BAe et leurs U(C)AVs

[RM-Nod]

Hi Fonk, thought I'd post here since you’re talking about WAFF and you didn't reply to me on there. I don't understand your argument that Dassault is clearly ahead of BAE because BAE “had to” produce six UAVs (there’s a slight problem with that figure IMHO btw) while Dassault only had to produce two. Surely if this argument could stand then you would also have to concede that there is evidence to suggest that Alenia Aeronautica or EADS is clearly ahead of Dassault since they only had to produce one vehicle while Dassault had to produce two or at an extreme Korean Aerospace is way ahead of them all because they haven’t had to produce anything but is still pursuing UCAVs. It just doesn’t work. On the issue of this six figure I think something must be cleared up; BAE has produced four different types of jet powered UAV plus two versions of a piston powered UAV. These break down into – • 1 x Kestrel gas turbine UAV • 2 x Raven gas turbine UAV • 1 x Corax gas turbine UAV • ? x HERTI-D gas turbine UAV • 2 x HERTI-1A piston UAV (w/ BMW engine) • 1-8 x HERTI-1A piston UAV (w/ Rotax engine) Kestrel and Raven are both related to UCAV technology with Raven being directly representative of a BAE UCAV concept, to please Fonk I will also say that all of these are NOT UCAVs but UAVs, they’re not combat capable aircraft. Corax is representative of a low observable, strategic HALE ISTAR URAV. All versions of HERTI are representative of, and the latter HERTI-1A is a prototype of, a strategic MALE ISTAR URAV. If we’re talking strictly of UCAV related systems then Kestrel and Raven are the only ones applicable while if we’re talking about UCAV related technologies (such as signature management techniques, technologies etc) then Corax could also be included. The HERTI air vehicles have little to do with UCAV technology though it could be argued that the ICE sensor package that they were tested with does as it allows the automatic recognition of targets and areas of interest, but that’s probably stretching it a bit for the purposes of this discussion. In terms of experience in the area of UCAV technology I think it’s a good idea to outline exactly what relevant experience each party has. BAE began work that was directly related to UCAVs in 1997 when the government formally began looking at the technology as a replacement for the Tornado (FOAS). Dassault began work in 1999 with Logiduc. The level of investment put into the area by the UK government amounts to around €60m between 1997 and 2005 (one third total investment in FOAS which considered three main areas, manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft and air launched cruise missiles). However this figure does not include investment made by industry. The level of investment made by the French government or Dassault is unknown, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more than the above €60m +. Both companies have produced demonstration hardware however; BAE Systems is known to have developed the ground based Nightjar I and Nightjar II which were designed to develop and demonstrate airframe features of future combat aircraft; this includes RCS testing, the programmes ran from 2000 to 2006. In 2001 BAE began its own UAV technology demonstration programme which resulted in the Kestrel and Raven vehicles (in addition to Corax, HERTI is a separate programme). Kestrel demonstrated advanced aerodynamics and materials; Raven was by far the most advanced and demonstrated signature management technologies, high degrees of manoeuvrability, the control of an advanced and highly unstable tailless design and complete mission autonomy. Dassault is known to have produced the AVE-D aircraft which was designed to demonstrate RCS reduction, and the AVE-C which was designed to demonstrate unstable yaw control. Long term Dassault has the better plan with a clear mandate to develop there current capability and produce Neuron, this is where Dassault currently has the edge over BAE however actual work on the UCAV has only just started last month while the UK MoD has committed itself to jointly funding a similar UCAV demonstrator with BAE Systems with an agreement to be signed and work to start sometime early this year (if it hasn’t already) meaning a real time Dassault lead of just a couple of months at most but of course some would say BAE already has a lead over Dassault in pure relevant technological terms so the advantage to Dassault would seem minimal, if not non-existent. While the above deals with just the technology that relates directly to unmanned combat systems there are of course cross over technologies. In this area BAE Systems also has quite a portfolio, previous to FOAS the MoD had instigated the FOA project aimed at developing a fifth generation strike aircraft to replace the Tornado. The major achievement of this work was Replica/Testbed which was a full scale mock up of a strike aircraft. The demonstrator was started in 1994 and was designed to develop and demonstrate a low observable aircraft with features of a real aircraft (provision for sensors, engines, cockpit, radar etc), advanced materials and advanced manufacturing. The project came to a successful conclusion in 1999 and achieved all goals in regard to RCS reduction, the design was also tested extensively in a synthetic environment. An unmanned version of the design was also studied. In addition to this the MoD or BAE also instigated the Chameleon project which resulted in the flight demonstration of advanced IR and visual signature reduction techniques/technologies in a surrogate Hawk aircraft; RCS and acoustic management systems may also have been tested. Though not publicly confirmed a similar test campaign may also have been conducted using a Tornado GR4. Corax is also another example of BAE demonstrating related technology. Other than work on the AVE-C and D there is no evidence of Dassault conducting a similar development and demonstration campaign. Of course both companies have worked on LO technologies for the Typhoon and Rafale projects. In addition BAE Systems Samlesbury is also manufacturing the aft fuselage and empennage of the F35 which includes LO materials. BAE also has recent experience in other pertinent technologies like internal carriage and release systems on the MRA4. Also of note is the BAE Systems FLAVIIR project aimed at developing novel aircraft control systems eliminating the need for conventional, moving aerodynamic control surfaces. Hardware has already been flight tested on three demonstrators, the latest being design and built wholly by the FLAVIIR team with the other two being based on COTS model aircraft. The advantage of the system being worked on is increased stealth, simplicity, ease of maintenance and as a result lower operational costs. I see that some are making the argument that BAE is just a rubbish company in general but of course one has to ask why it has such a large order book and you’d also have to show how problems faced by the MRA4 and Astute could directly lead to the conclusion that the BAE Systems Military Autonomous Systems (Air) unit is incompetent when the areas of BAE that are responsible for each programme are separate bodies. I also know that Dassault has said it has mastered stealth but there a few things that I think should be said about this; first of all what reason is there to believe that this statement means BAE has not done the same? Second why should this statement, that only really appears in Dassault public relations documents, be taken seriously? The major US primes like Lockheed Martin who have been developing actual real LO systems for much longer than Dassault do not claim that they have “mastered stealth” and continue to produce new demonstrators designed to develop there capability in this area. As an example Boeing revealed just four years ago that they had produced the Bird of Prey for this very reason. This area of technology, along with any other I can think of, is constantly evolving along with the threat so no one can have just simply “mastered” stealth especially not with a single 2m wingspan demonstrator that only managed to reduce its RCS by around 90% which sounds great but when you consider the RCS of aircraft like the F22 is publicly compared to a golf ball I believe. Personally I think this claim is nothing more than company propaganda, there’s no evidence of it having any real meaning. Over all I can’t see any reason to believe that Dassault is ahead of BAE Systems in UCAV technology. By the way sorry for the long English post, my French is literally non-existent so if I’ve missed some points brought up in French or if you reply to me in French please don’t be offended if I don’t reply, I just don’t have a clue what’s being said and Babel Fish ain’t much help! Cheers Mike

[Invité ZedroS]

Hey, look, Fonck has taken his friends with him from WAFF to here ! Great ;) Hé, regardez, Fonck a ramené ses amis ici ! Excellent ! :) No, really, it was some quite interesting intervention. I'm really not convinced that Dassault can rightly claim to have mastered stealth. Non, vraiment, l'intervention était intéressante. Je ne suis vraiment pas convaincu que Dassault puisse prétendre à juste titre avoir maitriser la furtivité.

[glitter]

And WHAT???Does this sort of things make you feel like Rob is a crediteable source and reasons to claim what he is claiming??

You and me think that Dassault is more skilled than Bae for designing a state of the art fighter, am I wrong ?

Does that make us incompettent on the matter ?

Taking things that personally sure doesn't make you smarter.

Is it a joke ? Isn't you who can't stop crying about the naughty anglo-saxons ?

Needs breast feeding at your age??? Or R U simply too lazy to do your home work and simply keep been an ennoying troll???

Translation: I don't have any sources but something taken from my *ss so I'm trying to fool reader about your previous post.

Tactique habituelle du troll. On balance n'importe quoi et mis devant le fait accomplis, on l'accuse de tout un tas de choses n'ayant rien à voir avec le sujet.

So, any source about how well Dassault has mastered stealth ?

I read some articles about the possible "black program" of Dassault, using MHD or things like that, but I'm like St Thomas :twisted:

You're the pathetic one here. There are industriasl realities which you conveniently ignore.

From the guy who is saying complete nonsense about CATIA, ca m'en touche une sans faire bouger l'autre.

Does ONERA and Dassault work since 1999 ring a bell to the brainless flame you are??? Does the idea that BAe chairman is actually ASKING MoD for the dosh to develop design skills further eludes you?

So, where's the result of the studies about autonomous ucav ?

Dassault did mate. As all the industry knows not little "frappes" of your kind bubling about whatever they don't know about.

DAssault aviation has build CATIA.

The version of CATIA you're talking about are made from DASSAULT SYSTEM.

You're a pathetic liar Fonky

Now i'm TIRED of completing your low level education. You're a WASTE of forum space and a pure flammer, a troll, take a hike i don't do breastfeeding.

I've got an idea for you.

Stop polluting that forum.

BTW we're all waiting your brillant demonstration that you promised to Ogami ?

ME friter en anglais avec un francais sur un forum francais. Vive le net mes amis :rolleyes:

[vendest]

DAssault aviation has build CATIA.

The version of CATIA you're talking about are made from DASSAULT SYSTEM.

You're a pathetic liar Fonky

En fait, c est plutot toi qui est ridicule sur ce point. En effet Dassault system et Dassault aviation entretiennent des liens privilégiés. Apres si tu ne vois pas le rapport entre les deux, je te donne un indice : Regarde le premier mot du nom de chacune des deux compagnies.

Faire la distinction entre Dassault system et Dassault aviation a propos de Catia est ridicule. En effet ce n'est pas Dassault aviation qui le fait, mais bon devine de qui viennent les données qui sont exploitées dedans ?

[glitter]

Traduction du post de RM-nod pour les non anglophones

Je ne comprend pas ce qui te permet de jusger que Daasault est nettement devant Bae en matière d'ucav pour la raison que six engins ont été nécessaire contre deux pour DAssault (il y a d'ailleurs un petit soucis avec ce chiffre). Déja' date=' si cet argument était fondé, tu devrais avouer la large avant d'Alenia ou AEDS en la matière puisqu'ils n'en ont fait qu'un seul ou encore en Corée où Korean Aerospace après des études sur le sujet n'en n'ont produit aucun.

Comme tu vois, ca ne marche pas.

Sur le problème du "six", certaines choses doivent être rappelé; Bae a produit 4 différent types d'UAV plus une version à hélice.

Ils se décomposent en:

• 1 x Kestrel gas turbine UAV

• 2 x Raven gas turbine UAV

• 1 x Corax gas turbine UAV

• ? x HERTI-D gas turbine UAV

• 2 x HERTI-1A piston UAV (w/ BMW engine)

• 1-8 x HERTI-1A piston UAV (w/ Rotax engine)

Kestrel et Raven on attrait avec la technology UCAV mais tous ne sont pas des UCAV mais des UAV (UCAV = Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles = drone de COMBAT)

Corax est représentatif d'un ISTAR (intelligence surveillance target acquisition and reconnaissance), URAV (drone de RECONNAISSANCE), HALE à faible surface radar.

LEs diférentes versions de Herti en sont des exemples et la dernière versions HERTI-1A est un ISTAR URAV MALE

Plus d'infos

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/022006p2.xml

Si nous parlons uniquement d'UCAV alors il s'agit de KEsterl et RAven mais si nous élargissons aux techniques utilisables (tel que la gestion de la signature thermique alors le Corax peut être ajouté à la liste.

LEs HERTI n'ont que peu à avoir avec ca bien que le détecteurs ICE (Image collection and exploitation http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=1547193) dont il a été équipé pourrais permet la reconnaissance automatique de cible mais ca serait un peu s'écarter du but premier pour la discussion.

En terme d'expérience dans le domaine des technologies applicable à un UCAV, il serait pas idiot de faire le point où en sont les différentes parties.

Bae a commencé à travailler dessus en 1997 a adresser une demande officielle de recherche technologique pour un possible remplacant du Tornado (FOAS).

De même pour DAssault en 1999 avec le logiduc.

Le Royaume Uni a investi 60 millions de livres entre 97 et 2005 dans ce domaine (un tiers pour le FOAS qui comprennait trois champs d'investigations, avion piloté, avion non piloté, missiles de croisière lancé par vecteur aérien). MAis ce chiffre ne prend pas en compte les efforts des industriels eux mêmes.

LE niveau d'investissement de l'état francais ou Dassault est inconnus mais rien ne permet de supposer qu'il dépasse le budget angalis.

LEs deux comapgnies ont construit des engins de démonstration, cependant BAE est connus pour avoir dévellopper les Nightjar 1 et 2.

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/567-2078.asp

pour tester différentes solutions de design de la structure du futur avion de combat, cela comprend test de la surface radar, le projet a duré de 2000 à 2006. En 2001 Bae début son propre programme de démonstrateur technologique d'UAV dont le KEstrel et RAven en résultent en plus du Corax, l'Herti étant autre chose.

Le Kestrel testait des solutions aérodynamiques et de matériaux avancés; le Raven était encor eplus avancé avec des techniques de réduction de la signature, haut degré de maneuvvrabilité, le controle d'un appareil sans queue et hautement instable ainsi qu'une totale autnomie de mission.

Dassault a produit l'AVE-D, étudiant la furtivité et le AVE-C pour l'étude du controle de l'appareil.

DAns le long term, Dassault a un plan mandaté clairement définis pour dévelloper encore ces capacités pour aboutir au NEURON, c'est là où Dassault a clairement l'avantage sur Bae même si l'avance est mince puisque le ministère anglais a lancé un ACAV similaire avec Bae dont les travaux devrait débuter dans les mois à venir (si ce n'est pas encore le cas à l'heure actuelle). L'avance ne serait que de quelques mois mais on pourrait argumenter que Bae dispose déja d'une base plus large de technologie exploitable donc toute avance serait mince pour ne pas dire inexistante.

Jusque là, nous parlions de technique purement pour chasseur non piloté mais il y a aussi les technologies transversales.

Et dans ce domaien égaement Bae n'a pas à rougir, grace aux travaux sur le FOAS, puisqu'il dispose d'un porte feuilles de technologies applicable à un avion d'attaque de 5ème génération pour remplcare le tornado. L'applciation finale de ce travail a été le Replica, maquette à taille réelle d'un avion d'attaque.

Le démonstrateur a débuté en 1994 et concu pour dévelloper and vérifier des caractéristiques de faible signatures radar tout en ayant les réelles composantes d'un avion de guerre (radar, moteur, détecteurs ..) mais aussi pour tester et travailler la méthode d'obtention des matériaux adéquats. Le projet arriva à son aboutissement en 1999 en ayant atteint tout ses buts en matière de réduction de signature radar. Une version sans pilote a également aussi été étudiée.

En plus de cela, le projet Caméléon a donné comme résultat un substitut d'HAwk utilisant de nombreuses techniques de diminution de signature thermiques et visuel, peut être même de signature radar et acoustique..

Bien que non rendus publique, une étude équivalent a peut être été menée sur un Tornado GR4. Corax est aussi un autre exemple de ces technologies.

Pour DAssault, mis à part les Ducs, aucune évidence permet d'avancer un quelconque travail de dévellopement de cette échelle.

Bien entendu, les deux firms ont travaillé sur les technologies d'atténuation de RCS pour la RAfale et le Typhoon. En plus de cela, Bae Samlesburry fabrique l'empennage et une partie du fuselage qui content des matérieux qui joue dans cette faible visibilité. Bae a également une éxpérience récente de technologies d'emport interne de charge et aussi de leur libération avec le MRA4.

Egalement au tableau de Bae le FLAVIIR, projet visant à dévelloper un systeme de controle de vol éliminant le besions des surfaces mobiles habituelles. Trois démonstrateurs ont été construit, le dernier par la team FLAVIER, les deux autres basé sur un modèle d'avion sur étagère (COTS).

L'avantage du système dévellopé est d'améliorer la fultivité, simplicité, facilité de aintenance avec comme conéquence de réduite les couts opérationnels.

Pour le reste, dodo, mais présente moins les forces de Bae :)

[/b']

[glitter]

En fait, c est plutot toi qui est ridicule sur ce point. En effet Dassault system et Dassault aviation entretiennent des liens privilégiés. Apres si tu ne vois pas le rapport entre les deux, je te donne un indice : Regarde le premier mot du nom de chacune des deux compagnies.

Faire la distinction entre Dassault system et Dassault aviation a propos de Catia est ridicule. En effet ce n'est pas Dassault aviation qui le fait, mais bon devine de qui viennent les données qui sont exploitées dedans ?

Lien privilégiés, je n'ai pas dis le contraire.

Mais différent patrons, différents métiers, différents buts, ce sont deux firmes séparés.

Juste que dire que DASSAULT SYSTEM a fait un super produit indique que DASSAULT AVIATION n'a pas besoin de faire de prototype est complètement idiot.

[glitter]

Prouve le !

On en a suffisament parlé de ca un peu partout non ?

Toi, prouve déja la moitié de ce que tu as avancé ici, et on en reparle.

C'est quoi le stealth du JSF? les formes ou les composites que tout le monde utilise deja?

Tu t'excites pour rien mon petit.

http://www.dassault.fr/

mon neuveu a 9 ans il sait que Dassault aviation et Systemes sont deux filliales du meme groupe!

Ben ton neveu a encore des choses à apprendre en matière d'économie, il apprendras ca au collège.

Dassault aviation et DAssault systemes sont deux sociétés chapeautés par le Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault S.A.

[Wildcat]

Never ever argue with an idiot, they drag you down to thier level and beats you with experience!

Vous l'avez déjà écrit plusieurs fois, vous qui vous disputez depuis déjà pas mal de temps au travers de tout un tas de topics. Si vous le pensez vraiment, pourquoi ne le faîtes-vous pas? :(

Je viens sur ce forum pour discuter tranquillement entre passionnés, pas pour y perdre du temps à lire des pages et des pages d'insultes, sur les mêmes thèmes toujours répétés. A vous invectiver sans cesse, je crois que vous ne saisissez pas bien à quel point cela peut être pénible parfois pour les autres membres du forum. :(

Sans rire, vos disputes sans trêve sont en train de rendre la partie Air-Europe du forum dénuée du moindre intérêt, et c'est vraiment dommage, quand on voit la qualité habituelle des interventions qu'on peut y trouver.

S'il-vous-plaît, réglez ça par messages privés, ou bien encore donnez-vous rendez-vous quelque part, et mettez vous sur la tronche un bon coup si ça peut vous faire du bien, mais libérez le forum. S'il-vous-plaît.

[Wildcat]

bein t'en mele pas, si mr Glitter veut mettre son analise tres maladroite des choses sur la place publique, c'est le role d'un forum!

Ca, bien entendu. Mais quand ce sont les mêmes choses ressassées pour la vingtième fois (en ne comptant que ce forum), et que les posts comptent bien plus d'insultes et de défis que de faits, ayez la gentillesse de comprendre que la lecture du forum n'est pas très agréable pour les autres.

Je comprends que vous ayez besoin de vider votre querelle, mais il vous faut comprendre que le forum n'est pas votre chat privé, et que bien d'autres personnes y viennent.

Je vous assure que vos empoignades deviennent lassantes, et épuisent vraiment l'intérêt de ce forum. :(

[Francois5 v2.1]

Catia ®, est un soft developpe a l'epoque d'AMD-BA, par des programmeurs qui travaillaient avec les inge et dessinateurs, en repondant directement a leurs besoins. Aucun soft CAD/CAM n'etait capable de repondre aux exigences des BE. Ensuite, l'equipe de developpeurs a commence a commercialiser son produit. Il ont donc demenage et ouvert le soft a d'autres domaines. A la mort de Marcel, le groupe Dassault a ete decompose et distribue aux heritiers (moins la part pour l'Etat). De memoire, DA est a Serge, DElec est a Frederic.

[Invité ZedroS]

Salut En tout cas, glitter, lui, ne sent pas obligé d'insulter à tout bout de champ pour signifier son opinion. Il ne rabaisse pas ses interlocuteurs et explique patiemment. Dans un débat, le premier qui s'énerve a perdu... du moins aux yeux du public, mais c'est tout ce qui compte ici non ? Bref, pas pitié, arrêtez de faire ces commentaires sur les qualités intellectuelles/physiques supposées de vos interlocuteurs. Ca vous dessert autant que ça irrite. Je me suis souvent étonné d'ailleurs que les modérateurs n'aient pas plus réagi. Vous défendez sans doute un sujet qu'ils affectionnent, mais n'en abusez pas svp...

[Fonck]

@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Fonck]

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.

[Fonck]

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

[glitter]

A part qu'il ne s'attaque pas au sujet (auquel il n'entend absolument rien d'ailleur)

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, avec des pilotes, des vrais 8)

Mais jusqu'a présent, jen'ai eu que peu de déclaration en rapport direct avec le sujet.

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.

Pas personellement, là où je vois des erreurs.

J'ai pas a etre poli avec ce genre de (censure) et je me passe de ton opinion de la meme facon, cytoyen..

Nous l'avions tous compris.

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???

Suis je maso, mais j'ai apprécier (à petite dos) les forums peuplés de conservateurs américains très anti-francais.

Ca dévellope le sens critique, crois moi mais aussi, et je te critique dessus, le sens de l'AUTO-critique.

Il serais idiot de dire que le charles de Gaulle est sous la forme optimum que la marine aurais pus obtenir.

Oui, il y a eu des tractations politico-industriels où le bateau a perdus des plumes.

Oui, des sociétés francaises ont tenté d'arnaquer l'armée francaise.

Et je le dis.

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.

Nihiliste tu veux dire ?

En quoi est ce nihiliste que reconnaitre à Bae une maitrise en matière d'UCAV ?

2Glitter: Bhooo-hooo! I prefer to be stupid than learn from you...... LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

Je t'ai demandé maintes et maintes fois de PROUVER ce que tu avances.

Certes, je ne suis pas aussi calé qu'un Ogami, mais force est de constater que tu ne te contente que de technique de TROLL comme ton post précédent vient de le prouver une fois de plus.

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.

And I would like, if I may, to point some to you.

Shares in Tornado GR and Typhoon programmes, developed the F version of Tornado by design of centre-fuselage plug.

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.

The industrial participation on the Typhoon has been made more with nationalistic view in mind and the whole program suffered from that.

The split wing design- FBW design is a prove (but also a difficulty in an international program).

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.

Nimrod AEW.==Electronic Suite.

Just like the fist Rafale F2 or the Mistral ?

None of which posseses the full stealth features not even Corax:

You're not a specialist of stealth

Known major programme problems, technologic or design issues:

None.

A crash for the little Duc ?

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.

Perhaps the name of these planes are fooling you Fonky ;)

Mon petit Funku, l'aigle (Bae) et le faucon (Dassault) n'ont rien à voir ;)

"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 ;)

Now LEARN your SH!T:

Encore une insulte ?

[Fonck]

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.

[Fonck]

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.

[RM-Nod]

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.

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.

***Note that the AVE-D and C were powered by two AMT engines hence the two exhausts***

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.

Still awaiting the promised (since 1994) UCAV Technology Demonstator Programme from MoD in order to develop the full technology and design skills.

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.

A similar situation faced Dassault in 1997; at this time the company was trying to persuade the French government to fund a manned technology demonstrator programme intended to develop the company’s capability to supply a new strike aircraft (just as BAE was doing). It wanted to do this in partnership with BAE Systems; the TDP did not happen. This can be confirmed by the article “Dassault Needs BAE in on Stealthy Aircraft Project” by Nick Cook in Jane’s Defence Weekly in 1997. The following is a direct quote;

Dassault Aviation and its French industry equipment partners have presented the French government with a plan for a technology demonstrator programme (TDP) designed to pave the way for a new strike aircraft for the 21st century. The company hopes to sign British Aerospace (BAe) on the programme, even though difficulties are obstructing a bilateral deal, Jane's Defence Weekly has learned. The plan, before a French government that is wrestling with severe defence budget cuts, comprises a series of technology packages, including a manned flying demonstrator aircraft. A decision on the scheme, which will be part-financed by industry, is expected to be made next year.

Both companies requested manned technology demonstration programmes which they did not get and both went on to develop the skills in house. The difference is however that BAE at least got a ground based demonstrator while Dassautl got nothing, at least according to public information.

You’re also bringing up the fact that BAE hasn’t, independently, produced a supersonic combat aircraft. I ask why that’s relevant. For a start every UCAV design concept ever produced has looked at subsonic aircraft. 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. They require very different aerodynamic designs, very different flight control laws, different weapons/aircraft interaction, different FCS’, different materials, different manufacturing techniques etc etc. Now I have no doubt that past design experience on any aircraft will bode well but to say that Dassault is clearly better because it’s built supersonic aircraft or a business jet does not make much sense as the technology involved in those is not all that relevant to UCAVs. It’s akin to saying Embraer can build a fighter because it can build passenger aircraft and trainers, they’re just not the same thing.

"Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area,"

This quote keeps coming up but the meaning is being distorted; the term “to develop” in this context clearly means that a substantial TDP would increase the UK’s knowledge and skills base in the area. It does not mean that it will create them from scratch.

I know that you won’t believe this so I’ve got a second quote from the same publication (Aviation Week) that says the exact same thing about Dassault and Neuron, ie it’s meant to develop there capability;

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.

http://www.aviationnow.com/shownews/05paris/aircraft17.htm

By your definition this would mean that Europe (and by extension Dassault) has no capability in this area. That is not the case; your interpretation of that quote is incorrect.

[Fonck]

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.

[Fonck]

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?

[Fonck]

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....

[RM-Nod]

NOW NOD show us the EXHAUST pipe as it is apearent on Raven????

You can't it IS shielded that's as they say IR reduction.. Thansk for the picture.

There’s a huge picture of Raven and AVE-D in my last post which shows that neither use any IR shielding.

Hoew do YOU know this? CAn you see the pipe itsef NOW so clearly you are talknig about what you don't KNOW as usual.

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.

As anyone can see you are incorrect to say that either use any great IR signature reduction measures.

LIAR Nod you know damned WELL that Replica had little to do with stealth in terms of shape.

Yes it did Fonk;

From the Jane’s Defence Industry article “UK stealth fighter project revealed” dated 2003;

ERA Technology Ltd, a UK company based in Leatherhead, southern England, has revealed that for several years it worked on a previously secret £20 million (US$32.5m) 'Testbed' - a UK stealth fighter project.

…

The project resulted in the production of a full-sized aircraft designed with a low radar signature

…

A major aim was to prove various Low Observable (LO) technologies in a low-cost design and production environment.

From the Jane’s article “BAE SYSTEMS AIR SYSTEMS - One-stop shopping” by Nick Cook dated 2004;

BAE and the MoD released details of a project called 'Replica', which resulted during the 1990s in the construction behind closed doors of a full-scale engineering mock-up of a manned, stealthy combat aircraft.

From the April 2003 BAE Systems press release on the subject;

Replica resulted in the production of a full scale model of a radar signature controlled aircraft configuration, with key features representative of a flying integrated weapon system, which was then taken through a rigorous test programme. 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.

Here is a picture of the aircraft mock-up (Inverted);

It’s obvious that Replica/Testbed did exactly what I said; it was not just limited to materials and manufacturing.

Relevant for: Technologic advanced and m,aintaining design SKILLS. You are simply taking ewveruyone else for STUPID here.

But how does designing a business jet or a fourth generation aircraft translate into a greater ability to design and build and LO, autonomous, tailless strike aircraft. UCAVs are a leap in terms of technology. Though that’s not to say that having a team that’s competent in terms of last/current generation technology won’t help but it’s not evidence that Dassault is ahead of anyone in regards to UCAV technology.

This company woh have fare less experience on the subject have now the same design capabilities? I sugest you try that one with o total idiot as MoD and BAE says thamself t0 maintain even their actual capaboilities. So obviousl;y the more the higherthe level of skill as demonstrated by the results..

Sorry but that makes no sense.

"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 desoign and technology skills is Dassault NOT BAe.

Of it makes my case, you said that having supersonic aircraft in there portfolio is an advantage but it’s a fact that all current UCAV designs are subsonic so what has your statement got to do with anything?

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.

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.

In terms of experience in the relevant technologies, BAE Systems is ahead of Dassault, that is a clear fact.

Also I don’t see what your onera link is meant to prove, there’s less than 100 words on stealth technology.

And that is forgeting that BAE weren't on their own for stealth researches

[Fonck]

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?

[Fonck]

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...

[RM-Nod]

Please show me the methods used by the AVE aircraft to reduce its IR signature. If you can’t then you haven’t a leg to stand on.

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 second Petit Duc (AVE-C) flew in 2003, which was the same year as Raven flew; it was not a year before.

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.

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, 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.

Edit -

"because of the need to master the stealth issue".

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.