from the A were L.O improvements, aerodynamics and a lower weight/smaller size. So to make it even more obvious i have added X-45 and X-47a cross sections in the composite image i post. But also AVEs, F-23 and a very interesting German WWII design, the Horten Ho_IX-V1, which makes Corax/Raven UAVs look outdated by a full 60 years. >On the Slow/Fast programme: DASSAULT AVIATION and SAGEM found a joint company to build drones Paris, 27 February 2003 Extending the cooperation initiated by the agreement signed in April 2002, SAGEM and DASSAULT AVIATION have founded a joint company: http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8310/drones2002mo.jpg http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8310/drones2002mo.th.jpg Dassault Maritime/AVE and Dassault/SAGEM Slow/Fast DASSAULT SAGEM TACTICAL UAV http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9347/dassaultsagemucav13ze.jpg http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9347/dassaultsagemucav13ze.th.jpg This French company is in charge of developing and marketing next-generation tactical drone systems. For both companies, this line of strategic growth is meant to respond to changes in the operational needs of the armed forces. The two partners' recognized skills are being pooled to offer general staffs a range of solutions that expand the capabilities of pilotless aircraft. The founding of this company is a concrete expression of our shared determination to approach future markets, both domestic and export, from an installed base that is unrivaled in Europe , adds Jacques PACCARD, Director of SAGEM's Defence and Security Division. For Mr. Bruno REVELLIN-FALCOZ, Vice Chairman of Dassault Aviation and Chairman of the new company, appointed for the first two years in accordance with the articles: Input from the most advanced fighter systems technologies will be decisive for the success of the future drone systems. Groupe SAGEM is an internationally based high-technology group. The second largest French group in the field of telecommunications, the third European Company in electronics for defence and security and the world leader in fingerprint-based biometrics, SAGEM maintains a presence in more than 20 countries. For more information, please consult the SAGEM web site: www.sagem.com With 7,500 military and civilian aircraft delivered in more than 70 countries in half a century, DASSAULT AVIATION has know-how and experience that make it one of the most advanced aviation companies in the world. For more information, please consult the DASSAULT web site: www.dassault-aviation.com. Press Information SAGEM : Hervé PHILIPPE Senior VP, Chief Financial Officer Tel. +33 1 40 70 62 57 Fax. +33 1 53 23 20 47 Press Information DASSAULT AVIATION : Gérard DAVID Director of External Relations and Communication Tel. +33 1 47 11 86 90 Fax. +33 1 47 11 87 40 http://www.dassault-aviation.com/gb/media/communiques/ Note: This IS a Dassault stament. NOT a British press interpretation or overkooked and outdated "article". > To be comnpared to: "Puis apparait en Juileet 2001 ,le "Moyen Duc". d'un poid de 500 kg" Then appeared in July 2001, the Moyen Duc with a weight of 500 kg. Extract from: SENAT Session Ordinaire de 2005-2006, 22 Fev 2006. Rapport d'Information (2006). Two years of difference between the two and NOT the same configuration. "Thanks to its unique experience in the development and production of combat aircraft, Dassault Aviation masters all advanced technologies related to this field and considers UCAVs as complementary systems to aircraft of the Rafale class and generation." (Le Bourget, June 16, 2003) http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7967/eurosat2005fm.jpg http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7967/eurosat2005fm.th.jpg 2004 BAe press release: "Continental Europe is getting its act together on UAVs and UCAVs,” Turner said. "We are working with the Defence Procurement Agency on programs [of our own]; it’s really important as a nation we get onboard." Source: Jane's. 2005 BAe press release: "While the report maintains the Defense Ministry has "no funded UCAV program," the ministry is supporting classified UCAV-related research, in part through low-observable (LO) platform work. It recently recast its future offensive strike needs within the Strategic UAV Experiment program." Source: Jane's. DATE:21/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International UK rethinks Tornado replacement "A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System. >>>>> So if there is ONE here not talking manure, twisting FACTS, interpreting them FALSLY, only providing people with informations as they are it is NOT Rob L not Gliter not Nod. As simple as that. To make their point they have to ignore history, industrial reality, interpret, lie and totally desinform the readers of this topic. This heve been going on for most of last year in the WAAF as Nod and Rob L tried to imply that BAe had stealth UCAV "secret programmes" when i WAS maintaining that these were in fact low budget stealth researches as they in fact are. Quoting Rob L in this topic: "You're so funny. So how many UCAVs are in use in France? " There is NO UCAV curently flying anywhere in the EUs. As for what the BAe show is all about: "Defense Ministry sources have previously confirmed the U.K. is funding the development of what they dubbed "nugget technologies" that would provide the government "leverage" in any collaborative environment." >>>>> Jane's Aerospace dictionary own definitions of the word DESIGN; Entire process of translating hardware requierement or specification into final production drawings. DESIGN POINTS; Specific combinations of variables upon which design process is based; together these cover every combination of air density, airspeed, Mach, dynamic pressure, structural loads (including free or accelerated take-off and normal, or arrested landing) and systems demands aircraft can encounter. >>>>> About the above POINTS: What it show clearly is that this full process haven't been explored by BAe as much and as many time than by Dassault, as it involes the "Entire process of translating hardware requierement or specification into final production drawings": Thus excluding any sort of coollabiorative work or tecnology transfert for less than design leaders. The three flying UAVs designed (?) by BAe doesn't go far enough to compensate for their obvious lack of experience in the full process of designing. Dassault have designed and probabilly built many mock-ups since 1978 including the whole serie of AVEs, Slow/Fast and NEURON, starting by the full-scale ACX which was dubbed Jhon Player Special at le Bourget 1983. http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3039/acx017uw.jpg http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3039/acx017uw.th.jpg "The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". As for those who compilied the French Senat Raport d'Information 22 Fev 2006... 2 Contre-Amiraux 2 Generaux 2 Lieuteneant-colonels 3 Ingenieur generaux 2 Programme directors... Corps representes: NATO/DGA/Operations/Etat Major de l'AdA/Etat Major de la Marine/DGSE/Renseignement militaire/Circulation Aerienne. Dassault/SAGEM/EADS/THALES. I'm sure i forget some competences here but if anyone have the guts to say that these guys doesn't know their programme dates.... According to them too, there is ONLY TWO real UAV funded programmes in the UKs. The rest being experimental or not launched as yet: NO stealth UCAV programme either NEURON being the first and as far as we all know the only one unless the German Barracuda is as L.O as NEURON (remote chance for this) and fully combat capable as NEURON will be (Still to be demonstrated after Barrakuda maiden flight). Still if questions remains asfor its real capabilities and level of stealth technology it seems quiet advanced too. Barrakuda technology advances Images of the EADS Barrakuda stealth unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) demonstrator indicate that the company's work on stealth may have outpaced that of BAE Systems, Saab and Dassault. Barrakuda is a much larger, heavier and more sophisticated aircraft than the very small test vehicles that other European companies have unveiled to date. [Jane's International Defence Review - first posted to http://idr.janes.com - 13 February 2006] Actual UAV programmes in the UK: Thales, a French company. Watchkeeper. GED Marconi (UK) Phoenix. > Actual UAV programmes in France: Euromale (EADS/Dassault). Sprewer (SAGEM) SIDM (IAI) http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9420/droneoperatedbyfrance3hz.jpg http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9420/droneoperatedbyfrance3hz.th.jpg Non listed in this documentation and to prove how easy it is to take the mickey with their big numbers technique, designed and developed in France still in developement or in service.... Mart Mk.2 (Altec Industries) S-mart (Altec Industries) Spewer B (SAGEM) Sprewer/Ugglan (SAGEM) Crecelle (SAGEM) Crecelle-EW (SAGEM) Maritime (Dassault) Slow/Fast (Dassault/Sagem) Eagle 1 (EADS-France). Eagle 2 (EADS-France). Orka (EADS-France). Scorpio 6 (EADS-France). Scorpio 30 (EADS-France). Tracker (EADS-France). Surveyor 600 (EADS-France). Surveyor 2500 (EADS-France). Still this list of French achievement is far from being complete, ONERA and other researche institue like universities are missing.... That's still acount for 20 but this doesn't stop our "honourable British friends" to post both abroad/UK based French companies programmes with their own list. Note: The majority of unlisted BAe/other UK companies UAVs are designed in their US branches. > France is regarded by the (Assemblee) board as lagging behind in terms of involvement in (non stealth) UAV systems by 10 to 15 years, i wonder what they would say about the UKs... So there is NO need to take the mickey as they do with BAe homework as the UK and BAe are actually well behind in both UAV, UCAV, stealth design and technology. Proven. >>>>> Interesting links on French UAV and stealth researches. http://www.onera.fr/conferences/drones/index.php http://www.onera.fr/conferences/drones/drones-militaires.php http://www.onera.fr/conferences/drones/categories-de-drones.php http://www.onera.fr/conferences/drones/drones-usa-europe-projets.php >>>>> Morality: Rob L/Nod if you can't stop being LIARs: http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/8725/arnold8ph.th.jpg

Je m'en fous, le fait est que je deteste qu'on nous prenne pour des cons. Lis ce qu'ils disent c'est hilarant. Ils ne sont pas plus avances que Dassault et SAAB l'etaitent il y a trois ans. Au niveau dessin Dassault a dix ans d'avance. T'a pas photo, mais Nod, Rob et le reste nous MENTENT. "Pouvez-vous imaginer une seule seconde si les français faisaient la même chose sur les forums anglosaxons ? On se ferait jeter! Ce sera plus agréable à lire pour la majorité des membres" Si ils ne nous racontaient pas de conneries ca passerait encore.

RM-Nod you're sop full of it you can't even make sense of WHAT you're saying. PLUS you are a LIAR by trying to imply that more than one of these is actually anywhere close to be stealth. BAe design the old fashion way compared to Dassault s it is just to be anticipated they NEED three time more vehicle for a lower result. They can't even use CAD design properly as shows the long list of programmes they screwed up.. "The photos available of the Raven and AVE-C/D do not show to what degree both vehicles’ engines are recessed into the body of the aircraft." Nod you're bubling. AGAIN Raven is NOT designed for IR eeduction AND its exhaust pipe is well visible coming OUT of the fuselage. Not the case for Duc. . Duc are designed for BOTH EM and IR as the French Senat doc says.. Period all yo can try to invent about it won't change FACTS. AND The observation from a guy who doesn't know the difference between his mum iron and a delta wing is little compare to the board of specialist who wrote the document where is says different than you. Question: Since the Petit Duc wing trailing edge is at the right angle for reducing radar return, why on hearth should it be serrated like that of Rafale? This goes WAY on to show that you don't KNOW the subject you try to tackle here. Too funny you're just a bad copycat. "There are a few mistakes in your post, the major being your suggestion that the Moyen Duc flew in 2001; the project’s development was started in 2001 but it never flew. " Escuse ME can YOU actually prove this? No. What this says is different from "The programme was started", the date they give about the Petit Duc are for first flight, there is no evidence it is different for Moyen Duc. As for your sources they are no more informed than what the French authorities wanted them to be. On the issue of when these aircraft flew, here’s a list with links to reputable sources; AVE-D – 18 July 2000 Kestrel – 2002 IS NOT a stealth vehicle. AVE-C – June 2003 Raven – 17 December 2003 IS NOT a full stealth demonstrator either. http://www.dassault-aviation.com/defense/gb/uav/logiduc.cfm http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/022006p2.xml http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2003/06/24/Navigation/190/167785/France+budgets+%24350m+for+UCAV+demonstrator.html http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/022006p2.xml "I don’t think I’m going to dissuade you from your view that BAE doesn’t have any design skills at all as you are capable of listing the aircraft produced by both Dassault and BAE however I will point out that if this was the case then how did they produce HERTI-D, HERTI-1A, Corax, Raven and Kestrel? " HERTI-D, HERTI-1A, Corax Are NOT stealth demonstrators. Period, only Raven is close to be and don't even posses both IR and EM reduciton measures as does the Ducs, your reason for trying to make up a story about them. I don't think you'll ever consider coming back to hearth and associate experience with doing what it take to acquier it. Dassault design skills are top of the world. BAe are just trying to keep up and forgeting about the whole collection of expensive FCUCK-UP design and technology related you don't want to aknowledge for obvious reasons. "I will also repeat the fact that unmanned combat air vehicles are very different from previous generation aircraft and business jets. Designing an aircraft like the Mirage does not mean you are capable of designing a UCAV with which it has very little in common. " The process of designing is NOT different and AGAIN in terms of design Dassault are world Number ONE with CATIA and their virtual tool. The only company in the world capable to do without the prototyping stage and going straight from digital to prodiuction and doesn't nedd to design six vehicles among which one for IR and the second for EM to achieve the same goal.... For the rest your usual twist of reality. BAe didn't design SIX stealth UAVs only one with EM and the opther with IR redi=uctuion. Corax straight wings are not doing EM reduction measures any good. to finish i';d like to point out to you that there are some educated people in this forum it;s NOT the WAAF where everyone can believe your bullshits. Go back to WAAF you're ona looser here. "Whether or not BAE has designed, wholly or partly, a supersonic aircraft makes no difference especially as all UCAV concepts are subsonic." Sure, you'll win London Marathon by runing your usual saturday pub race. Stop taking others for as ignorant asnd stupid sa you are. "BAE does have more experience in regard to RCS reduction (Replica, Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Raven), IR signature reduction (Chameleon), visual signature (Chameleon), advanced novel configurations (Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Kestrel, Raven, Corax) and autonomy (Raven, Corax, HERTI-D, HERTI-1A). BAE has experience in the last few years of every area of UCAV design, Dassault does not; there is also no source that states the AVE-C included signature reduction measures btw." Kestrel, Replica, Nightjar I, Nightjar II, LIAR. you are a proven LIAR. Again Kestrel, Replica and Nightjar weren't Stealth UAVs. "The jet-powered Raven's blended wing-body airframe, with outer wing control surfaces aligned with the trailing edge, reduces radio-frequency scattering. The lack of vertical or horizontal control surfaces also helps reduce the radar cross-section. " Kestrel is FAR from being a stealth vehicle in the league of DUCs. "Dassault says a second version of its Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration. The first Petit Duc demonstrator has been flying since mid-2000. The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc." There is NO given date for thesecond Petit Duc flight as for the configuration: http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/4147/moyenduc8gk.jpg There is NO way you could say this one isn't MOYEN DUC. Can you??? The only UAV anywhere close to this be stealth is RAVEN and even SO it IS not designed with as much L.O features as Petit Duc... Replica design goal is NOT stealth but material and manufacturing methods. NOD you ARE a LIAR. As for the French researches: Rafale is full of L.O features already. All of these have been conducted in collaboration with ONERA as for experience you're wrong, you won't dare posting other pictures than that of Raven woulod you? Only one vehicle could be qualified as stealth and it doesn't have IR reduction measures at all. All you are showing is what Dassault achieved earlier in two Petit Ducs and a Moyen Duc. They don't NEED as many they can design and this a lot more than BAs. I won't even bother reading your bullshits from now on. >>>>> Here is reality, not your Disneylandish interpretation of it: Nod I have no time to make your education nor that of Rob Nor that of Gliter. Here IS industral REALITY for YOU. Subsonic OR supersonic. BAE did a LOT less design than Dassault did and spining the subject around is NOT changing reality boy. BAe design expertise: Sea Harrier: Aug 1978. Firmly subsonic. From 2002. No fully designed high performance fighters (M2.0 +). Design lead for EFA from a German (MBB) arrangement blue print. i.e TFK-90. Shares in Tornado GR and Typhoon programmes, developed the F version of Tornado by design of centre-fuselage plug. Redesign of somne parts and internals of JAS-39 Gripen X (Export version) to put it to NATO standards. Shares on: (But NO design work Stealth/Aerodynamics/Structural) F-35, = redesign of L-M blue prints for industrial tooling. (Tail only). Avionic developements. Reduction of %age of studies in the F-35 programme. Known major programme problemes, technologic or design issues: Nimrod AEW.==Electronic Suite. Nimrod Mr4.-=Wing design/target weight. Tornado F-3==Centre fuselage plug cracks. Harrier II.==Rear fuselage cracks. EFA Wings.===Instability. Astute.======Design (CAD implementation. F-22.========Hardware/software caused Raptor crash. 6 researche UAVs: None of which posseses the full stealth features not even Corax: (just looking at the engine exhaust and taking note that another UAV was used for IR reduction researches) flying a year after the Petit duc serie. Still awaiting the promised (since 1994) UCAV Technology Demonstator Programme from MoD in order to develop the full technology and design skills. Number of self-designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = 0. >>>>>> Compared to: >>>>>> Dassault Design Expertise: Mirage 2000: Marsh 1978. First Digital FCS aircraft to enter service in the world. Mirage 4000 (79) Mach 2.3 Demonstrator Mirage IIING (83) Mach 2.2 Demonstrator Canard-Delta electric FCS Instable. Rafale A (86) Mach 2.0 Demonstrator: First Europeen Flight by light (Optical) FCS. Rafale D/C/B/M (91) Mach 2.0 Operational aircraft: Highest level of implementation of L.O technologies for both airframe, engines and Avionics in the EUs. Collaborative work on L.O technology with ONERA (99). Petit Duc AVE-D (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator: RCS and IR reduction build entirely with stealth materials. Petit Duc AVE-C (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator: Further stealth/Ir flight control and design researches with tail-less instable formula. Moyen Duc (2001) Stealth UAV Demonstrator: Tactical reconaissance Drone answering to the need of the French Army post SDTI. NEURON prime contractor, Programme General Designer and Architect (Lead Design), flight control system, final assembly and flight testing. 50% workshare. Known major programme problems, technologic or design issues: None. Known major technologic or design developement breakthrough: CATIA/Direct design-to-production capabilities i.e first in the world and unique as up to now. Number of designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = Mirage F-1 CR. (Soon retired) Mirage F-1 CT. (Soon retired) Mirage 2000 C. Mirage 2000 D Mirage 2000 B. Mirage 2000-5-F. Rafale M. Entering service this year: Rafale C Rafale B. >>>>>> And if you would like to throw the BAe Hawk trainer into the equation by pure despair: We will gladly compare its performances to that of the Falcon serie, the number of different designs and number sold since 1978. Dig it??? You're welcome. Facts ARE: Since 1978 (not to mention 1945). Dassault designed both high supersonic and subsonic aircraft in a FAR higher number than BAe without any major problems. Dassault designed and sold to both France and export customers a far higher number of aircrafts of all type than BAe ever did. Dassault is involed in: NEURON UCAV but also: Slow/FAST with SAGEM, Euromale and the DGA MALE programme. Now if you don't call it an obvious edge in design, technology expertise AND experience what is it by today's Aerospacial Industry standards then??? I'll rest my case your honour, all the opposition can do is talk manure as usual. Revisionists. "The DIS document also makes reference to a BAE-developed UAV design called Raven, which it says “went from concept to first flight within 10 months”. Further details on the classified design are expected to be released in mid-January." CRAIG HOYLE/LONDON http://www.flightinternational.com/...10318&SlotID=22 DATE:19/12/05 SOURCE:Flight International BAE unveils its UCAV secrets BAE Systems is to continue research into unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) systems under a new technology demonstration programme to be agreed with the UK Ministry of Defence in January. >>>>> UCAV? WHAT UCAV??? The UCAV TDP is still to be launched. >>>>> "A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System." " Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," Have a nice day. P{S i will repost this every time you'll come with your crap.

Je ne crois pas que ca s'applique a des technologies aussi avancees. Tu ne peut pas honetement comparer Mig 29 et Rafale. Le Rafale definitif n'ewst meme pas encore en service pourquoi un client voudrait prendree le risque d'essuyer les platres quand l'armee de l'air et la marine peuvent le faire sans risque???

Please show us the Exhaust TUBE as it is visible on Corax in the picture of the Petit Duc. You can't. It is recessed. Fonck a écrit: The point IS they combined BOTH IR and EM researches in ONE UAV , New Aerodynamic laws in the second Petit Duc, both of which flew a year before Raven and sevral more before Corax. Can you show how the AVE-D reduced its IR signature, there’s no evidence that it did. The evidence is in the document from the French Senat conclusion from a board of higly trained and competent specialist; you don't even understand your elementary basics yet.... The second Petit Duc (AVE-C) flew in 2003, which was the same year as Raven flew; it was not a year before. Prove IT. Moyen Duc is given for 2001. So it's a 500 kg UAV flying two years before anyway. "Can you also prove that the picture I posted is a con; if you’re going to stoop that low then please have the evidence to back it up. " You did photoshop it didn't you adding these comments on it. As such it doesn't represent any specialist opinion but only YOURS. And it doesn't show any engine exhaust pipe, on the Raven opicture it does clearly. Fonck a écrit: It means you keep your design skills UP. You dig? One doesn't acquier skills by doing nothing. "Obviously but both companies have kept there design skills up," No they don't Should I post the lists AGIAN for your you to admit the huge differences in experience??? Here YOU go. BAe design expertise: Sea Harrier: Aug 1978. Firmly subsonic. From 2002. No fully designed high performance fighters (M2.0 +). Design lead for EFA from a German (MBB) arrangement blue print. i.e TFK-90. Shares in Tornado GR and Typhoon programmes, developed the F version of Tornado by design of centre-fuselage plug. Redesign of somne parts and internals of JAS-39 Gripen X (Export version) to put it to NATO standards. Shares on: (But NO design work Stealth/Aerodynamics/Structural) F-35, = redesign of L-M blue prints for industrial tooling. (Tail only). Avionic developements. Reduction of %age of studies in the F-35 programme. Known major programme problemes, technologic or design issues: Nimrod AEW.==Electronic Suite. Nimrod Mr4.-=Wing design/target weight. Tornado F-3==Centre fuselage plug cracks. Harrier II.==Rear fuselage cracks. EFA Wings.===Instability. Astute.======Design (CAD implementation. F-22.========Hardware/software caused Raptor crash. 6 researche UAVs: None of which posseses the full stealth features not even Corax: (just looking at the engine exhaust and taking note that another UAV was used for IR reduction researches) flying a year after the Petit duc serie. Still awaiting the promised (since 1994) UCAV Technology Demonstator Programme from MoD in order to develop the full technology and design skills. Number of self-designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = 0. >>>>>> Compared to: >>>>>> Dassault Design Expertise: Mirage 2000: Marsh 1978. First Digital FCS aircraft to enter service in the world. Mirage 4000 (79) Mach 2.3 Demonstrator Mirage IIING (83) Mach 2.2 Demonstrator Canard-Delta electric FCS Instable. Rafale A (86) Mach 2.0 Demonstrator: First Europeen Flight by light (Optical) FCS. Rafale D/C/B/M (91) Mach 2.0 Operational aircraft: Highest level of implementation of L.O technologies for both airframe, engines and Avionics in the EUs. Collaborative work on L.O technology with ONERA (99). Petit Duc AVE-D (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator: RCS and IR reduction build entirely with stealth materials. Petit Duc AVE-C (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator: Further stealth/Ir flight control and design researches with tail-less instable formula. Moyen Duc (2001) Stealth UAV Demonstrator: Tactical reconaissance Drone answering to the need of the French Army post SDTI. NEURON prime contractor, Programme General Designer and Architect (Lead Design), flight control system, final assembly and flight testing. 50% workshare. Known major programme problems, technologic or design issues: None. Known major technologic or design developement breakthrough: CATIA/Direct design-to-production capabilities i.e first in the world and unique as up to now. Number of designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = Mirage F-1 CR. (Soon retired) Mirage F-1 CT. (Soon retired) Mirage 2000 C. Mirage 2000 D Mirage 2000 B. Mirage 2000-5-F. Rafale M. Entering service this year: Rafale C Rafale B. >>>>> "what matters though is developing them further and in that regard BAE Systems has done more and began doing so earlier than the available evidence suggests Dassault did." What evidences? Show US. Corax? Raven None of them having full L.O arrangements??? What does MoD and BAe says about it AGAIN??? DATE:21/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International UK rethinks Tornado replacemen “The government could decide against US or national programmes, so there could be potential for European collaboration,” says Turner. “There is a huge lobby now within the MoD to go more European [and] I think we would be welcomed.” "A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System. "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue"." "because of the need to master the stealth issue"." Sorry what do they sqay they need to do AGAIN??? "because of the need to master the stealth issue". So yeah it's not only about design... The truth is THEY need them because they have to keep up. No more than this both with stealth and design. "because of the need to master the stealth issue". Now try to twist it again and again and again. The truth IS. BAe is still awaiting the UCAV TDP you tried to invent most of last year on the WAAF even implying at some point that Replica was IT. You can't even make the difference between a TDP and a mock-up it''s too funny. Not everyone is as BAD as British Aerospace is or ignorant ot the point to believe it not to be so.

He we go, Le manege enchante. La technique preferee de Nod. Embrouiller le sujet autant que possible. Spin and Twist technique Number 10 Dowing Street style. "You can clearly see the exhaust on both of the pictures I posted and you can clearly see that neither aircraft take any major measures to reduce there IR signatures, please if you believe otherwise point out these measures on the pictures." No it doesn't Shaw the Exhaust pipe. It doesn't show anything that YOU or anyone else for that matter can identify as such, as for taking the piss of everyone AGAIN keep at it. We're not so impressed. The point IS they combined BOTH IR and EM researches in ONE UAV , New Aerodynamic laws in the second Petit Duc, both of which flew a year before Raven and sevral more before Corax. By the way this photoshop montage of you is a CON obviously as i know you made it to copycat my technics of illustating my propos in the WAAF... And suplersonic or NOT design IS design. They did ten time less of it than Dassault. "You’ve missed the point entirely; what I am saying is that designing the Falcon does not mean you can design a UCAV just like that. You need to build up the relevant skills base which is exactly why Dassault started the Logiduc project and why it is producing Neuron. " It means you keep your design skills UP. You dig? One doesn't acquier skills by doing nothing. So what did MoD and BAE said about it still. 005 BAe press release: "While the report maintains the Defense Ministry has "no funded UCAV program," the ministry is supporting classified UCAV-related research, in part through low-observable (LO) platform work. It recently recast its future offensive strike needs within the Strategic UAV Experiment program." Source: Jane's. >>>>> DATE:21/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International UK rethinks Tornado replacemen “The government could decide against US or national programmes, so there could be potential for European collaboration,” says Turner. “There is a huge lobby now within the MoD to go more European [and] I think we would be welcomed.” "A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System. "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue"." "because of the need to master the stealth issue"." Sorry what do they sqay they need to do AGAIN??? "because of the need to master the stealth issue". So yeah it's not only about design...

Nod I have no time to make your education nor that of Rob Nor that of Gliter. Here IS industral REALITY for YOU. Subsonic OR supersonic. BAE did a LOT less design than Dassault did and spining the subject around is NOT changing reality boy. BAe design expertise: Sea Harrier: Aug 1978. Firmly subsonic. From 2002. No fully designed high performance fighters (M2.0 +). Design lead for EFA from a German (MBB) arrangement blue print. i.e TFK-90. Shares in Tornado GR and Typhoon programmes, developed the F version of Tornado by design of centre-fuselage plug. Redesign of somne parts and internals of JAS-39 Gripen X (Export version) to put it to NATO standards. Shares on: (But NO design work Stealth/Aerodynamics/Structural) F-35, = redesign of L-M blue prints for industrial tooling. (Tail only). Avionic developements. Reduction of %age of studies in the F-35 programme. Known major programme problemes, technologic or design issues: Nimrod AEW.==Electronic Suite. Nimrod Mr4.-=Wing design/target weight. Tornado F-3==Centre fuselage plug cracks. Harrier II.==Rear fuselage cracks. EFA Wings.===Instability. Astute.======Design (CAD implementation. F-22.========Hardware/software caused Raptor crash. 6 researche UAVs: None of which posseses the full stealth features not even Corax: (just looking at the engine exhaust and taking note that another UAV was used for IR reduction researches) flying a year after the Petit duc serie. Still awaiting the promised (since 1994) UCAV Technology Demonstator Programme from MoD in order to develop the full technology and design skills. Number of self-designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = 0. >>>>>> Compared to: >>>>>> Dassault Design Expertise: Mirage 2000: Marsh 1978. First Digital FCS aircraft to enter service in the world. Mirage 4000 (79) Mach 2.3 Demonstrator Mirage IIING (83) Mach 2.2 Demonstrator Canard-Delta electric FCS Instable. Rafale A (86) Mach 2.0 Demonstrator: First Europeen Flight by light (Optical) FCS. Rafale D/C/B/M (91) Mach 2.0 Operational aircraft: Highest level of implementation of L.O technologies for both airframe, engines and Avionics in the EUs. Collaborative work on L.O technology with ONERA (99). Petit Duc AVE-D (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator: RCS and IR reduction build entirely with stealth materials. Petit Duc AVE-C (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator: Further stealth/Ir flight control and design researches with tail-less instable formula. Moyen Duc (2001) Stealth UAV Demonstrator: Tactical reconaissance Drone answering to the need of the French Army post SDTI. NEURON prime contractor, Programme General Designer and Architect (Lead Design), flight control system, final assembly and flight testing. 50% workshare. Known major programme problems, technologic or design issues: None. Known major technologic or design developement breakthrough: CATIA/Direct design-to-production capabilities i.e first in the world and unique as up to now. Number of designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = Mirage F-1 CR. (Soon retired) Mirage F-1 CT. (Soon retired) Mirage 2000 C. Mirage 2000 D Mirage 2000 B. Mirage 2000-5-F. Rafale M. Entering service this year: Rafale C Rafale B. >>>>>> And if you would like to throw the BAe Hawk trainer into the equation by pure despair: We will gladly compare its performances to that of the Falcon serie, the number of different designs and number sold since 1978. Dig it??? You're welcome. Facts ARE: Since 1978 (not to mention 1945). Dassault designed both high supersonic and subsonic aircraft in a FAR higher number than BAe without any major problems. Dassault designed and sold to both France and export customers a far higher number of aircrafts of all type than BAe ever did. Dassault is involed in: NEURON UCAV but also: Slow/FAST with SAGEM, Euromale and the DGA MALE programme. Now if you don't call it an obvious edge in design, technology expertise AND experience what is it by today's Aerospacial Industry standards then??? I'll rest my case your honour, all the opposition can do is talk manure as usual. Revisionists. "The DIS document also makes reference to a BAE-developed UAV design called Raven, which it says “went from concept to first flight within 10 months”. Further details on the classified design are expected to be released in mid-January." CRAIG HOYLE/LONDON http://www.flightinternational.com/...10318&SlotID=22 DATE:19/12/05 SOURCE:Flight International BAE unveils its UCAV secrets BAE Systems is to continue research into unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) systems under a new technology demonstration programme to be agreed with the UK Ministry of Defence in January. >>>>> UCAV? WHAT UCAV??? The UCAV TDP is still to be launched. >>>>> "A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System." " Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," @ Gliter perhaps you need it to be translated in Shadoko or in bleeming Javaneese?

http://www.onera.fr/cahierdelabo/english/sol_ind02.htm And that is forgeting that BAE weren't on their own for stealth researches... As was Dassault with ONERA researches.. So at the end of the day, it is all down to who have the most design and technologic experience and one sure thing. It's NOT BAe here....

Nod I have no time to make your education nor that of Rob Nor that of Gliter. BAe design expertise: Sea Harrier: Aug 1978. Firmly subsonic. From 2002. No fully designed high performance fighters (M2.0 +). Design lead for EFA from a German (MBB) arrangement blue print. i.e TFK-90. Shares in Tornado GR and Typhoon programmes, developed the F version of Tornado by design of centre-fuselage plug. Redesign of somne parts and internals of JAS-39 Gripen X (Export version) to put it to NATO standards. Shares on: (But NO design work Stealth/Aerodynamics/Structural) F-35, = redesign of L-M blue prints for industrial tooling. (Tail only). Avionic developements. Reduction of %age of studies in the F-35 programme. Known major programme problemes, technologic or design issues: Nimrod AEW.==Electronic Suite. Nimrod Mr4.-=Wing design/target weight. Tornado F-3==Centre fuselage plug cracks. Harrier II.==Rear fuselage cracks. EFA Wings.===Instability. Astute.======Design (CAD implementation. F-22.========Hardware/software caused Raptor crash. 6 researche UAVs: None of which posseses the full stealth features not even Corax: (just looking at the engine exhaust and taking note that another UAV was used for IR reduction researches) flying a year after the Petit duc serie. Still awaiting the promised (since 1994) UCAV Technology Demonstator Programme from MoD in order to develop the full technology and design skills. Number of self-designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = 0. >>>>>> Compared to: >>>>>> Dassault Design Expertise: Mirage 2000: Marsh 1978. First Digital FCS aircraft to enter service in the world. Mirage 4000 (79) Mach 2.3 Demonstrator Mirage IIING (83) Mach 2.2 Demonstrator Canard-Delta electric FCS Instable. Rafale A (86) Mach 2.0 Demonstrator: First Europeen Flight by light (Optical) FCS. Rafale D/C/B/M (91) Mach 2.0 Operational aircraft: Highest level of implementation of L.O technologies for both airframe, engines and Avionics in the EUs. Collaborative work on L.O technology with ONERA (99). Petit Duc AVE-D (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator: RCS and IR reduction build entirely with stealth materials. Petit Duc AVE-C (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator: Further stealth/Ir flight control and design researches with tail-less instable formula. Moyen Duc (2001) Stealth UAV Demonstrator: Tactical reconaissance Drone answering to the need of the French Army post SDTI. NEURON prime contractor, Programme General Designer and Architect (Lead Design), flight control system, final assembly and flight testing. 50% workshare. Known major programme problems, technologic or design issues: None. Known major technologic or design developement breakthrough: CATIA/Direct design-to-production capabilities i.e first in the world and unique as up to now. Number of designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = Mirage F-1 CR. (Soon retired) Mirage F-1 CT. (Soon retired) Mirage 2000 C. Mirage 2000 D Mirage 2000 B. Mirage 2000-5-F. Rafale M. Entering service this year: Rafale C Rafale B. >>>>>> And if you would like to throw the BAe Hawk trainer into the equation by pure despair: We will gladly compare its performances to that of the Falcon serie, the number of different designs and number sold since 1978. Dig it??? You're welcome. Facts ARE: Since 1978 (not to mention 1945). Dassault designed both high supersonic and subsonic aircraft in a FAR higher number than BAe without any major problems. Dassault designed and sold to both France and export customers a far higher number of aircrafts of all type than BAe ever did. Dassault is involed in: NEURON UCAV but also: Slow/FAST with SAGEM, Euromale and the DGA MALE programme. Now if you don't call it an obvious edge in design, technology expertise AND experience what is it by today's Aerospacial Industry standards then??? I'll rest my case your honour, all the opposition can do is talk manure as usual. Revisionists. "The DIS document also makes reference to a BAE-developed UAV design called Raven, which it says “went from concept to first flight within 10 months”. Further details on the classified design are expected to be released in mid-January." CRAIG HOYLE/LONDON http://www.flightinternational.com/...10318&SlotID=22 DATE:19/12/05 SOURCE:Flight International BAE unveils its UCAV secrets BAE Systems is to continue research into unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) systems under a new technology demonstration programme to be agreed with the UK Ministry of Defence in January. >>>>> UCAV? WHAT UCAV??? The UCAV TDP is still to be launched. >>>>> "A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System." " Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," @ Gliter perhaps you need it to be translated in Shadoko or in bleeming Javaneese?

To the other readers: Here another Troll who spent the best part of last year inventing the UK UCAV TDP which is still not launched : Have a look at related topics in the WAAF. "In terms of RCS reduction Raven demonstrates this adequately; while the exhaust shows no sign of an attempted IR signature reduction neither does the exhaust on the AVE aircraft. Both have simply vent the exhaust gases straight out the back with no evidence of any attempt to mix the gases with ambient air although both have some shielding from the side due to the sweep of the wings/control surfaces. " You're such a laugh NOD: The metalic TUBE out of the Raven but is the exhaust pipe. What you show us in this pic does not show any exhaust pipe in the Duc does it???? NOW NOD show us the EXHAUST pipe as it is apearent on Raven???? You can't it IS shielded and recessed that's as they say IR reduction.. Thanks for the picture. Otherwise said YOU pretend to know better than the list of specialists who explaineed this to the French Senat members do you??? And there conclusions were: EM and IR reduction. You're wrong. RM-Nod "Clearly both do not take IR reduction to any great lengths. However BAE Systems has the Nightjar, Testbed and Chameleon projects that all developed and demonstrated next generation IR, visual and RCS signature reductions. There is no evidence that Dassault has done this." RAVEN doesn't DO ANY IR reduction, this role was devoted to another UAV and you know it. It's your unmistakeable spin and twist technique coming back to play here. "That is untrue in a number of ways; first of all in 1994 the MoD and BAE were not looking at UCAVs, they were looking towards manned aircraft. Second BAE was requesting a demonstrator to develop there signature management capabilities in 1994, this was given in the form of Replica/Testbed which did exactly that." LIAR Nod you know damned WELL that Replica had little to do with stealth in terms of shape. It was Anechoidal chamber (As was Mirage2000 and literally every miltary vehicle designed by Dassault since) tested but its main goal was material AND manufacture NOT stealth technology itself. More to the point, it WAS a Mock-up Not a real testbed. The magazimne TITLE is ALSO misleading as NONE of these is a UCAV having NO combat capabilities. They are simple researche UAVs part of a stealth technologu developement programme... As for this article it looks like things have changed sine 1994 didn't they??? "You’re also bringing up the fact that BAE hasn’t, independently, produced a supersonic combat aircraft. I ask why that’s relevant." Relevant for: Technologic advanced and maintaining design SKILLS which obviously wasn't DONE by BAe as much than by Dassault and even SAAB. You are simply taking everyone else for STUPID here. So here you go: This company who have fare less experience on the subject have now the same design capabilities? I sugest you try that one with a total idiot as MoD and BAE says thamself "to maintain even their actual capabilities". So obviously the more the higher the level of skill as demonstrated by the results... As for the rest of tyhe researches they were conducted in collaboration with ONERA have you got ANYTTHING equivalent in the UK??? "For a start every UCAV design concept ever produced has looked at subsonic aircraft." This doesn't make YOUR case. New design skill are requiered and as far as we know the company capable of the highest design and technology skills is Dassault NOT BAe. "Similarly you have to explain why past design experience such as that which you bring up is relevant to this issue, obviously stuff like Petit Duc is but UCAVs are hugely different to past aircraft like the Rafale or Mirage." Oh really so designing Washing machines would allow YOU to make spuersonic aircrafts or even a Falcon 7X? As i say before you tackle the subject it would be far better for YOU to know just that little about it. And you don't Nor does Rob nor Does your ally, design skills are not a birth right it is acquiered. "They require very different aerodynamic designs, very different flight control laws, different weapons/aircraft interaction, different FCS’, different materials, different manufacturing techniques etc etc." "Really and how do you imagine you acquier experience in doing this? You obviously didn't READ the Dassaults BAe experience bit did you?? I'll post it AGAIN for you." Yers mate i certainly play a major part. As all the BAe problems have shown recently. You should know as they costed MoD £Billions. Cheers for cuting the bull here. Sorry to say the rest is your usual insipide bulls.

glitter Fonck a écrit: "Je ne suis pas des plus compétents en la matière, et pour cause, je suis u nvieux qui préfère un bon F-4 ou Jaguar," T'as oublie un gros probleme avec le progres et en prenant les choses au niveau personel. "avec des pilotes, des vrais" Escusez moi Mr! Je pensais que mon instructeur pilote, le General *** Guy Fleury, Chef de le 3eme Region Aerienne, du COTAM a l'epoque et du CEV de Bretigny s'y connaissait assez pourtant. "Mais jusqu'a présent, jen'ai eu que peu de déclaration en rapport direct avec le sujet. " Jusqu'a present t'as fait qu'essayer de demontrer que j'avais tors et ton probleme psychologique on le remarque de plus en plus depuis plus d'un an. Tu te FOUS de la realite. "Pas personellement, là où je vois des erreurs. " Pour voir les erreurs, faut avoir des bases suffisantes, tu ne les a pas. "Nous l'avions tous compris." Toi pas encore par example. "Suis je maso, mais j'ai apprécier (à petite dos) les forums peuplés de conservateurs américains très anti-francais. " Oui t'es Maso. C'est ton descriptif, la raison pour laquelle je t'ai qualified de TRAITRE dans le WAAF parceque raison ou tors, du moment que tu t'en prends a moi avec ton habitude psychotique, c'est systematiquement contre la France et Dassault en particulier. T'as du etre virer de leur equipe de netoyage pour leur en vouloir comme ca. Tu vas tres bien avec Rob L meme niveau de qualification aeronautique et manque total d'intereret dans le sujet. Chronique. "Ca dévellope le sens critique, crois moi mais aussi, et je te critique dessus, le sens de l'AUTO-critique. " Si ca avait le moidre sens pour toi tu serait vraiment suicidaire aussi. "Nihiliste tu veux dire ? En quoi est ce nihiliste que reconnaitre à Bae une maitrise en matière d'UCAV ? " En quoi c'est ne pas se foutre de la tete des gens de dire le contraire de ce que leur Chairman dit... "Je t'ai demandé maintes et maintes fois de PROUVER ce que tu avances." Je l'ai fait mainte et mainte fois, ne me cherches pas trop, quand a toi tu tournes tous les sujet en merde personelle et continue de demander les preuves qui te sont donnees d'une facon repetee... "Certes, je ne suis pas aussi calé qu'un Ogami," T'es surtout beaucoup moins intelligent. Fonck a écrit: By the way it's pathologic methink, it's ony the third time you throw this line since i first had the displeasure to read you AKA Jesse 04. Twice in the WAAF and now here; Your case is relevant to Psychologists not Military forums. "If you really think I have a psychological problem, don't hesitate to point it to me. " Already done here mate. Too, too easy. i.e All mouth no substance, little interst for the subject too little knowledge and no will at all to learn. "Les soucis du Typhoon sont en partie lié au découpage industriel du projet comme la séparation dessin de l'aile - conception du FBW. MAis si Dassault sait gérer un projet dans sa globalité, je doute infiniment de la capacité de Dassault à tirer le meilleur d'un travail de groupe. Neuron diras si j'ai tort ou non." Blah-di-Blah. Tu racontes absolument N'importe quoi. Les problemes du Typhoon sont lies a un manque d'experience et de maitrise du sujet par les partenaire Europeens et ca c'est prouve par l'histoire. "Obviously, Dassault can achieve a masterpiece if left alone on a program. Unfortunately, in the future we can only think of international (and european) work and I'm sure of the willingness of Dassault for that. Neuron will be my judge." The Anglo-American WET dream, le tiens aussi d'ailleur, ils ecrivent ca depuis le Mirage F-1 quand a toi vas changer tes Pampers. Fonck a écrit: Nimrod AEW.==Electronic Suite. "Just like the fist Rafale F2 or the Mistral ? " Tu nous montre la preuve de ce que tu avances et peut tu aussi comparer la faillite du programme Nimrod AEW a ce que tu accuse le programme Rafale de cacher, vas y MONTRES nous tes preuves. "You're not a specialist of stealth" Certainly not but i know enough about it to see what it is about. And IR signature is NOT part of Raven main design goal, therefore it doesn't have the same amount of stealth feature than AVE-D whic had both IR and EM as design goal. "A crash for the little Duc ?" Excuse me About you also SHOW us your sources? Because you keep talking manure making assumptions asking for sourcre being proven to be totally crapy as to what you previously SAID and keep coming with some new shitty stuff. Who is the TROLL here??? Show us. "Perhaps the name of these planes are fooling you Fonky" Want a go at it? You're the fool here. Hawk is a subsonic trainer to some extend some recent Dassault Falcon might well be more performants. Just knowing the difference between sub and super. Mon petit Funku, l'aigle (Bae) et le faucon (Dassault) n'ont rien à voir Gardes tes familiaritees pour les debiles menteaux qui doivent peupler ta famille veux-tu? Bouffon. Fonck a écrit: "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," @ Gliter perhaps you need it to be translated in Shadoko or in bleeming Javaneese? "Dévelloper = coninuer à progresser" Surtout quand on ne les a pas encore he??? Fonck a écrit: Now LEARN your SH!T: Encore une insulte ? Te traiter d'ignorant c'est rendre service a la patrie comme ca tout le monde SAIS a qui ils ont affaire. D'ailleur apres avoir ete humile comme ca moi au moins j'aurais suivi le conseil, au lieu de rester con. Maitenant vas nous chercher les preuves de ce que tu dis autre part que dans le forums ou ils se specialisent dans la rubrique des chiens ecrases. Remarques, vu ton niveau intellectuel je comprends que les forum et sources serieuse te soient etranger. Bouffon.

glitter Fonck a écrit: "Je ne suis pas des plus compétents en la matière, et pour cause, je suis u nvieux qui préfère un bon F-4 ou Jaguar," T'as oublie un gros probleme avec la progression et prenant les choses personellement. "avec des pilotes, des vrais" Escussez moi Mr! Je pensais que mon instructeur pilote, le General *** Guy Fleury, Chef de le 3eme Region Aerienne, du COTAM a l'epoque et du CEV de Bretigny s'y conaissait aasez pourtant. "Mais jusqu'a présent, jen'ai eu que peu de déclaration en rapport direct avec le sujet. " Jusqu'a present t'as fait qu'essayer de demontrer que j'avaisa tors et ton probleme psychologique on le remarque de plus en plus depuis plus d'un an. Tu te FOUS de la realite. "Pas personellement, là où je vois des erreurs. " Pour voir les erreurs, faut avoir des bases suffisantes, tyu ne les a pas. "Nous l'avions tous compris." Toi pas encore par example. "Suis je maso, mais j'ai apprécier (à petite dos) les forums peuplés de conservateurs américains très anti-francais. " C'est ton descriptif, la raison pour laquelle je t'ia qualified de TRAITRE dans le WAAF parceque raino ou tors du moment que tu t'en prends a moi avec ton habitude psychotique, c'est systematiquement contre la France et Dassautl en particu8lier. T'as du etre vire de leur equipe de netoyage pour leur en voulior comme ca. Tu vas tres bein avec Rob L meme niveau de qualification aeronautique et manque total d'intereret dans le sujet. Chronique. "Ca dévellope le sens critique, crois moi mais aussi, et je te critique dessus, le sens de l'AUTO-critique. " Si ca avait le moidre sens pour toi tu serait vraiment suicidaire aussi. "Nihiliste tu veux dire ? En quoi est ce nihiliste que reconnaitre à Bae une maitrise en matière d'UCAV ? " En quoi c'est ne pas se foutre de la tete des egns de dire le contraire de ce que leur Chairman dit... "Je t'ai demandé maintes et maintes fois de PROUVER ce que tu avances." Je l'ai fait mainte eyt mainte fois pour Rob, ne me cherches pas trop quand a toi tu tournes tous les sujet en merde personelle. "Certes, je ne suis pas aussi calé qu'un Ogami," T'es surtout beaucoup moins intelligent. Fonck a écrit: By the way it's pathologic methink, it's ony the third time you throw this line since i first had the displeasure to read you AKA Jesse 04. Twice in the WAAF and now here; Your case is relevant to Psychologists not Military forums. "If you really think I have a psychological problem, don't hesitate to point it to me. " Already done here mate. Too easy. "Les soucis du Typhoon sont en partie lié au découpage industriel du projet comme la séparation dessin de l'aile - conception du FBW. MAis si Dassault sait gérer un projet dans sa globalité, je doute infiniment de la capacité de Dassault à tirer le meilleur d'un travail de groupe. Neuron diras si j'ai tort ou non." Blah-di-Blah. Tu racontes absolument N'importe quoi. Les problemes du Typhoon sont lies a un manque d'experience et de maitrise du sujet. "Obviously, Dassault can achieve a masterpiece if left alone on a program. Unfortunately, in the future we can only think of international (and european) work and I'm sure of the willingness of Dassault for that. Neuron will be my judge." The Anglo-American WET dream, le tiens aussi d'ailleur, ils ecrivent ca depuis le Mirage F-1. Fonck a écrit: Nimrod AEW.==Electronic Suite. "Just like the fist Rafale F2 or the Mistral ? " Tu nous more la preuve et peut tu comparer la faillite du programme Nimrod AEW a ce que tu accuse le programme Rafale de cacher, vas y MONTRE nous tes preuves. "You're not a specialist of stealth" Certainly not but i know enough about it to see what it is about. And IR signature is ~NOT part of Raven main design goal, therefore it doesn't have the same amount of stealth feature than AVE-D whic hhad both IR and EM. "A crash for the little Duc ?" Excuse me About you also SHOW us your sources? Because you keep talking manure making assumptinos asking for sourcre being proven to be totally crapy as to what you previously SDAID and keep coming with some new shitty stuff. Who is the TROLL here. Show us. "Perhaps the name of these planes are fooling you Fonky" Want a go at it? You're the fool here. Hawk is a subsonic trainer to some extaend some recent Dassault Falcon might well be more performants. Just knowing the difference between sub and super. Mon petit Funku, l'aigle (Bae) et le faucon (Dassault) n'ont rien à voir Gardes tes familiaritees pour les debiles menteaux qui doivent peu0ler ta famille veux-tu? Bouffon. Fonck a écrit: "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," @ Gliter perhaps you need it to be translated in Shadoko or in bleeming Javaneese? "Dévelloper = coninuer à progresser" Surtout quand on ne les a pas encore he??? Fonck a écrit: Now LEARN your SH!T: Encore une insulte ? Te traiter d'ignorant c'est rendre service a la patrie comme ca tout le monde SAIS a qui ils ont affaire . Maitnenant vas nous chercher les preuves de ce que tu dis autre part que dans le forums ou ils se specialisent dans la rubrique des chiens ecrases. Remarques, vu ton niveau intellectiel je comprends que les forum serieux te soient etranger.

Faire votre education partie 2. Flight Daily NewsSubscribeYou are in: Home › Professional › Flight Daily News › News Article DATE:07/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International French revolution Dassault's fly-by-wire Falcon 7X long-range business jet is a ground-breaking design manufactured in a radically new way. But can it outsell its North American rivals? Timing is everything when it comes to launching a new aircraft. Not only must the market conditions be right, but the manufacturer must be ready. Available technology, internal resources and the desire to replace or complement existing products are among the many factors that must be satisfied to minimise the risk inherent in launching a major new programme. For Dassault, the announcement at the 2001 Paris air show that it was to go ahead with the all-new Falcon 7X long-range business jet ended years of speculation about its plans for the top end of the market. The existing Falcon 900EX trijet and the twin-engined Falcon 2000EX have held the fort admirably and continue to sell well. But competition from North America, with Gulfstream pushing its G450 and G500/G550, and Bombardier with the Global 5000 and Global Express, meant Europe's only major business-jet manufacturer would have to come up with an answer. Dassault has so far amassed more than 55 orders for the new Falcon – the best sales performance at this stage of the programme of any of its aircraft and a clear indication that the company has got the timing as well as the offering right. The offering is radical, to say the least. Not only has Dassault taken a revolutionary approach to the design, manufacture and support of the Falcon 7X, it has made the aircraft the platform from which all of its future business jets will spring. "The Falcon 7X represents the success of the radical transformation Dassault has been through," said Dassault Aviation chairman and chief executive Charles Edelstenne at the roll-out on 15 February. Improved comfort The 7X, which made its maiden flight on 5 May, is the largest, longest-range Falcon to come out of the Dassault stable, seating up to 16 passengers in a cabin 20% bigger than that of the Falcon 900EX, with four more windows and many comfort-improving changes. Its 10,500km (5,700nm) range, while less than that of either the Global Express or the G550, is nevertheless sufficient to reach all major US West Coast cities from Paris, with Tokyo reachable to the east. Olivier Villa, Dassault senior vice-president, civil aircraft, says the last 5% of range "is needed by only a very few customers – we find most prefer a break halfway through a very long flight to go shopping or change crews". The launch of the Falcon 7X presented an ideal opportunity for Dassault to use two of its major assets – the Catia three-dimensional computer-aided design system developed by sister company Dassault Systèmes, and a fly-by-wire (FBW) flight-control system. FBW has been a feature of Dassault combat aircraft for several years, but this is the first time it has been incorporated into a business jet. Together, the above systems have allowed Dassault to optimise the design of the 7X as never before (see P93 and P97). Other Falcon 7X innovations include a completely new wing; carbonfibre-reinforced plastic fin; four curved instead of six flat windshields; a 35% larger horizontal stabiliser (which remains all-composite) ; new Pratt & Whitney Canada PW307A engines; increased cabin pressurisation, to the equivalent of 6,000ft (1,830m) altitude instead of 8,000ft; and a new trailing-link main landing gear from Messier-Dowty. Also, Dassault has worked hard on reducing cabin noise to significantly less than that in the 900EX, without substantially increasing weight. Another first is the provision for a crew rest area for flights longer than 12h. Cost-efficiency "Our choice was to work on finding the maximum improvements, but only where they were cost-effective," says Villa. "Twenty years ago, technology didn't win customers, so efficiencies weren't the driving factor in business jet design. Now that fuel accounts for 40% of direct operating costs and taxes are based on weight, technology has become a major issue. Today, we have to be able to tell our customers they're getting the most comfortable and most efficient aircraft, along with high resale value." The philosophy with the 7X was to incorporate technologies that would yield the most efficiencies without entering risk areas. Using Dassault's own Catia system for the "paperless" design of an aircraft was a non-issue. At a stroke, this eliminated an entire stage in the manufacturing process – the need for an engineering model – or prototype. "We've made a huge step forward in the industry," says Edelstenne. "This is the first aircraft ever designed and built in an entirely virtual environment. We've started an industrial revolution that will take us through the century." The "revolution" is illustrated by one astonishing statistic: assembly of the first Falcon 7X took half the time it would have taken for a Falcon 900. "We expect this to be reduced still further as we get into production," says Robert de Rocquigny, Dassault Falcon division vice-president for industrial operations. "Not only that, but the 7X was launched as a full production aircraft from day one. Previously, changes have been incorporated as production experience has been gained, which meant changing part numbers, and differences between all the early aircraft. Now they are all identical from the start, which saves a huge amount of time and resources." Digital flight control The use of a fully digital FBW flight-control system was also virtually risk-free because Dassault has incorporated it in all its military aircraft since the original Mirage 2000. In the 7X it contributes not only to improving safety by providing flight-envelope protection, but makes it possible to optimise the design of the new wing. Falcon 7X pilots will also enjoy the replacement of the main control column with sidestick controllers, releasing space in front of them for a slide-out table. In terms of fuselage structure, the Falcon 7X remains little different from its Falcon 900 forebear. It is the same diameter – 2.34m – but 3m longer, providing an extra 1.9m internal space. Windows are located about 40mm higher to improve visibility and have 40% more area, but keep the same width to fit between the fuselage frames, which retain the same spacing as in the Falcon 2000 and 900 series. The main manufacturing change is that, instead of being constructed in vertically sliced sections, the centre fuselage section is assembled in top and bottom halves, while the nose and rear sections are constructed as complete units. "This was more efficient because the top half is built from aluminium panels, whereas the bottom half contains the fuel tanks and is more complex," says Villa. The change results from "years of testing aimed at simplifying construction processes", he adds. Minor changes have also been wrought to accommodate the increase in cabin pressurisation. The top fuselage section is built by EADS Socata, with Dassault responsible for the lower half. The complete nose section is built by Dassault at its Argenteuil factory, and the complex rear section by Latécoère in Toulouse. The nose is built vertically and requires no assembly jig because the component parts need no adjustment to fit together. The same is true of the wing box. "Now, because everything fits perfectly from the beginning, we can build the box in less than a month, whereas it took months before," says de Rocquigny. Wing benefits The Falcon 7X wing also benefits from the use of Catia-based manufacturing software to design the creep-forming tools used to shape the upper wing planks, manufactured at the Saclin plant. This is the first time Dassault has introduced creep forming of a major component. The panels are integrally milled complete with stringers to minimise internal stresses and are mounted vertically in the milling machines to reduce the time to install and remove the billets. It is more than 30 years since Dassault designed a new business-jet wing from scratch, the Falcon 900 and 2000 wings having been derived from that of the Falcon 50 – one of the most efficient wings around at the time. The incredible power of modern supercomputers now allows the entire airflow over the wing to be visualised and understood – in all three dimensions. The results have been tested in low- and high-speed windtunnels in France and the Netherlands, more than satisfying Dassault's exacting requirements for efficient high-transonic performance coupled with good low-speed capability. Testing has shown, for example, that at Mach 0.85 the Falcon 7X has a 15% improvement in lift-to-drag ratio over the 900EX at M0.80. The decision to remain with an all-metal wing rather than move to composites was "a close call", says Villa. He adds that, although Dassault already builds all-composite wings for its Rafale multirole fighter, "the realities of a combat aircraft are very different from those of a high-performance business jet. In the end it came down to a simple fact. We can get more fuel into a metal wing, and we have new high-speed machining tools which keep manufacturing costs significantly lower than for composites." The Falcon 7X wing looks, and is, big. It has 44% more area than that of the Falcon 900EX, with inboard sweep increased to 34°, and to 30° for the outboard section, against 29° and 25° respectively for the 900EX. The 7X will climb directly to an altitude of 41,000ft (12,500m) and will cruise at 49,000ft on longer flights, with a maximum altitude of 51,000ft. Low-speed performance will be the same as for the smaller Falcon 900EX – landing at 104kt (190km/h) and requiring just 715m of runway (at sea level) with eight passengers. At its maximum range, Falcon 7X passengers will be spending almost 13h aboard the aircraft, so Dassault has made a major effort to improve interior comfort, with particular emphasis on reducing noise. As with the Falcon 900, the cabin is split into forward, main and aft sections, measuring 2.03m, 5.61m and 2.33m in length, respectively, against 1.54m, 4.82m and 2.13m for the 900. The aft toilet is also slightly larger and there is a new forward toilet, so that for the first time there is the possibility of separating the rear and/or main cabins totally from the forward section. Seating (including divans) has to comply with the latest 16g crash-resistance criteria and every possible cabin configuration has to be dynamically tested to that level – a significant task for a business-jet manufacturer offering several different cabin configurations. A third crewmember seat is provided as standard, which can swivel through 180°, and all three crew seats now recline to 137° (against 120°). A crew rest area is an option on the 7X, although fitting it into the aircraft has been "quite a challenge", admits R...mi Bachelet, director of aircraft specifications and design. US Federal Aviation Administration regulations call for a crew rest area on flights exceeding 12h, "and that means a sleeping volume of at least 1m3 [35ft3] with adjacent free space", he says. To accommodate this, Dassault has relocated the main galley to the left-hand side, losing 0.55m of main cabin length and one window frame. Negotiations are under way with the FAA to allow a reclining seat to be used for crew resting instead of a dedicated area, "although we will still offer a rest area if customers want it", he adds. So far, only one customer has specified a crew rest area, however. Reduced noise levels After seven years of research into materials, damping technology and noise transfer paths using the latest finite-element analysis techniques, Dassault says it will achieve not only a 4dB SIL reduction in sound levels compared with the Falcon 900EX (in logarithmic terms about 50%), but also a 100kg (220lb) weight saving on materials. "This took a huge effort," says Oldrati. "In the past we would have had to use far more damping material to achieve the same kind of noise reduction." Much of the work was carried out together with Dassault's Little Rock completion centre in Arkansas, USA, with the inevitable help of the virtual design system. Working with Rockwell Collins, Dassault has also designed a new all-digital cabin management system that includes high-quality audio and video channels and a global communications system, using a Firewire databus delivering up to 800Mbytes/s, again saving weight. The first ground test of a complete Falcon 7X took place on 1 February, marking the beginning of an extensive ground and flight-test programme, culminating in European and US certification and first deliveries in late 2006. Flight testing will involve three production aircraft, which will build around 1,200h of flying time by the third quarter of 2006. A fourth airframe has begun static testing and will be taken to 1.5 times limit load and will accumulate around 40,000 flight cycles, or twice the expected airframe lifetime. Simulator tests Testing has taken place throughout the programme to date, however, with unprecedented emphasis on the relationship between the fly-by-wire flight-control system, the EASy flightdeck and aircraft performance. The work centres on two simulators at St Cloud: the Falcon simulation bench for testing flight-control laws and the Falcon global bench for equipment – hydraulics, electrics and so on. At first both simulators were used independently, but at the end of last year they were linked, enabling software glitches to be ironed out long before the first flight. The emphasis is now on production, with the initial build rate set at three aircraft a month. This is due to rise as more customers come on board. "We'll decide whether to increase the rate in the next few months," says Oldrati. At the 7X roll-out on 15 February, guests were treated to a spectacular display of imagery in which virtual three-dimensional images of the 7X were projected onto the real aircraft, enabling visualisation of the internal systems and the passenger cabin, complete with virtual figures. It was a powerful reminder of the state-of-the art in aircraft manufacture, and of Dassault's leadership in it. JULIAN MOXON/LONDON http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198906/French+revolution.html Maintenant si vous trouvez mieux chez BAe. Montrez-nous ca. Merci. >>>>> TechnologySubscribeYou are in: Home › Aircraft › Technology › News Article DATE:07/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International Fly-by-wire first for business jets http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198907/Fly-by-wire+first+for+business+jets+.html Celui-ci aussi est pas triste... http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198909/Virtual+system+produces+digital+dream+.html TechnologySubscribeYou are in: Home › Aircraft › Technology › News Article DATE:07/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International Virtual system produces digital dream Until a few years ago the design and manufacture of a new aircraft involved a monumental exercise in sharing the physical design information with the various partners. Then came early computer-aided design systems, including Dassault's Catia, that enabled design data to be shared electronically, greatly simplifying the task. ETC. ETC. ETC

A titre educatif... http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/13/199184/Falcon+7X's+Belle+epoch.html Flight Daily NewsSubscribeYou are in: Home › Professional › Flight Daily News › News Article DATE:13/06/05 SOURCE:Flight Daily News Falcon 7X's Belle epoch Just 50h into its flight test programme, Dassault Aviation's flagship Falcon 7X will be put through its paces for the first time at Le Bourget today, highlighting the unprecedented confidence the French manufacturer is demonstrating in its latest long-range business jet. With more than 55 orders to date, the 7X has done better in the market than any other Dassault business jet at this stage of the programme and looks set to become one of its most successful offerings. In terms of the way it is manufactured, the 7X is also the trendsetter for future Dassault business jets, the first of which is likely to be a replacement for the smaller Falcons, dubbed the 5X and 9X. "This is a revolutionary aircraft in many ways", says Olivier Villa, Dassault senior vice-president, civil aircraft. "The Falcon 7X is the world's first fly-by-wire business jet and the first aircraft ever to be designed entirely in a virtual environment. "We're extremely pleased with the way the programme has gone. The flight test programme to date has been flawless." The 7X enters the market as the only European competitor to the two new long-range business jets from North America, the Gulfstream G450 and G500/550 and Bombardier Global 500 and Global Express. Announced at the 2001 Paris airshow, it is the largest, longest range Falcon to-date, seating up to 16 passengers in a new, ultra-quiet cabin - the result, says Villa, of years of groundbreaking research into bringing down cabin interior noise levels. Those fortunate enough to fly aboard the 7X will also benefit from windows with 40% more area, a new airconditioning system bringing the equivalent cabin altitude down 2,000ft (610m) to 6,000ft, and a new forward toilet. Each of the three cabin sections is also larger and for the first time there is an optional crew rest area to meet US certification requirements for flights lasting more than 12h. As the 7X flies around the Le Bourget circuit, onlookers will behold the first aircraft in the world to have been built "straight from the computer". Using the Catia three-dimensional computer-aided design system originating from sister company Dassault Systeme, Dassault has been able to avoid the traditional, time-consuming need to build an expensive full aircraft mockup. With the 7X, the design is sent directly from computer to the factory machines which cut the metal and composite materials used in the 7X. Mock-up For the first time, the company has created a new digital "product lifecycle management" process, essentially a digital mockup of the entire aircraft enabling all partners in the programme to have instant access to the design. In essence, this means that Dassault created a temporary "virtual company", something which chairman and chief executive Charles Edelstenne says points the way to all future programmes, both military and civil. "We're looking at a 'variable geometry' approach to future programmes", he says. "It's a way of bringing together the best skills available for a particular programme, as if there is a single design office". Edelstenne says the "industrial revolution" represented by the 7X "has to be accompanied by a cultural revolution to adapt to the demands of electronic collaborative processes. We're the first company to achieve that transformation." The direct result of the digital mockup approach is that Falcon 7X assembly time has been halved, from 14 months to just seven, while tooling costs are 50% lower because the huge metal jigs previously used are redundant. For the preliminary design phase, Dassault assembled 400 people from 27 companies and seven countries at its St Cloud headquarters, just outside Paris. They then returned to their own companies to continue designing their own sections, connected to the unique 7X database by a permanent high-speed data link. The 7X flies with a new fly-by-wire flight control system developed with the benefit of years of experience with the Mirage 2000 and Rafale fighters, both flying at Le Bourget. As with the combat aircraft, control is by sidestick, working through digital computers to move the aerodynamic surfaces. This means that for the first time in a business jet Dassault has been able to provide flight envelope protection, allowing pilots the freedom to fly the aircraft without worrying about exceeding the allowable manoeuvrability margins. So, for example, faced with the need to fly the Falcon out of a potentially dangerous situation, all the pilot has to do is to apply full power and pull hard back on the sidestick. The control system does the rest. Span With its three engines and a similar configuration to the Falcon 900, observers of the 7X could be forgiven for thinking there was little visual difference between the two. Look again - particularly at the wing, which is 44% bigger than that of the 900 and has 5.8m more span. It is the first all-new wing to come out of the Falcon stable since the Falcon 50 some 30 years ago, from which all subsequent Falcon wings were derived and features increased sweep, for higher aerodynamic efficiency. The wing is designed to maintain the excellent low-speed performance of former Falcons with higher cruise speed - the Falcon 7X will be certificated (in late 2006) at Mach 0.97, although over its 10,000km (5,400nm) non-stop range it will typically fly at Mach 0.80. Power for the Falcon 7X comes from triple Pratt & Whitney Canada PW307As producing 7,500lbs thrust (33kN) each. The engine is a member of the PW300 series which also, in PW308C format, powers the twin-engined Falcon 2000EX. It is the first application the Montreal-based manufacturer has won for a long-range business jet. The Falcon 7X features the same EASy cockpit as the 900EX and 2000EX, pilot feedback on those applications having been "extremely good", says Brigitte Bonneville, deputy director of sales engineering at Dassault Aviation.

lefoudeladefense a ecrit: quel genre d UAV la france mettra t elle sur son futur PA ?? >>>>> Moi je pense a un derive naval de NEURON donc a priori un UCAV. Les UAVs vont etre bases sur les autre vaisseaux comme FREEMs et Horizons.

C'est tout de meme pas la regle... En general; les etat major des pays clients ne croient vraiment dans la viabilitee d'un programme que si les armees du pays producteur en ont passe la commande.

Ben un avion, plus c'est fin, plus ca vole loin.... Surtout sans moteur.

C'est vrai mais MBDA est international Rafale est purement Francais malgres les parts de EADS dans Dassault.

Les gouts et les couleurs ca n'a ni age, ni sex et ca se discute pas.

Ca va vous etoner mais le Mirage F-1 est mon avion Francais prefere. Le dernier d'une generation technologique et oui je le trouve aussi tres beau. Des lignes pures.....

La vente a l'export peut vraiment etre utile pour l'enssemble de l'industreie Francaise, Le GIE Rafale n'est pas seulement compose de Dassault mais Thales/SAFRAN etc.

Dans la biblioteque que je visite regulierement, ils ont TOUTE les editions de Jane's all the world aircraft depuis 1919. Ca ne me coute pas un rond.

@ZedroS :Certainement Gliter est un Ange.... A part qu'il ne s'attaque pas au sujet (auquel il n'entend absolument rien d'ailleur) mais a moi personellement et ca dans deux forum different, d'une facon repetee, sur n'importe quel sujet et depuis plus d'un an maintenant. J'ai pas a etre poli avec ce genre de (censure) et je me passe de ton opinion de la meme facon, cytoyen.. Alors avant de t'en faire une (opinion), essaie de savoir ce qui se passe vraiment. OK? Merci d'avance. Question, que penserais tu de ceux qui passent leur temps a inventer des truc ou les exagerer afin de se faire mousser ou ceux qui passe le leur a se foutre de ta tronche??? Autre chose, ce genre de comportement nyhiliste est aussi tres insultant a moins que tu ne saches pas non plus de quoi il s'agit. >>>>> 2Glitter: Bhooo-hooo! I prefer to be stupid than learn from you...... LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Like this knowledge had anything to do with ME. By the way it's pathologic methink, it's ony the third time you throw this line since i first had the displeasure to read you AKA Jesse 04. Twice in the WAAF and now here; Your case is relevant to Psychologists not Military forums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BAe design expertise: Sea Harrier: Aug 1978. Firmly subsonic. From 2002. No fully designed high performance fighters (M2.0 +). Design lead for EFA from a German (MBB) arrangement blue print. i.e TFK-90. Shares in Tornado GR and Typhoon programmes, developed the F version of Tornado by design of centre-fuselage plug. Redesign of somne parts and internals of JAS-39 Gripen X (Export version) to put it to NATO standards. Shares on: (But NO design work Stealth/Aerodynamics/Structural) F-35, = redesign of L-M blue prints for industrial tooling. (Tail only). Avionic developements. Reduction of %age of studies in the F-35 programme. Known major programme problemes, technologic or design issues: Nimrod AEW.==Electronic Suite. Nimrod Mr4.-=Wing design/target weight. Tornado F-3==Centre fuselage plug cracks. Harrier II.==Rear fuselage cracks. EFA Wings.===Instability. Astute.======Design (CAD implementation. F-22.========Hardware/software caused Raptor crash. 6 researche UAVs: None of which posseses the full stealth features not even Corax: (just looking at the engine exhaust and taking note that another UAV was used for IR reduction researches) flying a year after the Petit duc serie. Still awaiting the promised (since 1994) UCAV Technology Demonstator Programme from MoD in order to develop the full technology and design skills. Number of self-designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = 0. >>>>>> Compared to: >>>>>> Dassault Design Expertise: Mirage 2000: Marsh 1978. First Digital FCS aircraft to enter service in the world. Mirage 4000 (79) Mach 2.3 Demonstrator Mirage IIING (83) Mach 2.2 Demonstrator Canard-Delta electric FCS Instable. Rafale A (86) Mach 2.0 Demonstrator: First Europeen Flight by light (Optical) FCS. Rafale D/C/B/M (91) Mach 2.0 Operational aircraft: Highest level of implementation of L.O technologies for both airframe, engines and Avionics in the EUs. Collaborative work on L.O technology with ONERA (99). Petit Duc AVE-D (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator: RCS and IR reduction build entirely with stealth materials. Petit Duc AVE-C (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator: Further stealth/Ir flight control and design researches with tail-less instable formula. Moyen Duc (2001) Stealth UAV Demonstrator: Tactical reconaissance Drone answering to the need of the French Army post SDTI. NEURON prime contractor, Programme General Designer and Architect (Lead Design), flight control system, final assembly and flight testing. 50% workshare. Known major programme problems, technologic or design issues: None. Known major technologic or design developement breakthrough: CATIA/Direct design-to-production capabilities i.e first in the world and unique as up to now. Number of designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = Mirage F-1 CR. (Soon retired) Mirage F-1 CT. (Soon retired) Mirage 2000 C. Mirage 2000 D Mirage 2000 B. Mirage 2000-5-F. Rafale M. Entering service this year: Rafale C Rafale B. >>>>>> And if you would like to throw the BAe Hawk trainer into the equation by pure despair: We will gladly compare its performances to that of the Falcon serie, the number of different designs and number sold since 1978. Dig it??? You're welcome. Facts ARE: Since 1978 (not to mention 1945). Dassault designed both high supersonic and subsonic aircraft in a FAR higher number than BAe without any major problems. Dassault designed and sold to both France and export customers a far higher number of aircrafts of all type than BAe ever did. Dassault is involed in: NEURON UCAV but also: Slow/FAST with SAGEM, Euromale and the DGA MALE programme. Now if you don't call it an obvious edge in design, technology expertise AND experience what is it by today's Aerospacial Industry standards then??? I'll rest my case your honour, all the opposition can do is talk manure as usual. Revisionists. "The DIS document also makes reference to a BAE-developed UAV design called Raven, which it says “went from concept to first flight within 10 months”. Further details on the classified design are expected to be released in mid-January." CRAIG HOYLE/LONDON http://www.flightinternational.com/...10318&SlotID=22 DATE:19/12/05 SOURCE:Flight International BAE unveils its UCAV secrets BAE Systems is to continue research into unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) systems under a new technology demonstration programme to be agreed with the UK Ministry of Defence in January. >>>>> UCAV? WHAT UCAV??? The UCAV TDP is still to be launched. >>>>> "A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System." " Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," @ Gliter perhaps you need it to be translated in Shadoko or in bleeming Javaneese? >>>>>> Now LEARN your SH!T: By Douglas Barrie 12/17/2005 09:10:10 PM BRAVE NEW WORLD Unveiling a grand defense industrial strategy, the British government is signaling that the Joint Strike Fighter will be its last manned combat aircraft and that it will launch an unmanned combat air vehicle technology demonstrator in 2006. The government's defense industrial strategy (DIS), announced last week, will determine the shape of the U.K.'s defense industry for decades to come, as well as the government's relationships with U.S. and European companies. The strategy is aimed at keeping BAE Systems as the country's national champion. The document is the first time a British government has attempted to spell out its policy in this arena, and is intended to address radically changing requirements in an evolving defense market. The document flushes out previously classified unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) research, committing the ministry to launch a full-scale technology demonstrator next year. The UCAV effort is a key element of the approach to air systems enshrined in the policy paper (see www.mod.uk). The DIS is an attempt to fill the void that has until now been British defense industrial policy, across the air, land and naval sectors. Had the drift continued, BAE Systems now admits the company would have wound down its efforts in the U.K. to focus even more on the U.S. "If we didn't have the DIS and our profitability and the terms of trade had stayed as they were . . . then there had to be a question mark about our future in the U.K.," admits BAE Chief Executive Mike Turner. While the BAE board has yet to study the full document in detail, Turner suggests BAE is "here to stay." Turner has vociferously urged the government to provide a long-term defense-industrial road map. Paul Drayson, the British minister for defense procurement, has done just that. "It's an interesting and generously comprehensive document," says Keith Hayward, head of research at the London-based Royal Aeronautical Society. "BAE comes out very well . . . the company is effectively embedded as the U.K. national champion." The UCAV work will build on formerly classified BAE programs such as Corax ("Raven") and Herti, both of which have been flown. The technology demonstrator is a crucial element in sustaining the air systems sector. Beyond the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA)--as the U.K. refers to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter--"current plans do not envisage the U.K. needing to design and build a future generation of manned, fast jet aircraft beyond these types," states the strategy document. To offset the long-term impact of this, both in terms of the manufacturing base and capability retention, the government argues: "The focus must shift to through-life support and upgrade and what is required to sustain this critical capability in the absence of large-scale manufacturing." THIS IS NOT JUST AN ISSUE for the U.K., "it applies to the rest of Europe and even to the U.S.," states the report. The government wants to ensure that the U.K. maintain "the core industrial skills required to contribute to any future international manned, fast jet program, should the requirement for one emerge." Hayward suggests, "For anybody associated with fixed-wing fast jet production, the long-term future appears bleak." BAE's Turner is, unsurprisingly, more upbeat. He points to the Typhoon and JCA programs as providing long-term production and development work. The JCA work is, of course, dependent on the U.K.'s getting the "right level of technical transfer." The JSF will have a significant impact on how the new strategy plays out in the air systems sector, one way or another. Turner and Peter Spencer, the British defense procurement czar, visited the U.S. last week, to reiterate the importance of adequate technology access on the F-35 program. Critical British ambitions for the JSF are set out in the strategy document. The U.K. "intends to establish sovereign support capabilities which would provide in-country facilities to maintain, repair and upgrade the U.K. fleet, and an integrated pilot and maintenance training center." Turner underscores that for the U.K. involvement in JSF, "2006 is a very important year. . . . Operational independence is a big issue. The U.K. government is pushing very hard. . . . If it doesn't get [the required technology access] it will be very interesting to see what decision it takes at the end of next year," when the Defense Ministry is due to commit to production of the F-35. Alongside the JCA and potentially Typhoon, UCAVs are likely to form a critical element of the U.K.'s future offensive air capability. The report also notes "targeted investment in UCAV technology demonstrator programs would help to sustain the very aerospace engineering and design capabilities that we need to provide assurance of our ability to operate and support our future fixed-wing aircraft." While the report maintains the Defense Ministry has "no funded UCAV program," the ministry is supporting classified UCAV-related research, in part through low-observable (LO) platform work. It recently recast its future offensive strike needs within the Strategic UAV Experiment program. The previously secret Corax air vehicle project culminated in a series of flight trials last year using ranges in Australia. The jet-powered LO platform is being used to explore the possible development of a "highly survivable, strategic UAV system." The U.K. is interested in LO platforms not only for strike operations, but also for potential strategic reconnaissance applications. A stealthy endurance UAV is one possible candidate to fulfill elements of the Defense Ministry's "Dabinett" intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance program, which is now at the concept phase. Corax flight tests included fully autonomous operation from takeoff to landing. AUTONOMY WAS ALSO THE FOCUS of the Herti UAV system. On Aug. 18, the Herti-1A air vehicle had the distinction of carrying out the first fully autonomous mission of a UAV in U.K. airspace. The mission was flown from Machrihanish in southwest Scotland. A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System. While the policy document augurs a healthy future for the UCAV/UAV community, there's a more anxious outlook for the guided-weapons sector. The report states: "There is, apart from the Meteor program, little significant planned design and development work beyond the next two years. This will present a substantial challenge as we seek to maintain those industrial capabilities we would wish to retain on-shore." In working to sustain the U.K. capability, of which MBDA has more than half of the funding, the DIS notes that "for the short to medium term, we will consider suspending the use of international competition." The strategy also calls for further restructuring of both the domestic and European guided-weapons sectors. In the rotary-wing environment, the report notes that the ministry is continuing to negotiate a strategic partnering arrangement with AgustaWestland that it hopes to sign during the second quarter of 2006. http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12195p1.xml >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Au sujet du numéro spécial A&C je trouve qu'ils abusent un peut trop. Certains articles sont plus ou moins repompé sur des anciens numéro et en plus sur cet exemplaire y'a moins d'articles que d'habitude. Bref faudrait qu'ils pensent a redynamiser tout ça ..." C'est la meme chose chez Jane's All the World's Aircrafts... Sauf que ca coute £350 l'edition...