BAe et leurs U(C)AVs

[Fonck]

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

[RM-Nod]

The photos available of the Raven and AVE-C/D do not show to what degree both vehicles’ engines are recessed into the body of the aircraft. This, however, does make any difference to the fact that the hot gasses are being ejected without being cooled (at least not according to public information). On both aircraft the exhaust area is clearly visible from both above and below the aircraft, there is no evidence that the exhaust gases are mixed with ambient air, there is no evidence that they are dispersed after being ejected. It doesn’t matter whether you can see a pipe sticking out the back or not.

The picture I posted included my own observations but it was not a con, it is an actual picture of the exhaust area of the AVE-D.

There are a few mistakes in your post, the major being your suggestion that the Moyen Duc flew in 2001; the project’s development was started in 2001 but it never flew.

The tactical Moyen Duc (literally translated as medium horned owl, with the Grand Duc or eagle owl being the anticipated name of a bigger aircraft in 2008) will fly in the middle of this year. The second proof-of-concept aircraft in Dassault’s UCAV strategy, it is being designed for battlefield surveillance and reconnaissance roles. It was launched in July 2001.

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_04/d1_miragep14.html

Another related link from FI -

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2001/02/20/126308/Dassault+builds +unmanned+vehicle+strategy+on+Petit+Duc+combat+craft.html

On the issue of when these aircraft flew, here’s a list with links to reputable sources;

AVE-D – 18 July 2000

Kestrel – 2002

AVE-C – June 2003

Raven – 17 December 2003

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/defense/gb/uav/logiduc.cfm

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

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2003/06/24/Navigation/190/167785/France+ budgets+%24350m+for+UCAV+demonstrator.html

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

I don’t think I’m going to dissuade you from your view that BAE doesn’t have any design skills at all as you are capable of listing the aircraft produced by both Dassault and BAE however I will point out that if this was the case then how did they produce HERTI-D, HERTI-1A, Corax, Raven and Kestrel?

I will also repeat the fact that unmanned combat air vehicles are very different from previous generation aircraft and business jets. Designing an aircraft like the Mirage does not mean you are capable of designing a UCAV with which it has very little in common.

Whether or not BAE has designed, wholly or partly, a supersonic aircraft makes no difference especially as all UCAV concepts are subsonic.

BAE does have more experience in regard to RCS reduction (Replica, Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Raven), IR signature reduction (Chameleon), visual signature (Chameleon), advanced novel configurations (Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Kestrel, Raven, Corax) and autonomy (Raven, Corax, HERTI-D, HERTI-1A). BAE has experience in the last few years of every area of UCAV design, Dassault does not; there is also no source that states the AVE-C included signature reduction measures btw.

As for those quotes, I’m not going over them again please look back at my previous posts.

[Fonck]

RM-Nod you're sop full of it you can't even make sense of WHAT you're saying. PLUS you are a LIAR by trying to imply that more than one of these is actually anywhere close to be stealth.

BAe design the old fashion way compared to Dassault s it is just to be anticipated they NEED three time more vehicle for a lower result.

They can't even use CAD design properly as shows the long list of programmes they screwed up..

"The photos available of the Raven and AVE-C/D do not show to what degree both vehicles’ engines are recessed into the body of the aircraft."

Nod you're bubling. AGAIN Raven is NOT designed for IR eeduction AND its exhaust pipe is well visible coming OUT of the fuselage. Not the case for Duc. .

Duc are designed for BOTH EM and IR as the French Senat doc says.. Period all yo can try to invent about it won't change FACTS.

AND The observation from a guy who doesn't know the difference between his mum iron and a delta wing is little compare to the board of specialist who wrote the document where is says different than you.

Question: Since the Petit Duc wing trailing edge is at the right angle for reducing radar return, why on hearth should it be serrated like that of Rafale? This goes WAY on to show that you don't KNOW the subject you try to tackle here. Too funny you're just a bad copycat.

"There are a few mistakes in your post, the major being your suggestion that the Moyen Duc flew in 2001; the project’s development was started in 2001 but it never flew. "

Escuse ME can YOU actually prove this? No. What this says is different from "The programme was started", the date they give about the Petit Duc are for first flight, there is no evidence it is different for Moyen Duc.

As for your sources they are no more informed than what the French authorities wanted them to be.

On the issue of when these aircraft flew, here’s a list with links to reputable sources;

AVE-D – 18 July 2000

Kestrel – 2002 IS NOT a stealth vehicle.

AVE-C – June 2003

Raven – 17 December 2003 IS NOT a full stealth demonstrator either.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/defense/gb/uav/logiduc.cfm

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

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2003/06/24/Navigation/190/167785/France+budgets+%24350m+for+UCAV+demonstrator.html

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

"I don’t think I’m going to dissuade you from your view that BAE doesn’t have any design skills at all as you are capable of listing the aircraft produced by both Dassault and BAE however I will point out that if this was the case then how did they produce HERTI-D, HERTI-1A, Corax, Raven and Kestrel? "

HERTI-D, HERTI-1A, Corax Are NOT stealth demonstrators. Period, only Raven is close to be and don't even posses both IR and EM reduciton measures as does the Ducs, your reason for trying to make up a story about them.

I don't think you'll ever consider coming back to hearth and associate experience with doing what it take to acquier it.

Dassault design skills are top of the world. BAe are just trying to keep up and forgeting about the whole collection of expensive FCUCK-UP design and technology related you don't want to aknowledge for obvious reasons.

"I will also repeat the fact that unmanned combat air vehicles are very different from previous generation aircraft and business jets. Designing an aircraft like the Mirage does not mean you are capable of designing a UCAV with which it has very little in common. "

The process of designing is NOT different and AGAIN in terms of design Dassault are world Number ONE with CATIA and their virtual tool.

The only company in the world capable to do without the prototyping stage and going straight from digital to prodiuction and doesn't nedd to design six vehicles among which one for IR and the second for EM to achieve the same goal....

For the rest your usual twist of reality. BAe didn't design SIX stealth UAVs only one with EM and the opther with IR redi=uctuion. Corax straight wings are not doing EM reduction measures any good. to finish i';d like to point out to you that there are some educated people in this forum it;s NOT the WAAF where everyone can believe your bullshits. Go back to WAAF you're ona looser here.

"Whether or not BAE has designed, wholly or partly, a supersonic aircraft makes no difference especially as all UCAV concepts are subsonic."

Sure, you'll win London Marathon by runing your usual saturday pub race. Stop taking others for as ignorant asnd stupid sa you are.

"BAE does have more experience in regard to RCS reduction (Replica, Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Raven), IR signature reduction (Chameleon), visual signature (Chameleon), advanced novel configurations (Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Kestrel, Raven, Corax) and autonomy (Raven, Corax, HERTI-D, HERTI-1A). BAE has experience in the last few years of every area of UCAV design, Dassault does not; there is also no source that states the AVE-C included signature reduction measures btw."

Kestrel, Replica, Nightjar I, Nightjar II,

LIAR. you are a proven LIAR.

Again Kestrel, Replica and Nightjar weren't Stealth UAVs.

"The jet-powered Raven's blended wing-body airframe, with outer wing control surfaces aligned with the trailing edge, reduces radio-frequency scattering. The lack of vertical or horizontal control surfaces also helps reduce the radar cross-section. "

Kestrel is FAR from being a stealth vehicle in the league of DUCs.

"Dassault says a second version of its Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration. The first Petit Duc demonstrator has been flying since mid-2000. The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc."

There is NO given date for thesecond Petit Duc flight as for the configuration:

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/4147/moyenduc8gk.jpg

There is NO way you could say this one isn't MOYEN DUC. Can you???

The only UAV anywhere close to this be stealth is RAVEN and even SO it IS not designed with as much L.O features as Petit Duc...

Replica design goal is NOT stealth but material and manufacturing methods. NOD you ARE a LIAR.

As for the French researches: Rafale is full of L.O features already.

All of these have been conducted in collaboration with ONERA as for experience you're wrong, you won't dare posting other pictures than that of Raven woulod you? Only one vehicle could be qualified as stealth and it doesn't have IR reduction measures at all. All you are showing is what Dassault achieved earlier in two Petit Ducs and a Moyen Duc. They don't NEED as many they can design and this a lot more than BAs.

I won't even bother reading your bullshits from now on.

>>>>>

Here is reality, not your Disneylandish interpretation of it:

Nod I have no time to make your education nor that of Rob Nor that of Gliter. Here IS industral REALITY for YOU. Subsonic OR supersonic. BAE did a LOT less design than Dassault did and spining the subject around is NOT changing reality boy.

BAe design expertise:

Sea Harrier: Aug 1978.

Firmly subsonic.

From 2002.

No fully designed high performance fighters (M2.0 +).

Design lead for EFA from a German (MBB) arrangement blue print. i.e TFK-90.

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

Redesign of somne parts and internals of JAS-39 Gripen X (Export version) to put it to NATO standards.

Shares on:

(But NO design work Stealth/Aerodynamics/Structural) F-35, = redesign of L-M blue prints for industrial tooling. (Tail only). Avionic developements.

Reduction of %age of studies in the F-35 programme.

Known major programme problemes, technologic or design issues:

Nimrod AEW.==Electronic Suite.

Nimrod Mr4.-=Wing design/target weight.

Tornado F-3==Centre fuselage plug cracks.

Harrier II.==Rear fuselage cracks.

EFA Wings.===Instability.

Astute.======Design (CAD implementation.

F-22.========Hardware/software caused Raptor crash.

6 researche UAVs:

None of which posseses the full stealth features not even Corax: (just looking at the engine exhaust and taking note that another UAV was used for IR reduction researches) flying a year after the Petit duc serie.

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

Number of self-designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces = 0.

>>>>>>

Compared to:

>>>>>>

Dassault Design Expertise:

Mirage 2000: Marsh 1978.

First Digital FCS aircraft to enter service in the world.

Mirage 4000 (79) Mach 2.3 Demonstrator

Mirage IIING (83) Mach 2.2 Demonstrator

Canard-Delta electric FCS Instable.

Rafale A (86) Mach 2.0 Demonstrator:

First Europeen Flight by light (Optical) FCS.

Rafale D/C/B/M (91) Mach 2.0 Operational aircraft:

Highest level of implementation of L.O technologies for both airframe, engines and Avionics in the EUs.

Collaborative work on L.O technology with ONERA (99).

Petit Duc AVE-D (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator:

RCS and IR reduction build entirely with stealth materials.

Petit Duc AVE-C (2000) stealth UAV demonstrator:

Further stealth/Ir flight control and design researches with tail-less instable formula.

Moyen Duc (2001) Stealth UAV Demonstrator:

Tactical reconaissance Drone answering to the need of the French Army post SDTI.

NEURON prime contractor, Programme General Designer and Architect (Lead Design), flight control system, final assembly and flight testing. 50% workshare.

Known major programme problems, technologic or design issues:

None.

Known major technologic or design developement breakthrough:

CATIA/Direct design-to-production capabilities i.e first in the world and unique as up to now.

Number of designed high speed supersonic fighter in service with own Armed forces =

Mirage F-1 CR. (Soon retired)

Mirage F-1 CT. (Soon retired)

Mirage 2000 C.

Mirage 2000 D

Mirage 2000 B.

Mirage 2000-5-F.

Rafale M.

Entering service this year:

Rafale C

Rafale B.

>>>>>>

And if you would like to throw the BAe Hawk trainer into the equation by pure despair: We will gladly compare its performances to that of the Falcon serie, the number of different designs and number sold since 1978. Dig it??? You're welcome.

Facts ARE:

Since 1978 (not to mention 1945).

Dassault designed both high supersonic and subsonic aircraft in a FAR higher number than BAe without any major problems.

Dassault designed and sold to both France and export customers a far higher number of aircrafts of all type than BAe ever did.

Dassault is involed in: NEURON UCAV but also: Slow/FAST with SAGEM, Euromale and the DGA MALE programme.

Now if you don't call it an obvious edge in design, technology expertise AND experience what is it by today's Aerospacial Industry standards then???

I'll rest my case your honour, all the opposition can do is talk manure as usual. Revisionists.

"The DIS document also makes reference to a BAE-developed UAV design called Raven, which it says “went from concept to first flight within 10 months”. Further details on the classified design are expected to be released in mid-January."

CRAIG HOYLE/LONDON

http://www.flightinternational.com/...10318&SlotID=22

DATE:19/12/05

SOURCE:Flight International

BAE unveils its UCAV secrets

BAE Systems is to continue research into unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) systems under a new technology demonstration programme to be agreed with the UK Ministry of Defence in January.

>>>>>

UCAV? WHAT UCAV??? The UCAV TDP is still to be launched.

>>>>>

"A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System."

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

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

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

Have a nice day. P{S i will repost this every time you'll come with your crap.

[Philippe Top-Force]

Et sinon :lol: le J-UCAS a été abandonné aux USA ,le X-45 a déjà dépassé le coût de développement du F-16 ,le X-47 tout aussi coûteux n'est pas sûr de sa survie.

Le Corax britannique n'est qu'un démonstrateur de taille réduite développé depuis 2004 ,loin d'être furtif ,Fonck si les britanniques veulent se ruiner à faire cavalier seul ,laissez-les faire. :lol:

PS : Peux-tu dire à tes amis britanniques que ceci est un forum francophone en langue française et que s'ils veulent y participer ,ils n'ont qu'à le faire avec la langue de Molière ,quand nous sommes à Londres ou dans tout le UK on doit parler Anglais ,c'est la moindre des corrections. 8) ;)

Pouvez-vous imaginer une seule seconde si les français faisaient la même chose sur les forums anglosaxons ? On se ferait jeter!

Ce sera plus agréable à lire pour la majorité des membres

[Fonck]

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

[RM-Nod]

I do not in any way imply that more than one flying UAV is a stealth platform; my position is that Raven is an RCS reduced aircraft, nothing more than that.

BAe design the old fashion way compared to Dassault s it is just to be anticipated they NEED three time more vehicle for a lower result.

They can't even use CAD design properly as shows the long list of programmes they screwed up..

BAE Systems designs aircraft using a paperless CAD process supplemented by SE testing. That’s the same way Dassault designs its aircraft. Also the only problems resulting from CAD software were to do with Astute and last time I checked that was a different unit in BAE Systems and the Astute isn’t much good in a dog fight.

You’re also going over ground that’s already been covered. If you believe that BAE producing six UAV designs means that Dassault is ahead because they only produced two then surely you must concede that Alenia Aeronautica, EADS and Korean Aerospace are all ahead of Dassault.

On that issue you also completely ignore the fact that only two of the UAVs produced were designed to develop specific UCAV related technology while the others were designed to develop HALE and MALE ISTAR UAV technology. So in actual fact BAE Systems has produced two UAVs that are directly comparable to the AVE vehicles but an additional 3/4 ISTAR UAVs (the number depending on whether you make the distinction between the BMW and Rotax powered HERTI-1As).

On the issue of IR signature reduction methods I am not “bubling”; the pictures do not show how far the engines on Raven and AVE’s are recessed into the body. There is an exhaust pipe visible on the Raven but there is no way of telling whether that is the actual rear portion of the engine itself or just a metal shielding with which to safely direct the exhaust gasses without damaging the composite structure (you can’t have an engine inside an aircraft that just expulses gas into the body).

There is also no evidence that any measures are taken to seriously reduce the infrared signatures of either aircraft.

Duc are designed for BOTH EM and IR as the French Senat doc says

Fine if you can produce the document but the measures are minimal at best. It’s also a minor matter in the context of the wider discussion as BAE Systems has also demonstrated IR reduction technologies since the mid 1990s with Chameleon.

Question: Since the Petit Duc wing trailing edge is at the right angle for reducing radar return, why on hearth should it be serrated like that of Rafale? This goes WAY on to show that you don't KNOW the subject you try to tackle here.

Well if you remember the topic on WAFF (which you clearly don’t) the reason I mentioned the serrated edges in that picture was because you made a big thing about stealth aircraft having to have serrated edges, my picture was pointing out that the AVE-D is a stealth aircraft but didn’t have any serrated edges, my overall point was that they are not strictly necessary. Here’s the link;

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1137505512/

So in the future, if you’re going to try and make me look stupid, please at least try and do so using something that you didn’t come up with.

Escuse ME can YOU actually prove this? No. What this says is different from "The programme was started", the date they give about the Petit Duc are for first flight, there is no evidence it is different for Moyen Duc.

Aside from the link I posted that clearly said “The tactical Moyen Duc … was launched in July 2001” or the more up to date one that “Moyen Duc is due to fly in late 2003”? Here’s the links, again;

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_04/d1_miragep14.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2001/02/20/126308/Dassault+builds+ unmanned+vehicle+strategy+on+Petit+Duc+combat+craft.html

Or perhaps this even more recent one from FI dated 2004 that says “The larger stealth tactical Moyen Duc is due to make its first flight later this year”

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2004/07/20/184979/Soaraway+snecma.html

Or then again there’s this one from Boeing that says “The company is working on at least two unmanned concepts for the military: a stealth UCAV based on its Gran Duc design, and a reconnaissance unmanned air vehicle from its Moyen Duc project. Dassault expects the UCAV prototype to fly within the decade, while it has slated the UAV's first flight for 2004.”

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/october/i_iw3.html

So yes there is evidence that Moyen Duc did not fly, let alone in 2001.

As for your sources they are no more informed than what the French authorities wanted them to be.

So Dassault, BAE etc all lied to the media, for what purpose and what evidence is there to contradict the information these (well respected) sources relate?

HERTI-D, HERTI-1A, Corax Are NOT stealth demonstrators.

I never said they were but there is a lot more to unmanned combat aircraft than stealth. By your logic here you have totally contradicted your argument that Dassault’s passed work on the Rafale, Mirage and Falcon means anything, they weren’t steath so they don’t count. Fair enough if that’s your position.

As for Raven every source states that the vehicle demonstrates signature management technology (not every technology but the Petit Duc doesn’t do that, the fact that its an RPV rather than an autonomous system proves that). Here are some quotes;

The BAE Systems Raven low-observable unmanned combat air vehicle design first flew on Dec. 17

…

The jet-powered Raven's blended wing-body airframe, with outer wing control surfaces aligned with the trailing edge, reduces radio-frequency scattering. The lack of vertical or horizontal control surfaces also helps reduce the radar cross-section.

http://air-defense.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=66780#66780

BAE first flew a UCAV demonstrator, dubbed Raven, in late 2003. The low observable design is part of the company's wider work into UCAV technology for the British Defense Ministry.

Two Raven carbon-fiber composite airframes have been built and flown. Test flights of the jet-powered UCAV demonstrator were carried out in Australia at the Woomera Range. Radar cross-section reduction is a key element of the airframe design.

…

Along with examining the design and manufacture of an Low Observable UCAV design, the Raven was also used to develop and test a digital flight control system for the aerodynamically unstable design. Along with examining the design and manufacture of an Low Observable UCAV design, the Raven was also used to develop and test a digital flight control system for the aerodynamically unstable design.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/BAE02166.xml

Here’s another quote from one of the above articles that outlines BAE’s LO work, it’s mostly what I’ve already said but I get the feeling you don’t hold my opinion in very high regard.

The Defense Ministry has been funding BAE's LO research into future air systems since at least the early 1990s. Initially aimed at a manned replacement for the Tornado GR4 strike aircraft, through the Testbed stealth aircraft non-flying demonstrator, the emphasis began to shift to LO UCAV and unmanned recon air vehicle platforms even before the Testbed program was completed in 1999. BAE's Nightjar I and Nightjar II ministry-funded research examined a number of airframe bodies using the company's radar cross-section range at its Warton site.

http://air-defense.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=66780#66780

So given that the respected sources say it demonstrates stealth technology, that it clearly shows features of an LO design and that no sources say it isn’t an LO design then what reason is there to believe that it isn’t an LO design?

The process of designing is NOT different and AGAIN in terms of design Dassault are world Number ONE with CATIA and their virtual tool.

The process is not dramatically different but the thing they’re trying to design is. That is the point.

Again Kestrel, Replica and Nightjar weren't Stealth UAVs.

Where did I say they were? I said that they were used to develop and demonstrate advanced novel configurations. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

There is NO given date for thesecond Petit Duc flight as for the configuration:

The quote I gave said that the second Petit Duc flew “at the beginning of June”, it was from an article dated 2003, why would they say “the beginning of June” and mean 2001?

There is NO way you could say this one isn't MOYEN DUC. Can you???

Yes there is, first of all the aircraft in the video from which you took that picture shows an aircraft with landing gear which Moyen Duc was never to have, second of all you told me that you emailed Dassault and they said that it was the Petit Duc C.

Replica design goal is NOT stealth but material and manufacturing methods. NOD you ARE a LIAR.

So are you saying that Jane’s and BAE Systems are both lying when they say that Replica was designed to develop and prove low observable technologies and produce a stealth strike aircraft concept? Were one of the most respected sources on the subject and the manufacturers themselves lying? If so where is your evidence of this?

By the way I’m not saying that materials and manufacturing techniques were not a subject of the project just that they were part of a greater design aim.

As for the French researches: Rafale is full of L.O features already.

So is the Typhoon but not to the degree of fully developed LO aircraft.

All of these have been conducted in collaboration with ONERA as for experience you're wrong, you won't dare posting other pictures than that of Raven woulod you? Only one vehicle could be qualified as stealth and it doesn't have IR reduction measures at all. All you are showing is what Dassault achieved earlier in two Petit Ducs and a Moyen Duc. They don't NEED as many they can design and this a lot more than BAs.

What does it matter if they were conducted with ONERA or not?

Also where did I say that any of the aircraft other than Raven could or should be considered stealthy?

Dassault produced one, maybe two LO aircraft but other areas critical to UCAVs are neglected. In addition to flight demonstrations of RCS, visual and IR reduction technologies (not all on the UAVs by the way) BAE have also produced a number of ground based demonstrators, the oldest of which began five years before Dassault began work on any equivalent development campaign.

These are already directly related to the technologies required for the design of unmanned combat air vehicles. Of course both companies have produced previous generation aircraft but these provide limited experience in the specific skills required.

The rest of your post is a copy of an early one which I have already addressed.

Also, you don’t have to reply to me if you don’t want to.

Philippe, my apologies for posting in English, I wasn’t going to post but since a lot of the thread was already in English I thought I’d chip in. If of course the mods/admin doesn’t like me posting entirely in English then I’ll either stick it through a translator or I just won’t post. Don’t worry though I don’t intend to pollute any other threads!

[Fonck]

"You know I've already addressed that quote, it was from 1994 and BAE got the TDP talked about in the form of Replica. Dassault also made a similar request to the French government but got nothing."

Sorry my friend, Quote is 2004/05. Not so and even from then on it was not what they wanted. Keep lying to everyone else here.... You have too litle to make a show and certainly no TDP which is what Turner wants to keep up..

"Can you show how the AVE-D reduced its IR signature, there’s no evidence that it did. "

Keep insulting ewveryone intelligence too...

"Also, you don’t have to reply to me if you don’t want to."

So you can conveniently keep LYING to everyone? Because posting total interpretations of the truth is quiet disgusting methink........

What a poor copycat with too little understanding of what you are writing about.....

First i have to point out that Nod copycat technique, trying to emulate me as i used this image (see the link) to higlight the lack of Low Observability features on Corax doesn't work for Petit Duc.

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/1385/coraxnostealth5wo.jpg

"You can clearly see the exhaust on both of the pictures I posted"

NO you cannot see the exhaust pipe poping out of the AVEs backside, but you CLEARLY can on Raven and Corax.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1633/aveirreduction8no.jpg

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/1715/raven36tn.jpg

Not knowing what the words exhaust, pipe and recessed means Nod? Apparently not.

More to it, you can clearly see the IR supressant material surounding the exhaust area on the AVEs too, going into your usual denial state or spin/twist technics won't change this fact...

Second, your interpretation of the UK's and France's researches are totally missleading too:

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/9215/RAFALEMC-01_01.jpg

Stealth was already applied to Rafale from pre-90 design.

This is where ONERA and Dassault collaboration matters.

http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/9581/nm882e44qz.jpg

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/7205/doc2dwig3zr.jpg

Here you go. EM signature 50% lower than that of Typhoon and IR sig a lot lower too. 1990 French L.O technology applied.

>>>>>

Here is a descriptif of the Programmes according to original statments:

Strategic UAV Experiment program SUAVE for the UK, Logiduc for France.

"Research and development work on low observables (LO), autonomous operation and sensor integration" in the case of BAe....

"Step by step technological approach aimed to enhance Dassault's UAV design capabilities, mastering stealth aircraft design and confronting it to modern air-to air and air-to-ground combat systems" in that of Dassault....

MAIN Design goals for these vehicles had to be:

1) Stealth material: (structural design).

2) Stealth design: (EM return reduction).

3) Engine/Exhaust: (IR reduction).

4) Flight controls: (New configuration and aerodynamic laws).

5) Sensor integration and Operational evaluation.

>>>>>Dassault Logiduc Process:

Goals 1/2/3/4 have been achieved with the "Petit Duc", AVE-D and with AVE-C which size we don't know for real...

"designed and built with rapid prototyping to cost methodology, this UAV has been joined by a second member of the family, the AVE-C, designed along the same lines to experiment unstable yaw aircraft control methods". i.e Dassault "logiduc Process".

"Entirely made of stealth materials" "at the end of a work highlighted by the will to reduce radar and infrared signature".

French Senat Raport d'Information 22 Fev 2006.

http://www.senat.fr/rap/r05-215/r05-215_mono.html

http://www.senat.fr/rap/r05-215/r05-2151.pdf

Courtesy of OPIT.

End result: The FIRST Europen stealth UAV to fly had in July 2000 reached goals 1/2/3 at once.

= Full stealth features tested and flown as early as 2000.

Goals 4 was achieved by the AVE-C which is actually NOT necessarly a Petit Duc as it shares the same configuration (tail-less/instable) with Moyen and Grand Ducs.

" "The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc."

Source Flight International; DATE:24/06/03.

According to the French Senat Raport d'Information 22 Fev 2006, Moyen Duc "apeared" in July 2001, since the previous date was that of a first flight, there is NO "evidences" that it is different for this one or that i haven't flow as early as 2001...

With a weight of 500kg it was a significant step forward to the Grand Duc step.

Result:

(Le Bourget, June 16, 2003)

"Thanks to its unique experience in the development and production of combat aircraft, Dassault Aviation masters all advanced technologies related to this field and considers UCAVs as complementary systems to aircraft of the Rafale class and generation."

Dassault; Le Bourget, June 16, 2003.

compared to:

Flight International and BAe Mike Turner 2005.

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

"The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue".

On the UK's UCAV TDP he expect to be launched and the reason WHY BAe needs it.

>

The same IR reduction measures as used on M-88 were applied to the AVEs, serrated materials were NOT needed on the wings butthe visit doors are serrated.

5) Sensor integration and Operational evaluation.

This is now NEURON objectives.

>>>>>BAe's FOAS, now SUAVE programme.

1) Stealth material: (structural design).

2) Stealth design: (EM return reduction).

3) Engine/Exhaust: (IR reduction).

4) Flight controls: (New configuration and aerodynamic laws).

5) Sensor integration and Operational evaluation.

>

To achive the same goals BAe needed SIX different programmes:

1) Stealth material: (structural design).

Replica: A "technology tesbed" otherwise said a mock-up, had materials and manufacture procedures for

Main design goal.

Nightjar I and Nightjar II, two non-flying testbeds, otherwise said two more mock-ups had different body shapes and researches on EM return (L.O) as Main design goals.

To make my point; the difference between the two main goals and advanced in stealth technology is really obvious as Nightjar I and Nightjar II, Corax and Raven share a similar body shape.

Replica was using angular shapes much less developed than that of F-117 for example.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1306/BAeAASMock-up.jpg

Scan from Jane's all the world's aircraft.

2) Stealth design: (EM return reduction).

"Raven and Corax were flying demonstators researching EM reduction technology and sharing the same flight control systems". (BAe).

"Two Raven carbon-fiber composite airframes have been built and flown."

"The Raven's central fuselage is common with that of BAE's Corax program."

4) Flight controls: (New configuration and aerodynamic laws).

"BAE is exploring modularity in its approach to UCAV/URAV and UAVs. Raven shares the same central fuselage shell as the Corax strategic reconnaissance URAV design, with a common flight control system."

3) Engine/Exhaust: (IR/visual reduction).

Chameleon demonstator.

IR/visual reduction was the design goal of yet another demonstrator which lacks the EM features to make it a full stealth aircraft in the class of AVEs.

>>>>>

From all these "vehicles", none is designed to demonstrate BOTH IR, EM reduction measures and Materials at once:

>

5) Sensor integration and Operational evaluation would be the logical goal of the much awaited UCAV TDP asked by BAe chairman but also with the clear indication that they need it to fully master the stealth technology as proven by the large number of demonstrators none of which is fully L.O...

>

As opposed to what Nod/Rob L are trying to have us believe:

Three of BAe programmes never were designed to FLY and are in fact Mock-ups.

"Testbed stealth aircraft non-flying demonstrator" is BAe description of Nightjar I and Nightjar II.

They are NOT stealth UAVs. UAVs are flying vehicles, these are tecnology mock-up which doesn't take into acount the aerodynamic and resu8lting structural design: in the case of Replica most of the stealth features design either (This was the role of the Nightjar I/II).

Both were "designed to examined a number of airframe bodies using the company's radar cross-section range at its Warton site".

Raven have the same design goal than AVE-C on flight control exploring new areodynamic laws due to a different (instable/tail-less configuration) but share the same flight controls, which is NOT the case of the AVEs showing here a diffeerent level of experience too.

NONE have full stealth features, one was solely dedicated to IR/visual reduction measure (chameleon).

None have the same stealth characteristics as AVE-D as it is build entirely with stealth material, meaning a third design goal. EM/IR/Material in one UAV.

So to achieve the same result than Dassault with their two (or three) AVE-s, BAe needed THREE Mock-ups and three UAVs:

Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II, plus two flying UAVs, Corax and Raven for EM reduction and aerodynamics, as well as Chameleon for IR reduction researches. So much for an advantage in experience....

What it shows, is a clear dependency of BAe on MoD funded programmes for design and technology skills developement, consistant with Mike Turner and MoD own staments carefully and consistantly denied and ignored by Nod and Rob L.

In fact it was their home work in researches conducted by Dassault and ONERA on materials as well as design which as everyone can apreciate they are far from having anywhere near Dassault design and technologic experience.

So to try to make his point here comes everything including the kitchen sink, low tech UAVs and other non-stealth related vehicles or Mock-ups.

Comparing mock-ups and non-stealth UAVs with any stealth UAV/UCAV is already mocking anyone intelligence, refusing to admit the facts as they are is even more of their usual.

= PURE Flamers.

NONE of the UK's UAVs have the stealth technology applied to the level it was to ANY AVEs, none have been qualified of anything else than L.O or "Higly surviveable stealthy UAV" by BAe or MoD NONE are UCAVs.

>

Quoting Nod; Or how to distort official staments:

"Dassault stresses that Neuron is not a production program. A major objective of the project, in fact, is to develop and sustain Europe’s ability to design and integrated sophisticated military airframes once the current generation of fighters enters service."

A very twisted version of the reality here:

NEURON is a technology demonstrator (As was XF-16) and have different design goals and purposes than his interpretation of it:

For quiet obvious reasons of trying to minimise the design and technologic gap between Dassault and BAe.

It is: "Open to the European cooperation, favouring the use of existing technology competences".

NEURON first have to: Quoting NEURON PDF:

"demonstrate the maturity and effisciency of the technologic solutions and European industrial capabilities to answer to future needs"

NOT to develop them as they have them since 2003 but the Assemblee Nationals doc mentions "further developement" of stealth on the Grand Duc programme which is only logical.

"The Grand Duc aimed to validate the Operational demonstation of a combat mission, while developing the capabilities of furtivity and flight control".

Design goals and objective are: Stealth, REAL networked combat capabilities, execution of A2G mission in a C3R network.

"Maintain and improve skills of the French and European industry".

Is what Dassault says on their own 2006 PDF not develop them like developing muscles one doesn't have, they already are world-top.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/4619/dassaultneuron20061dp.jpg

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3227/NEURON-Dassault.jpg

This is the previous version of it.....

If even being the most advanced world-while they weren't aiming at making future improvement they wouldn't have survived since 1945 and being where they are...

Only idots doesn't learn and we know who they are....

Dassault 2006 PDF Neuron scan

Developing and sustaining design skills is NOT what NEURON design goals ARE about.

Somewhat a different and more realistic vue of Dassault real design capabilities and clear difference between them and BAe.

>>>>> How to misslead the topic readers:

.Rob L list:

1) BAe Replica Project MAIN Goal

Material and manufacture researches Mock-up.

2) BAe Chameleon Project MAIN Goal

Visuak and IR reduction demonstrator.

3) Nightjar I and Nightjar II MAIN Goal

Testbed stealth aircraft non-flying demonstrator Mock-up.

4) SUAV (E)

Strategic UAV Experiment program

NOT a vehicle on its own.

The name of the whole programme (ex-FOAS) including all the researches vehicles/demonstrators/mock-ups.

Still to be completed with a UCAV TDP.

5) Herti 1A MAIN Goal

Non stealth UAV.

6) Herti 1D MAIN Goal

Non stealth UAV.

7) Kestrel MAIN Goal

Non Stealth flying wing UAV.

8] Raven MAIN Goal

EM reduction demonstator

9) Corax MAIN Goal

EM reduction demonstator

10) Eclipse MAIN Goal

Non stealth Aerodynamic UAV demonstator.

Result: Only two real L.O demonstrator vehicles, none being as fully L.O developed as the AVEs (EM+IR).

And the clear evidences he doesn't even know what SUAVE is.

>

RN Nod list:

• 1 x Kestrel gas turbine UAV MAIN Goal

Non Stealth flying wing UAV.

• 2 x Raven gas turbine UAV MAIN Goal

EM reduction demonstator.

• 1 x Corax gas turbine UAV MAIN Goal

EM reduction demonstator.

• ? x HERTI-D gas turbine UAV MAIN Goal

Engine Tactical UAV.

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

Engined Tactical UAV.

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

Engined Tactical UAV.

Same here. What are Kestrel and HERTI-D doing in the list???

As for the interpretation of what BAe are saying on Replica:

"A key aim of the Replica programme was to demonstrate Low Observable (LO) technologies in a low cost design and production environment, using paperless aircraft processes".

A key aim = "Low cost" demonstration of the MAIN goals of the Replica programme as detailed by Jane's scan: Materials and manufacture procedure. NOT full stealth features implementation.

Stealth features were NEVER Replica main design goal so claiming them as such is as usual innacurate.

I will personally have the descency to skip the dozen of UAVs of all types France have designed/produced with or without Dassault PARTICIPATION.

Nor will I have the curiosity to ask where some of these BAe little marvels were actually designed...

The two major French UAVs programmes where Dassault are involved too and we don't mention all ONERA state-funded researches which are at least 30 years old.

About the UK's UCAV TDP still to be launced:

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

"The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". i.e BAe chairman Mike Turner.

It clearly make sense when one knows about these loads of "Stealth UCAVs"...

>>>>>On the real advance of the Logiduc and the press:

"Dassault officials say construction of the TUAV demonstrator began earlier this year, with that system forming the basis of its joint bid with Sagem for the French army's Multi Sensor Multi Mission UAV requirement."

DATE:24/06/03

SOURCE:Flight International

>

Clearly the author have no clue about the date of the Moyen Duc event OR is talking about a different programme:

The French French Senat Raport d'Information 22 Fev 2006 gives 2001. NOT 2003.

As the developement took less than a year, according to the french officials (Juil 2000/Juil 2001), it could be flying since 2001 or end 2001.

More to the point, we are talking about a totally different configuration here. Slow/Fast and Moyen Duc.

Slow/Fast shares a common configuration to AVE-D.

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/7422/sagemdassault6zu.jpg

http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/7167/7023002312um.jpg

http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/7167/7023002312um.th.jpg

Moyen Duc with AVE-C and the predicted Grand Duc.

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2787/7023002417uy.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2787/7023002417uy.th.jpg

One is a buterfly (V-shaped) tail configuration, the other an instable tail-less flying wing.

"The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc."

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4981/moyenduc5xg.jpg

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4981/moyenduc5xg.th.jpg

So is this a Petit or Moyen Duc? And if it is a Petit Duc why is it equiped with an aerodynamivc experimental probe??? To explore the flight envelope only? For a50 kg aircraft this would take a quiet important load....

"Dassault says a second version of its Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration. The first Petit Duc demonstrator has been flying since mid-2000. The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc."

DATE:24/06/03????

And what is exactly Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration?

Considering this: The target weith for NEURON is 2/3 tons, the Moyen Duc weight given for 500 kg.

500 kg X 3 = 1.500 kg whi8ch makes the whole thing plausible.

Petit Duc weoght on 50 kg: 50 X 3 = 150 kg which doesn't allow for much of a payload.

Conclude by yourself, but in my case, in view of the most recent French Senat Raport d'Information of 22 Fev 2006 (Courtesy of OPIT, merci mec et mes respects), the press was missled into thinking that the the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration was "that simple" and late....

Dassault can call Moyen duc a Petit Duc if it pleases them in interviews dated from four years ago.

The fact is: AVE-C have flown and there is NO mention of a second "Petit Duc" in the French offical documents, but Moyen Duc, with a weigh of 500 kg.

Dassault simply refers to is as AVE-C, "a second member of the familly, designed along the same lines to experiment unstable yaw aircraft control".

No mention of size nor weight here nor date for the first flight.

Nod sources aere counterdicted by the more recent Official Senat Raport d'Information, which was published on 22 Fev 2006.

Here is a montage showing the three disctinctive configuration:

Top: Slow/Fast Sagem/Dassault drone with a Petit Duc like fuselage and a different wing configuration

supposed to fly wend of 2003 acording to Flight International.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/4359/logiduc6rk.jpg

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/4359/logiduc6rk.th.jpg

Middle: AVEs = AVE-C/Moyen duc/Grand Duc same tail-less configuration. 2001 for Moyen Duc according to the French Senat Raport d'Information 22 Fev 2006.

Botom: Petit Duc V-shaped tail. 18 July 2000, firswt Europeenstealth UAV to fly.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2057/moyenduc5lj.jpg

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2057/moyenduc5lj.th.jpg

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/4615/moyenduc022dj.jpg

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/4615/moyenduc022dj.th.jpg

Note, As nod like to copycat me so much, as i noticed that Corax straight wings weren't even serrated as are the wings of Rafale he tried the same with the Petit Duc picture without actually knowing what he was doing nor saying....

Here is the full extend of the design features well shown. The doors on all AVE-D are serrated that of Corax and Raven ARE NOT even if they are significantly larger which lower the effisciency of their stealth features significantly too.

Exhaust pipes are NOT visible and recessed on all AVEs. That of Corax and Raven are proheminent, visible, NOT recessed. A dead giveaway io IR seekers/sensors.

The AVEs are constructed entirely of stealth material, there is no such detail on Corax and Raven structure. All AVEs share the same stealth technology.

Note: If one compares Rafale and AVEs front section, the L.O features of Rafales are more than aapperent. L.O materials were used, serrated edges were used as well as IR reduction measures for the two M-88 (engine and exhaust materials, recessed pipes).

Rafale C (D for discret at Roll out) first flight is May 91, its design definition about three years ealier, the main difference from the A were L.O improvements, aerodynamics and a lower weight/smaller size.

So to make it even more obvious i have added X-45 and X-47a cross sections in the composite image i post. But also AVEs, F-23 and a very interesting German WWII design, the Horten Ho_IX-V1, which makes Corax/Raven UAVs look outdated by a full 60 years.

>On the Slow/Fast programme:

DASSAULT AVIATION and SAGEM found a joint company to build drones

Paris, 27 February 2003

Extending the cooperation initiated by the agreement signed in April 2002, SAGEM and DASSAULT AVIATION have founded a joint company:

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8310/drones2002mo.jpg

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8310/drones2002mo.th.jpg

Dassault Maritime/AVE and Dassault/SAGEM Slow/Fast

DASSAULT SAGEM TACTICAL UAV

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9347/dassaultsagemucav13ze.jpg

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9347/dassaultsagemucav13ze.th.jpg

This French company is in charge of developing and marketing next-generation tactical drone systems. For both companies, this line of strategic growth is meant to respond to changes in the operational needs of the armed forces. The two partners' recognized skills are being pooled to offer general staffs a range of solutions that expand the capabilities of pilotless aircraft.

The founding of this company is a concrete expression of our shared determination to approach future markets, both domestic and export, from an installed base that is unrivaled in Europe , adds Jacques PACCARD, Director of SAGEM's Defence and Security Division.

For Mr. Bruno REVELLIN-FALCOZ, Vice Chairman of Dassault Aviation and Chairman of the new company, appointed for the first two years in accordance with the articles: Input from the most advanced fighter systems technologies will be decisive for the success of the future drone systems.

Groupe SAGEM is an internationally based high-technology group. The second largest French group in the field of telecommunications, the third European Company in electronics for defence and security and the world leader in fingerprint-based biometrics, SAGEM maintains a presence in more than 20 countries. For more information, please consult the SAGEM web site: www.sagem.com

With 7,500 military and civilian aircraft delivered in more than 70 countries in half a century, DASSAULT AVIATION has know-how and experience that make it one of the most advanced aviation companies in the world. For more information, please consult the DASSAULT web site: www.dassault-aviation.com.

Press Information

SAGEM :

Hervé PHILIPPE

Senior VP, Chief Financial Officer

Tel. +33 1 40 70 62 57

Fax. +33 1 53 23 20 47

Press Information

DASSAULT AVIATION :

Gérard DAVID

Director of External Relations and Communication

Tel. +33 1 47 11 86 90

Fax. +33 1 47 11 87 40

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/gb/media/communiques/

Note: This IS a Dassault stament. NOT a British press interpretation or overkooked and outdated "article".

> To be comnpared to:

"Puis apparait en Juileet 2001 ,le "Moyen Duc". d'un poid de 500 kg"

Then appeared in July 2001, the Moyen Duc with a weight of 500 kg.

Extract from: SENAT Session Ordinaire de 2005-2006, 22 Fev 2006.

Rapport d'Information (2006).

Two years of difference between the two and NOT the same configuration.

"Thanks to its unique experience in the development and production of combat aircraft, Dassault Aviation masters all advanced technologies related to this field and considers UCAVs as complementary systems to aircraft of the Rafale class and generation."

(Le Bourget, June 16, 2003)

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7967/eurosat2005fm.jpg

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7967/eurosat2005fm.th.jpg

2004 BAe press release:

"Continental Europe is getting its act together on UAVs and UCAVs,” Turner said. "We are working with the Defence Procurement Agency on programs [of our own]; it’s really important as a nation we get onboard."

Source: Jane's.

2005 BAe press release:

"While the report maintains the Defense Ministry has "no funded UCAV program," the ministry is supporting classified UCAV-related research, in part through low-observable (LO) platform work. It recently recast its future offensive strike needs within the Strategic UAV Experiment program."

Source: Jane's.

DATE:21/06/05

SOURCE:Flight International

UK rethinks Tornado replacement

"A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System.

>>>>>

So if there is ONE here not talking manure, twisting FACTS, interpreting them FALSLY, only providing people with informations as they are it is NOT Rob L not Gliter not Nod. As simple as that.

To make their point they have to ignore history, industrial reality, interpret, lie and totally desinform the readers of this topic.

This heve been going on for most of last year in the WAAF as Nod and Rob L tried to imply that BAe had stealth UCAV "secret programmes" when i WAS maintaining that these were in fact low budget stealth researches as they in fact are.

Quoting Rob L in this topic:

"You're so funny. So how many UCAVs are in use in France? "

There is NO UCAV curently flying anywhere in the EUs. As for what the BAe show is all about:

"Defense Ministry sources have previously confirmed the U.K. is funding the development of what they dubbed "nugget technologies" that would provide the government "leverage" in any collaborative environment."

>>>>>

Jane's Aerospace dictionary own definitions of the word DESIGN;

Entire process of translating hardware requierement or specification into final production drawings.

DESIGN POINTS; Specific combinations of variables upon which design process is based; together these cover every combination of air density, airspeed, Mach, dynamic pressure, structural loads (including free or accelerated take-off and normal, or arrested landing) and systems demands aircraft can encounter.

>>>>>

About the above POINTS: What it show clearly is that this full process haven't been explored by BAe as much and as many time than by Dassault, as it involes the "Entire process of translating hardware requierement or specification into final production drawings":

Thus excluding any sort of coollabiorative work or tecnology transfert for less than design leaders.

The three flying UAVs designed (?) by BAe doesn't go far enough to compensate for their obvious lack of experience in the full process of designing.

Dassault have designed and probabilly built many mock-ups since 1978 including the whole serie of AVEs, Slow/Fast and NEURON, starting by the full-scale ACX which was dubbed Jhon Player Special at le Bourget 1983.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3039/acx017uw.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3039/acx017uw.th.jpg

"The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue".

As for those who compilied the French Senat Raport d'Information 22 Fev 2006...

2 Contre-Amiraux

2 Generaux

2 Lieuteneant-colonels

3 Ingenieur generaux

2 Programme directors...

Corps representes:

NATO/DGA/Operations/Etat Major de l'AdA/Etat Major de la Marine/DGSE/Renseignement militaire/Circulation Aerienne.

Dassault/SAGEM/EADS/THALES.

I'm sure i forget some competences here but if anyone have the guts to say that these guys doesn't know their programme dates....

According to them too, there is ONLY TWO real UAV funded programmes in the UKs. The rest being experimental or not launched as yet:

NO stealth UCAV programme either NEURON being the first and as far as we all know the only one unless the German Barracuda is as L.O as NEURON (remote chance for this) and fully combat capable as NEURON will be (Still to be demonstrated after Barrakuda maiden flight).

Still if questions remains asfor its real capabilities and level of stealth technology it seems quiet advanced too.

Barrakuda technology advances

Images of the EADS Barrakuda stealth unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) demonstrator indicate that the company's work on stealth may have outpaced that of BAE Systems, Saab and Dassault. Barrakuda is a much larger, heavier and more sophisticated aircraft than the very small test vehicles that other European companies have unveiled to date.

[Jane's International Defence Review - first posted to http://idr.janes.com - 13 February 2006]

Actual UAV programmes in the UK:

Thales, a French company. Watchkeeper.

GED Marconi (UK) Phoenix.

>

Actual UAV programmes in France:

Euromale (EADS/Dassault).

Sprewer (SAGEM)

SIDM (IAI)

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9420/droneoperatedbyfrance3hz.jpg

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9420/droneoperatedbyfrance3hz.th.jpg

Non listed in this documentation and to prove how easy it is to take the mickey with their big numbers technique, designed and developed in France still in developement or in service....

Mart Mk.2 (Altec Industries)

S-mart (Altec Industries)

Spewer B (SAGEM)

Sprewer/Ugglan (SAGEM)

Crecelle (SAGEM)

Crecelle-EW (SAGEM)

Maritime (Dassault)

Slow/Fast (Dassault/Sagem)

Eagle 1 (EADS-France).

Eagle 2 (EADS-France).

Orka (EADS-France).

Scorpio 6 (EADS-France).

Scorpio 30 (EADS-France).

Tracker (EADS-France).

Surveyor 600 (EADS-France).

Surveyor 2500 (EADS-France).

Still this list of French achievement is far from being complete, ONERA and other researche institue like universities are missing....

That's still acount for 20 but this doesn't stop our "honourable British friends" to post both abroad/UK based French companies programmes with their own list.

Note: The majority of unlisted BAe/other UK companies UAVs are designed in their US branches.

>

France is regarded by the (Assemblee) board as lagging behind in terms of involvement in (non stealth) UAV systems by 10 to 15 years, i wonder what they would say about the UKs...

So there is NO need to take the mickey as they do with BAe homework as the UK and BAe are actually well behind in both UAV, UCAV, stealth design and technology. Proven.

>>>>> Interesting links on French UAV and stealth researches.

http://www.onera.fr/conferences/drones/index.php

http://www.onera.fr/conferences/drones/drones-militaires.php

http://www.onera.fr/conferences/drones/categories-de-drones.php

http://www.onera.fr/conferences/drones/drones-usa-europe-projets.php

>>>>>

Morality: Rob L/Nod if you can't stop being LIARs:

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/8725/arnold8ph.th.jpg

[vendest]

Je ne connais rien a propos du Barracuda, mais sur le site du senat (dans le IIII. LES DRONES DE COMBAT : UN CONCEPT SÉDUISANT, POUR UN EMPLOI QUI RESTE À DÉFINIR), il est ecrit

et l'Allemagne, qui a manifesté son souhait de rejoindre le projet Neuron, mais n'a pu, à ce jour, dégager un financement adéquat.

http://cubitus.senat.fr/rap/r05-215/r05-215_mono.html#toc67

de meme sur flightglobal :

The report recommends that France should progress EuroMale if Spain remains the only cooperation partner. In contrast, Neuron includes industrial cooperation from Italy, Greece, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland and could include Germany if it is able to free up funds.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/03/08/Navigation/196/205354/France+advises+bringing+UAVs+into+mainstream+defence+budgets%2c+hints+at+EuroMale.html

Tout ça pour dire, que meme s'il ont le Barracuda, ils sont très interresser par le Neuro. Surement à cause du nom qui est assez cool.

[Invité Rob]

If you believe that BAE producing six UAV designs

BAE producing UAV? where? what factories?

In England, at their Samlesbury and Warton factories which together employ over 12000 people [note that BAe Air Systems also has factories in Brough [Hawk] and Woodford [Nimrod]] in different units including Air Systems unit which built these UAVs.

[RM-Nod]

Sorry my friend, Quote is 2004/05.

No it isn’t, the quote “because of the need to master the stealth issue” comes from the article “Future fighters battle industry” by Nick Cook which appeared in Jane’s International Defence Review on 6 July 2001 while the actual quote was from an unnamed source in 1994. Here’s is the full quote and a link to the source;

In 1994, when the company first briefed publicly on the subject, it foresaw two major combat aircraft programmes sustaining it through the early decades of the 21st century. The first of these was what was then known as the US Advanced Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) project, a successor to the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing)/BAe Harrier II. ASTOVL has since been rolled into the US-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The second was FOA/FOAS. While there was never any doubt that BAe's ASTOVL activities would be pursued jointly with the US, there were equally strong views in the company that FOA/FOAS needed to be developed collaboratively within Europe, building on the Tornado and Eurofighter relationships. To make this happen, BAe began trying to persuade the UK MoD of the need for a technology demonstration program (TDP) to -- in the words of one official at the time -- "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions". The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, was to be on airframe design "because of the need to master the stealth issue".

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/idr/idr010706_2_n.shtml

No that quote was and is not from 2004/2005 nor is it from Mike Turner. Either it’s you who is lying or you just not paying attention to even your own posts. Which is it?

On the IR issue since you posted the Senate report then I’ll accept that the AVE-D did demonstrate some IR reduction technologies, however I do still think that this is minimal and not necessarily any more significant than on Raven. For the sake of this discussion however I’ll leave that.

As for the Rafale, yes it uses LO techniques and technologies but so does the Typhoon (yes I know you say that the Rafale has a 50% smaller RCS but you can’t back that up), neither aircraft take signature management to any great lengths like those seen to be required for UCAVs.

Your knowledge on British and French projects dedicated to the area is incorrect, SUAV(E) is not comparable to Logiduc. SUAV(E) is a government initiative meant to develop the DPA’s knowledge in strategic UAVs so that they can make informed procurement decisions, as part of this they fund/jointly fund technology and CONOP work with UK industry (primarily BAE Systems), Logiduc was a three stage Dassault funded programme meant to develop the technologies required to produce a UCAV. The project that is directly related to Logiduc is an unnamed demonstration effort run by BAE Systems from 2001 to the present day which has so far produced the Kestrel, Raven and Corax. However these cannot be taken in isolation and SUAV(E) (and predecessors), Logiduc, Neuron and BAE’s spiral development programme need all to be taken into account.

The quoted aim of SUAV(E) is also incorrect, the basic stated aim is “to establish the potential of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) in a variety of roles in the deep.” This includes the technologies related to UCAVs.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DPA/OurTeams/StrategicUnmannedAirVehiclesexperimentsuave.htm

What you have quoted is just the examples of so called nugget technologies funded by the MoD stated by Douglass Barrie in the article “Tornado GR4 Will Fly With Active E-SCAN Radar” from AW&ST.

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

On Moyen Duc, the report says appeared, it does not say flew. There are however sources that say the programme was launched in 2001 and others that say it was to fly in 2003, then 2004 as it was delayed. Given that no sources says it flew in 2001 and that a number of sources say it wasn’t to fly until 2004 the logical conclusion is that it did not fly in 2001.

Replica was using angular shapes much less developed than that of F-117 for example.

No it doesn’t, it clearly uses a mixture of faceting and blending just as the F22 and F35 do.

From all these "vehicles", none is designed to demonstrate BOTH IR, EM reduction measures and Materials at once:

That’s not strictly true, Raven did demonstrate both EM shaping and materials.

However why is it necessary to demonstrate them all in a single platform? If you’re developing a prototype then it certainly is necessary but developing the base technologies does not require this. For example there is no evidence that the AVE-C used the same materials as the AVE-D in order to achieve a reduced RCS, why should it? The materials had already been qualified on the AVE-D. Similarly neither is known to have taken into account the integration of targeting sensors, or space for internal weapons carriage etc. Nor did they include autonomous operation. However there’s no need for everything to be integrated into a single platform for the purposes of technology development.

You also seem to be making a big deal out of the fact that BAE did ground based work, why? Why is a technological capability developed using ground based demonstrators any less relevant than flying demonstrators?

"Testbed stealth aircraft non-flying demonstrator" is BAe description of Nightjar I and Nightjar II.

Actually the Nightjar aircraft are meant to develop airframe features, this includes developing stealth shapes but also takes into account aerodynamics et al.

Raven have the same design goal than AVE-C on flight control exploring new areodynamic laws due to a different (instable/tail-less configuration) but share the same flight controls, which is NOT the case of the AVEs showing here a diffeerent level of experience too

Huh? Raven and AVE-C share the same flight controls? I think you’ve muddled yourself up there.

So to achieve the same result than Dassault with their two (or three) AVE-s, BAe needed THREE Mock-ups and three UAVs:

Or you could put it another way and just say BAE has more experience in the field which it does.

Quoting Nod; Or how to distort official staments:

"Dassault stresses that Neuron is not a production program. A major objective of the project, in fact, is to develop and sustain Europe’s ability to design and integrated sophisticated military airframes once the current generation of fighters enters service."

A very twisted version of the reality here:

How is it twisted? I gave you the link which comes from the same source as you have used with your “not only will it develop” quote.

When you look at the areas of technology that are relevant and look at the two companies’ efforts to build up there experience in these areas you can clearly see that BAE has done more.

BAE Systems -

EM signature reduction – Replica, Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Raven

IR signature reduction – Chameleon

Visual signature reduction – Chameleon

Novel aerodynamic configurations – Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Kestrel, Raven

Autonomation – Raven

Dassault -

EM signature reduction – AVE-D

IR signature reduction – AVE-D

Visual signature reduction –

Novel aerodynamic configurations – AVE-D, AVE-C

Autonomation –

BAE just has more experience in more areas which for some reason you are trying to make out to mean it isn’t as capable. That’s rubbish and I think any reasonable person, here, on WAFF or anywhere else would see that.

You are getting far too bogged down in the word stealth which is only one area that these companies need to be proficient in.

[Philippe Top-Force]

Léger aparté : La France vient de battre l'Angleterre 31-6 en rugby. :lol: Puisque la Grande-Bretagne lance son Corax UCAV et 5 européens le nEUROn ,pourquoi ne pas regrouper les synergies industrielles ,financières et doctrinales ? ;)

[glitter]

Et sinon :lol: le J-UCAS a été abandonné aux USA ,le X-45 a déjà dépassé le coût de développement du F-16 ,le X-47 tout aussi coûteux n'est pas sûr de sa survie.

Comme l'a dis Rm-Nod, les UCAV obligent à défricher tout un tas de domaines

qui fait qu'a prioris, il n'y a pas de raison qu'ils soient meilleur marché qu'un avion piloté équivalent.

[Invité Rob]

Léger aparté : La France vient de battre l'Angleterre 31-6 en rugby.

Apparently the defeat was caused by French food which gave quite a few players a stomach bug. [see Daily Telegraph] :P But no worries, well done France for beating the ruling world champion. :lol: I think France might win the Six Nations. :? But I'm looking forward to the World Cup 2007 in France.

[Francois5 v2.1]

Sounds like I heard that before... Rob, it is not the French who are qualified of perfides...

[Invité Rob]

Sounds like I heard that before...

Rob, it is not the French who are qualified of perfides...

I don't understand, the thing about five or six English players having a stomach illness is true, read up on it on www.telegraph.co.uk or www.bbc.co.uk I don't think it was the major reason for defeat but really my above post was meant to be funny. :rolleyes:

[Francois5 v2.1]

I don't think it was the major reason for defeat but really my above post was meant to be funny.

I know, and mine also. No problem Rob.

I already think you are very courrageous to come here...

[Fonck]

I'm not going to debate pointlessly with guys as ignorant as that.

I.E. gliter/Rob/Nod. If you does your own researche work you will realise that there is no arguing with my previous post for a start.

For the pothers, after reading this researche work you should know a little better at least where to look for proper informations.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why did Dassault obtained the NEURON leader role and BAe doesn't have their TDP yet?

"The French defence procurement agency DGA is committing €300 million ($350 million) to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator,"

DATE:24/06/03 = 6 month BEFORE Raven first flight, two years after AVE-D's.

Reasons? Dassault mastered the stealth issues as well as the whole design and technology attached to it BAe doesn't yet:

(Le Bourget, June 16, 2003)

"Thanks to its unique experience in the development and production of combat aircraft, Dassault Aviation masters all advanced technologies related to this field and considers UCAVs as complementary systems to aircraft of the Rafale class and generation."

Compare to BAe own staments since 2003:

Mike Turner BAe: DATE:20/07/04

SOURCE:Flight International

Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme."

>

Technicaly speaking (1): There is NO equivalent of Moyen/Grand Duc nor NEURON from BAE as for now, regrouping Materials/EM/IR stealth technology in ONE vehicle.

About Dassault?:

They were scrutinised and considered totally capable to develop NEURON by a board of high ranking specialists.

Who says so? DGA doesn't award multi-million contracts just like this to start with but how about:

French Senat Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006.

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/4392/logiduc9in.jpg

>>>>>

Ingenieur general de l'armement Thierry Duquesne.

MM. Phillipe Coq. Directeur des programme Male.

MM Patrick Oswald, Directeur des programmes de drone tactiques et avions de missions (EADS).

M. Pierre Mathieu, Directeur du developement aeronautique de la societe Thales.

M. Eric Trappier, Directeur general adjoint de la societe Dassault Aviation.

M. Jean Francois Coutris, Directeur de la Division Optronique et Systemes aeroterrestres de la societe SAGEM

Lieutenant-colonel Fabienne Chappe, Chef de la division de la reglementation a la Direction de la circulation aerienne militaire (DIRCAM).

Contre-amiral Tandonnet, charge de la coherence operationelle a l'Etat major des Armees.

Ingenieur general de l'Armement Berthet, sous-chef programme de l'Etat-major de l'Armee de l'Air.

Contre-Amiral Laborde, charge de programme de l'Etat-major de la Marine.

General Bolleli, directeur des Opreations.

General Mathian, Directeur technique a la Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE).

MM. Herve Guillou et Denis Verret (EADS).

Ingenieur general de l'Armement Alain Picq, membre de la Delegation permanente de la France au Conseil de l'Atlantique Nord.

Lieutenent-colonel Gay, de la Direction du Renseignement Militaire.

>>>>>

Note the presence of two French renseignements top brasses, (DGSE) and Renseignement Militaire.

I think this can partly explain the amount off confusion which reigns in the Anglo-American press, and even the French press about the AVE programme.

>>>>>

So NOT only this highly qualified bunch coroborate my opinion, but also counterdicts that of the firmly pedestrian trooper (Nod) who have the guts to deny theirs on the ground that he cannot comprehend what they say:

>>>>>On AVE-D and other AVEs stealth.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2057/moyenduc5lj.jpg

"Entirely made of stealth materials" "at the end of a work highlighted by the will to reduce radar and infrared signature".

Technically speaking (2): AVEs exhaust PIPES (or nozzles) are recessed and shrouded in IR supressant materials, that's why you can't SEE them.

AVEs have all the design characteristics of stealth (Material/IR/EM) aircrafts, up to serrated visit doors.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9412/logiduc9rn.png

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/stea-nf.html

Citation:

To avoid detection by thermal imaging devices or targeting by heat-seeking missiles, stealthy aircraft must minimize heat emissions. A major source of such infrared emissions is the engine exhaust."

So no question this is an important issue.

Note: The proheminent exhaust pipe (nozzle) on Corax/Raven is the reason WHY BAe doesn't claim they are researching IR reduction with these two UAVs and also why their descriptif of them is not stealth but L.O or stealthy.

>>>>>About Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast:

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4981/moyenduc5xg.jpg

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/7422/sagemdassault6zu.jpg

This makes AVEs more advanced and stealthier than Raven and even more so than Corax, neither of which posseses IR reduction features.

Corax having straight wings resulting on an increse in radar return.

Raven flew more than a full 3 years after AVE-D, (Juil 2000/Dec 2003) and 3 month AFTER DGA committed to awarding Dassault with a €300 million ($350 million) contract to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator.

Moyen Duc probabilly flew as early as end 2001 and Dassault had two extra years of developement in stealth UAVs before Raven flew.

"Then appears, in July 2001, the "Moyen Duc", weighting 500 kg".(Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006).

It was to be followed by Grand Duc as said by Dassault (The logiduc process) and the Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006.

"The next envisioned step was initially known as the Grand Duc. It called for the acquisition of more complex techniques such as full mission system representativity, composite pack airborne control and collaborative flight, as well as live air to ground weapon release." (Dassault the logiduc process).

"The Grand Duc aimed to validate the operational demonstration of a combat mission, while developing furtivity and flight control".(Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006)

Grand Duc was abandoned as DGA awarded Dassault with

a €300 million ($350 million) contract to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator, on 24/06/03, NEURON which first design and configuration were that of Grand Duc.

All of this occured BEFORE Raven first flight in Dec 2003, as the attention of DGA and Dassault shifted toward an even more ambitious programme made possible by European cooperation.

So between Jul 2000 and June 2003, Dassault were ALSO buzy test-flying Moyen Duc and conceipt-desiging Grand Duc.

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3677/grandduc9ph.jpg

Progresses were clearly made without having to fly the Grand Duc as Furtivity is not one of the main objectives of NEURON.

In their Sept 2004 PDF, Dassault the UCAV purpose as:maintain skills (no new combat aircraft before 2030-40).

European partnership based on:

^ skills

^competitivity.

^budget commitmments.

Partners: SAAB (Sweeden), HAI (Greece), EADS,...

Fisrt flight scheduled in 2009.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3838/neurondassault5bp.jpg

Published Sept 2004.

>>>>>On General stealth researches:

On the other hand, bringing up the issues of Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II without even figuring that the equivalent researches on low Observability (Anechoidal chamber testing) have been conducted with Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast, is plain stupid.

A look at ONERA own site says it all, stealth technology is actively researched at every levels, aerodynamics, materials, shapes, M/IR, electromagnetic (EMI) emitions etc.

Dassault have several REAL stealth UAVs to test in their chamber since 2000 and doesn't NEED any mock-ups for this purpose which in any casse can be replicated by ONERA own laboratories where much of the wrok is also done digitaly.

Testing mockup and material is anyway one of ONERA primary roles.

Dassault develops Low Observability on REAL aircrafts since the Mirage 2000, this involving materials, shapes but also AVIONICS and flight control systems.

As an example, Rafale A was the FIRST European aircraft EVER to fly with Optical Flight control on 4th July 1986....

As for the actual operationl Rafales:

F-15C/Su-27___+06.0db =6.0m²

Typhoon_______+00.5db =1.5m²

Rafale________+00.0db =1.0m²

B-1B/F-18E____+00.0db =1.0m²

LFI___________-20.0db =0.01m²

F-35A/B/C_____-30.0db =0.001m²

F-117A________-35.0db =0.0005m²

F-22A/B-2A____-40.0db =0.0001m²

Rafale have an estimated RCS 50% lower than that of Typhoon.

>>>>>Advances:

ALL Dassault AVEs are more advanced than any of the UK UAVs as they were designed using Dassault unique design tools, covering the full design points spectrum but also full stealth features:

So: Stealth/Aerodynamic/Structural and industrial.

This is helps making more progresses with less funding, a more pragmatic aproach, using higher level of experience and design skills. (Another obvious point conveniently denied by our British friends).

The fact that Dassault doesn't make noises about their work means only one thing, DGSE and military intelligence were involved in the information field.

I started to suspect that this would be the case when my own contacts with Dassault were severed at once end of 2003.

>>>>>On the role of propaganda:

Does France keep her programme secrets and uses propaganda???

First: They have done this previously with Rafale, never actually giving real datas on the aircraft performances and weight.

France leads the field in the EUs with the possible (Still to be confirmed) exeption of Germany with her Barracuda programme(which was also kept secret).

Much depends on the combat capabilities of the German drone, as there is no question that the amount of stealth features of the AVEs and NEURON designs is far higher.

Barracuda is designed around the lines of an UAV as was seen in the late 80s, looking more like Slow/Fast (A tactical recce drone) than the more recent AVE developements.

We will know later on if Barrakuda is a true UCAV demonstrator or a simple UAV part of a UCAV programme,

depending on its future demonstrated combat capabilities.

What this shows is that secrecy and propaganda plays a role here and there is no reasons why France secrets services, and military intelligence wouldn't have put a stop as to what information was made public on UCAV researches.

This interesting image shows images published for a press conference in 2004, if a picture of Petit Duc is shown, the Slow/Fast configuration is according to another Dassault statment, different of that of Moyen Duc.

This image says otherwise.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9242/ducs3lf.jpg

As for Grand Duc its shape also counterdicts Dassault own staments, giving the Moyen and Grand Ducs the same configuration, it i single engined but also posseses a belly-mounted air-intake which by today standards is totally laughable.

Other contemporary pictures of mock-ups show a diferent configuration, consistant with Dassault stament, saying that the second Petit Duc, moyen Duc and Grand Duc were to be given the same. i.e tailless.

"Dassault says a second version of its Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration. The first Petit Duc demonstrator has been flying since mid-2000. The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc."

DATE:24/06/0

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3677/grandduc9ph.jpg

So no doubt about the great level of confusion which have been reigning in the press since 2001, as apparently Moyen Duc "apeared" following AVE-D and AVE-C in 2001, according to the French Senat Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006.

Some time ago i have sugested that the latest Dassault video was showing Moyen Duc, not a Petit Duc.

One of my reasons for doing so was the fact that AVE-D was too small to be equiped with experimental equipements, the drone shortly shown in the movie possesing an aerodynamic probe, suggest a somewhat larger aircraft.

More to the point, it is never shown on the ground, which would have given a better idea of its actual size.

Another clue: We know AVE-D was designed by Dassault, not built by them. There is no such evidence for AVE-C nor Moyen Duc (obviously).

So chances are: AVE-C IS Moyen Duc, a 500 kg aircraft, large enough to posses its own FCS and experimental equipement as the probe suggest, apeared as early as 2001 and was flight tested "discretly" ever since.....

>>>>>So, how about the UK and BAe then???

Something is for sure: There is NO UCAV TDP in the UK and none of the actual flying researche demonstrators are UCAVs.

BAe "Skunkwork" was kept secret for a long time and i believe Dassault played the press the same way while disclosing some of their work.

MoD and BAe chaiman agrees on something though:

There is a need for a UCAV TDP for the UK to develop stealth technology further:

SOURCE:Flight International

Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme."

clearly asking for more even before they can consider being viable partners in a programme like NEURON.

The researches conducted since about 1994 were just that, researches. Not the fully funded Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) that Rob L and RM Nod tried to sell us for the whole of 2005.

Nice as a flame bet but far from the truth, and this, after it became obvious that France was launching NEURON and Dassault main contractor and design lead for the programme.

They don't have it, they have to invent it as most of the rest....

>>>>>About French investments in stealth technology:

As opposed to what Nod is implying with an outdated an innacurate article:

Dassault have been given all help they needed by DGA as well as the technology researched for and with them them by ONERA since the pre-Rafale era. Another point they chose to ignore for obvious reasons....

http://www.onera.fr/actualites/onera-rapport-annuel-2004-2005-fr.pdf

ONERA budget for 2004>>> 188 million Eus on European programmes only.

>>>>>On the design issue:

Denying any experience acquiered from the Falcon serie is a total nonsense and only goes to show some pretty obvious ignorance of aerospacial matters and refusal to aknowledge industrial realities:

For god sake, these guys don't even KNOW what te word design implies, try to take credit for BAE on _JAS-39 Gripen wing (when in fact the prototype flew long before BAe was involved in Gripen International) And "part of" F-35.

Designs point are alien to them, just flame point.

Conceiptual being no diferent from aerodynamic, no different from structural, no different from industrial for production tooling etc.

Reality is: BAe are WAY behind in terms of design skills and technology as shows their many design and managemental fuck-ups.

Managing is the first part of the design process, one have to know how and what to delegate to engineers withing a design team or simply not being able to take the process through. (Nimrod MR4/ASTUTE).

This is where Dassault have a world-leadership no one in the industry would dare denying them, smaller, slimer but load more effiscient.

Dassault-31.

BAe ------6.

No need for photo-finish.

Most of the recent Falcon designed by Dassault are FAR more complex and uses more advanced technologies and design techniques than Corax and Raven.

The only difference is the use of stealth specific material and shapes (NO evidences the same materials are not in used in Falcon designs either but he, we can't know it) as well as aerodynamic laws.

All design issues are traited the same way with CATIA and the virtual tools. Most Falcons have higher performances than Corax and Raven too if not all of them.

"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"

"From the performance point of view, the most significant advantage of FBW was that it enabled Dassault to take full advantage of the three-dimensional Catia design technology applied to the wing, which is totally new and is thinner and longer than any of its forebears. This introduced significant issues with wing flexing and its coupling with the structure during flight – aeroelasticity – so the full performance could be realised only with FBW. The result in the 7X is that Dassault has been able to combine high- and low-speed performance as never before."....

"Fly-by-wire also confers homogenous aircraft handling throughout the flight envelope, regardless of speed, altitude, weight or centre of gravity, and brings pilots the added benefit of sidestick control, which means they enjoy a clear field of view to the instrument panel and – again in common with Airbuses – free space in front of them for a pull-out table.

Dassault's FBW experience dates back to the original Mirage 2000, although in 1963 the company installed a prototype system on a vertical take-off version of the Mirage III, the Balzac, which transitioned to horizontal flight using FBW control of its engine nozzle. The Mirage 2000 is fully FBW-controlled, but uses four analogue computers, while the new Rafale has three digital computers and an analogue back-up."

"Things have moved on. The Falcon 7X features three dual-channel main flight computers (MFC) and three single-channel secondary flight computers (SFC), all of which are fully digital."

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/13/199184/Falcon+7X's+Belle+epoch.html

So here again, a clear advance in technology and design, applyable to all aircraft including UAV/UCAVs i.e AVEs and NEURON.

>>>>>A bit further down the line.

France Aerospacial Industry is firmly involved into developing her own and European UAVs, UCAV and stealth technology through established and DGA led and funded programmes.

The UK have only being developing stealth technology through researches programmes, up to Dassault AVEs point of 2000 Material/EM/IR aerodynamics and flight control.

The much awaited UCAV TDP should have been launched as early as Jan 2006.

Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) was awarded to Dassault by DGA on 24/06/03 but goes a step further in that its MAIN design goal is Networked combat capabilities NOT UCAV stealth technology.

DGA is also involved in developement of new technologies both nationally and through collaborative programmes.

Dassault didn't STOP their own researches on stealth and UCAVs since they got the contract, claiming that would be ignoring their own programmes (Slow/Fast and Moyen Duc) as well as saying that they didn't test the AVEs in their Anechoidal chamber since 2001 and 2003 respectively......

Developement of Slow/Fast is continuing even so the French Army have cancelled the programme in 2004 after failing to define the full requirement for its sensor suite, it didn't involved the aircraft itself.

There is no need nor for France nor Dassault for using for using "nugget technologies" as a way of "leverage" in any collaborative environment as is the case for BAe.

(OUT OF THE SHADOWS)

Quiet the opposite, the other EU company to fly a stealth UAV, SAAB, insisted they wanted IN the NEURON programme with a minimum of 25% workshare; not for the stake of it.

They went on to fight their own politicians and were rewarded with the acceptance of the Sweedish gouvernement in funding Sweeden share of the programme.

This is an issue constantly brought forward by the British press, but also constantly denied by RN Nod and Rob L in their long term atempt to diludes us into thinking that the UK is not only "more advanced" but also had for most of last year, the equivalent of the NEURON programme going on. (WAAF FOAS topics).

To do so they also denied the fact that the UKs were involved with the US J-UCAS programme, claiming that the UK programme was a fully indigenous one...

"The import of the British Defense Ministry's clearance for BAE to begin to discuss the Raven also plays into the far wider issue of U.K. collaboration in developing an operational UCAV. Britain had signed up for Washington's now defunct Joint-Unmanned Combat Air System, with a transatlantic acquisition program likely to follow. Continuing--and, some British sources suggest, worsening--problems with British access on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program also play into this arena."

(OUT OF THE SHADOWS)

Quote RM Nod on the WAAF:

"How? The only way I could have been wrong is if the UK is actively developing one of the X-UCAVs which it isn’t."

He is wrong all the way, the UK have signed-up to J-UCAS and US-based UK companies WERE involved in this NOW cancelled programme with the loss of money involved in top of the F-35 cost-over-run ones.

FACTS: BAe Chairman Mike Turner have been crying out for this TDP for more than ten years for a very good reason, they NEED to keep up both technologically but also and even more so design-wise.

As Dassault is not only EU number ONE but also, in design and production procedures World leader as proven by Falcon 7X.

FACTS: While BAe had partly state-funded researches programmes going on with Mock-ups, and diverse researches vehicles (Corax/Raven/Chameleon), NONE have ever achieved the same goal than AVE-D on its own nor did they allow the company to reach the point where Dassault were in 2003.

Most of this type of researches with material and stealth are conducted by ONERA and then Dassault when it comes to the applyable part of it.

FACTS: AVEs might at least be three in number, as well as their Slow/Fast derivative.

That's THREE Stealth, THREE aerodynamic configurations, THREE different scales/weights into four different vehicles and we talk about existing UAVs not NEURON. From 50 to 500 kg.

ALL of which posseses the full stealth features, materiaLs, EM and IR.

Corax and Raven shares the same body but ALSO the same flight control systems.

AVEs doesn't share more than the same body shape and engines for the Petit Ducs.

So saying that BAe acquiered MORE experience from their work in both stealth, technology and design is also false. The opposite is very obvious.

Quoting Mike Turner BAe: DATE:20/07/04

SOURCE:Flight International

Regarding potential

collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme."

>>>>>About what is coming next:

Since 2003, Dassault have been working at puting together an industrial solution for the programme NEURON.

This aspect is the most important of all when it comes to design solutions as used in the Falcon 7X programme.

This was aimed to allow for the collaboration in the programme by european countries in the same fashion as have been done Nationaly on the Falcon 7X.

"All that has changed with the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) system used for the Falcon 7X. The entire aircraft is now described as a three-dimensional virtual entity, using Dassault's new Virtual Reality Centre at its St Cloud, Paris headquarters.

Engineers visiting the centre use stereoscopic spectacles to view all aspects of the 7X design in as much detail as necessary and can seemingly enter the structure to view pipes, electrical wiring or complete systems to check how they interact with the aircraft.

The power of the PLM system is that it enables everyone involved in designing and building the 7X to share exactly the same information. The entire design and manufacture process is now linked so that for the first time the digital model of the aircraft contains enough information to manufacture it.

As a result, Dassault has been able to vastly refine its relationship with its suppliers by linking them all with the Falcon 7X database.

For the preliminary design phase all of the suppliers, initially numbering 400 people from 27 companies and seven countries, gathered at St Cloud.

Once preliminary design was completed, they returned to their companies to work together on Dassault's unique, shared database, connected through a France Telecom-supplied permanent high-speed datalink."

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198909/Virtual+system+produces+digital+dream+.html

So; cut the bull you funnies (Rob/Nod/Gliter), Dassault is at least two full decenies in advance both technologically and design-wise over BAe and this is partly WHY France Aerospace Industry is Number TWO worldwhile.... It's too easy to take the mickey expecting people to be as uneducated as yourself.

Another example:

"Dassault is leading a team of 37 partners in the European Commission-funded High Speed Aircraft (HISAC) study programme."

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198917/On+their++Machs.html

>>>>>

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2004/07/20/184476/BAE+pushes+UK+on+UCAV+initiative.html

DefenceSubscribeYou are in: Home › Defence › News Article

DATE:20/07/04

SOURCE:Flight International

BAE pushes UK on UCAV initiative

Manufacturer stresses importance of launching national programme before making decision on collaboration

BAE Systems is pushing the UK government to launch a national unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) programme ahead of any decision on whether to sign up to projects already under way in Europe and the USA.

The USA and the French-led Neuron group are forging ahead with UCAV work, but the UK Ministry of Defence is yet to reach a decision on initial gate approval for the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS) programme, which will almost certainly include a UCAV component (Flight International, 6-12 April).

"We have to see [the UCAV discussions] come to fruition in the next few months," says BAE chief executive Mike Turner. Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme."

The MoD's Defence Procurement Agency says an initial gate decision on FOAS is still expected this year. It adds: "We are still at quite an early stage. We are looking at all the options and no decisions have been taken." Initial gate approval has been repeatedly delayed, with the most recent target date having passed last May.

Intended to replace the Royal Air Force's Panavia Tornado GR4 strike aircraft from around 2018, FOAS will provide the capability to conduct long-range attacks against time-critical targets and is likely to comprise manned and unmanned combat aircraft, cruise missiles and air-launched unmanned air vehicles.

The MoD has requested information on the USA's Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) programme from the US Department of Defense, and the possibility of a Joint Strike Fighter-style international collaborative programme has been discussed. The J-UCAS prime contractors are Boeing, developing the X-45C UCAV, and Northrop Grumman with the X-47B. The USAir Force plans to use UCAVs for suppression of enemy air defences, while the US Navy envisages an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance role.

Europe's Neuron UCAV demonstrator project has Dassault Aviation as its prime contractor. The system is seen as a potential replacement for current-generation fighters including the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab/BAE Systems Gripen. Greece, Spain and Sweden have also joined the project.

ANDREW DOYLE / LONDON

>>>>>Conclusion:

It's so easy for some Brits to take the mickey and start "soft" flame topics: Not knowing what they are talking about is what characterise them.

There is a difference between trying to inform or simply being a Jack-ass emulator, implying "superiority" where reality show otherwise, most of the time the opposite.

French forum readers have NO need to invent programmes and capabilities, even the Anglo-American specialised press reconise France as a clear leader in the Aerospacial industry, as does the real figure:

What a pitty that Thunder/Fonck/Gegene is an educated enthusiast with access to the same information sources (and a lot more) than the Anglo-Americans...

We are the best in Europe and second ONLY to the US.

French drone, or collaborative programmes:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/774/dronessdtifrance15pj.jpg

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4109/sperwer2hq.jpg

http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4223/322966478oq.jpg

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4223/322966478oq.th.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1448/dronesmaleeagle1kirunaeadsiai1.jpg

http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/8564/droneminiatureprojetensmm12vi.jpg

http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3503/droneminiatureprojetensma14hd.jpg

http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9154/droneminiatureauryon12fi.jpg

http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4585/dronessdtifrance14fq.jpg

http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png

Et j'en passe...

[RM-Nod]

Work on Neuron didn’t start until last month though, money may have been committed in 2003 but the only work done was initial concept definition which BAE began in 1997 studying 30 + concepts under FOAS.

I’m also sure that Dassault is fully capable of developing Neuron but that wasn’t the discussion that I’ve been reading, the discussion I’ve been reading is about BAE System’s capability in the UCAV arena relative to Dassault’s.

As for comparing the AVE-D/C to the Raven you can claim it to be more advanced in a certain area however in others Raven is the more advanced. For example Raven is autonomous, the AVE aircraft are not. But why does this matter? The answer is that it doesn’t, the point in these vehicles is to develop technologies and demonstrate them, not to build a prototype. If you want to produce IR signature reduction materials, techniques etc there is no reason to fly them on a UAV, a Hawk will do. Also when you’re testing materials, ground based demonstrators will do; in fact in some ways they’re better because they can be built to full scale which gives more representative results of an actual aircraft (smaller vehicles usually can’t have the same thickness of RAM etc). The fact is that both companies have developed EM, IR signature reduction technologies along with advance, novel aerodynamic configurations. However it is also true that BAE Systems has done more of this work along with additional development activity giving BAE more experience over a wider range of areas. You can say AVE-D did this and this in one vehicle but it doesn’t change that basic fact.

On Moyen Duc, you still have no evidence that it flew, you have a single source that says it “appeared” in 2001 but there are also sources that say that the project started in 2001 and that the first flight was expected in 2003 and then 2004. You’re answer to this is that Dassault lied, does anyone here actually believe this do you think?

On the other hand, bringing up the issues of Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II without even figuring that the equivalent researches on low Observability (Anechoidal chamber testing) have been conducted with Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast, is plain stupid.

But there’s no evidence of exactly what work was carried out; we don’t know what delays were encountered, we don’t know what problems were encountered, we don’t know what funding was allocated. That’s the reason why I haven’t been saying “the MoD was planning on having a new strike plane in service by 2015 since 1994 so they must have done more work”, I’ve only been talking about the work we know was done.

It’s all well and good saying “but it’s been done, they can do, ONERA can do this and that” but without evidence of exactly what’s been done it doesn’t mean anything. Qinetiq, DSTL, ERA and a number of others do say they are carrying out the same work but without the details these statements could mean anything.

The fact that Dassault doesn't make noises about their work means only one thing, DGSE and military intelligence were involved in the information field.

Dassault waited a couple of months before detailing the AVE-D, BAE waited two years before detailing Raven, if anyone is making noises it’s Dassault, they just have less to talk about.

As opposed to what Nod is implying with an outdated an innacurate article:

Dassault have been given all help they needed by DGA as well as the technology researched for and with them them by ONERA since the pre-Rafale era. Another point they chose to ignore for obvious reasons....

No Dassault asked for a manned demonstrator in 1997 which they didn’t get. Just as BAE asked for a manned demonstrator in 1994 which they didn’t get. Yet as everyone can clearly see BAE got Replica while Dassault wasn’t giving anything similar, at least not according to public knowledge.

I’m not going to rise up to the rest of your personal attacks.

[Fonck]

All you can do is keep yourself in this state of ignorance and denial of yours. Yourpoint doesn't stick. Period. Dassault got all they needed and more, a full programme YEARS before Raven first flight and had YEARS of more complete experience of full stealth features in MORE flying vehicle than BAe.. As for the part played by DGA in the funding of researches in France, see ONERA on their own site, MAYBE you'll get yourself out of this ignorance of yours...

[Fonck]

"No Dassault asked for a manned demonstrator in 1997 which they didn’t get."

LIAR they havd a full 300 million two YEARS before BAe Raven first flight.

All you can do is keep yourself in this state of ignorance and denial of yours. Yourpoint doesn't stick. Period.

Dassault got all they needed and more, a full programme YEARS before Raven first flight and had YEARS of more complete experience of full stealth features in MORE flying vehicle than BAe..

As for the part played by DGA in the funding of researches in France, see ONERA on their own site, MAYBE you'll get yourself out of this ignorance of yours...

[Fonck]

Here try again and learn some. Without your twist-and-spin technique which fools ony yourself. I.E. gliter/Rob/Nod. If you does your own researche work you will realise that there is no arguing with my previous post for a start. For the pothers, after reading this researche work you should know a little better at least where to look for proper informations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Dassault obtained the NEURON leader role and BAe doesn't have their TDP yet? "The French defence procurement agency DGA is committing €300 million ($350 million) to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator," DATE:24/06/03 = 6 month BEFORE Raven first flight, two years after AVE-D's. Reasons? Dassault mastered the stealth issues as well as the whole design and technology attached to it BAe doesn't yet: (Le Bourget, June 16, 2003) "Thanks to its unique experience in the development and production of combat aircraft, Dassault Aviation masters all advanced technologies related to this field and considers UCAVs as complementary systems to aircraft of the Rafale class and generation." Compare to BAe own staments since 2003: Mike Turner BAe: DATE:20/07/04 SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." > Technicaly speaking (1): There is NO equivalent of Moyen/Grand Duc nor NEURON from BAE as for now, regrouping Materials/EM/IR stealth technology in ONE vehicle. About Dassault?: They were scrutinised and considered totally capable to develop NEURON by a board of high ranking specialists. Who says so? DGA doesn't award multi-million contracts just like this to start with but how about: French Senat Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/4392/logiduc9in.jpg >>>>> Ingenieur general de l'armement Thierry Duquesne. MM. Phillipe Coq. Directeur des programme Male. MM Patrick Oswald, Directeur des programmes de drone tactiques et avions de missions (EADS). M. Pierre Mathieu, Directeur du developement aeronautique de la societe Thales. M. Eric Trappier, Directeur general adjoint de la societe Dassault Aviation. M. Jean Francois Coutris, Directeur de la Division Optronique et Systemes aeroterrestres de la societe SAGEM Lieutenant-colonel Fabienne Chappe, Chef de la division de la reglementation a la Direction de la circulation aerienne militaire (DIRCAM). Contre-amiral Tandonnet, charge de la coherence operationelle a l'Etat major des Armees. Ingenieur general de l'Armement Berthet, sous-chef programme de l'Etat-major de l'Armee de l'Air. Contre-Amiral Laborde, charge de programme de l'Etat-major de la Marine. General Bolleli, directeur des Opreations. General Mathian, Directeur technique a la Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE). MM. Herve Guillou et Denis Verret (EADS). Ingenieur general de l'Armement Alain Picq, membre de la Delegation permanente de la France au Conseil de l'Atlantique Nord. Lieutenent-colonel Gay, de la Direction du Renseignement Militaire. >>>>> Note the presence of two French renseignements top brasses, (DGSE) and Renseignement Militaire. I think this can partly explain the amount off confusion which reigns in the Anglo-American press, and even the French press about the AVE programme. >>>>> So NOT only this highly qualified bunch coroborate my opinion, but also counterdicts that of the firmly pedestrian trooper (Nod) who have the guts to deny theirs on the ground that he cannot comprehend what they say: >>>>>On AVE-D and other AVEs stealth. http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2057/moyenduc5lj.jpg "Entirely made of stealth materials" "at the end of a work highlighted by the will to reduce radar and infrared signature". Technically speaking (2): AVEs exhaust PIPES (or nozzles) are recessed and shrouded in IR supressant materials, that's why you can't SEE them. AVEs have all the design characteristics of stealth (Material/IR/EM) aircrafts, up to serrated visit doors. http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9412/logiduc9rn.png http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/stea-nf.html Citation: To avoid detection by thermal imaging devices or targeting by heat-seeking missiles, stealthy aircraft must minimize heat emissions. A major source of such infrared emissions is the engine exhaust." So no question this is an important issue. Note: The proheminent exhaust pipe (nozzle) on Corax/Raven is the reason WHY BAe doesn't claim they are researching IR reduction with these two UAVs and also why their descriptif of them is not stealth but L.O or stealthy. >>>>>About Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast: http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4981/moyenduc5xg.jpg http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/7422/sagemdassault6zu.jpg This makes AVEs more advanced and stealthier than Raven and even more so than Corax, neither of which posseses IR reduction features. Corax having straight wings resulting on an increse in radar return. Raven flew more than a full 3 years after AVE-D, (Juil 2000/Dec 2003) and 3 month AFTER DGA committed to awarding Dassault with a €300 million ($350 million) contract to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator. Moyen Duc probabilly flew as early as end 2001 and Dassault had two extra years of developement in stealth UAVs before Raven flew. "Then appears, in July 2001, the "Moyen Duc", weighting 500 kg".(Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006). It was to be followed by Grand Duc as said by Dassault (The logiduc process) and the Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. "The next envisioned step was initially known as the Grand Duc. It called for the acquisition of more complex techniques such as full mission system representativity, composite pack airborne control and collaborative flight, as well as live air to ground weapon release." (Dassault the logiduc process). "The Grand Duc aimed to validate the operational demonstration of a combat mission, while developing furtivity and flight control".(Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006) Grand Duc was abandoned as DGA awarded Dassault with a €300 million ($350 million) contract to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator, on 24/06/03, NEURON which first design and configuration were that of Grand Duc. All of this occured BEFORE Raven first flight in Dec 2003, as the attention of DGA and Dassault shifted toward an even more ambitious programme made possible by European cooperation. So between Jul 2000 and June 2003, Dassault were ALSO buzy test-flying Moyen Duc and conceipt-desiging Grand Duc. http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3677/grandduc9ph.jpg Progresses were clearly made without having to fly the Grand Duc as Furtivity is not one of the main objectives of NEURON. In their Sept 2004 PDF, Dassault the UCAV purpose as:maintain skills (no new combat aircraft before 2030-40). European partnership based on: ^ skills ^competitivity. ^budget commitmments. Partners: SAAB (Sweeden), HAI (Greece), EADS,... Fisrt flight scheduled in 2009. http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3838/neurondassault5bp.jpg Published Sept 2004. >>>>>On General stealth researches: On the other hand, bringing up the issues of Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II without even figuring that the equivalent researches on low Observability (Anechoidal chamber testing) have been conducted with Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast, is plain stupid. A look at ONERA own site says it all, stealth technology is actively researched at every levels, aerodynamics, materials, shapes, M/IR, electromagnetic (EMI) emitions etc. Dassault have several REAL stealth UAVs to test in their chamber since 2000 and doesn't NEED any mock-ups for this purpose which in any casse can be replicated by ONERA own laboratories where much of the wrok is also done digitaly. Testing mockup and material is anyway one of ONERA primary roles. Dassault develops Low Observability on REAL aircrafts since the Mirage 2000, this involving materials, shapes but also AVIONICS and flight control systems. As an example, Rafale A was the FIRST European aircraft EVER to fly with Optical Flight control on 4th July 1986.... As for the actual operationl Rafales: F-15C/Su-27___+06.0db =6.0m² Typhoon_______+00.5db =1.5m² Rafale________+00.0db =1.0m² B-1B/F-18E____+00.0db =1.0m² LFI___________-20.0db =0.01m² F-35A/B/C_____-30.0db =0.001m² F-117A________-35.0db =0.0005m² F-22A/B-2A____-40.0db =0.0001m² Rafale have an estimated RCS 50% lower than that of Typhoon. >>>>>Advances: ALL Dassault AVEs are more advanced than any of the UK UAVs as they were designed using Dassault unique design tools, covering the full design points spectrum but also full stealth features: So: Stealth/Aerodynamic/Structural and industrial. This is helps making more progresses with less funding, a more pragmatic aproach, using higher level of experience and design skills. (Another obvious point conveniently denied by our British friends). The fact that Dassault doesn't make noises about their work means only one thing, DGSE and military intelligence were involved in the information field. I started to suspect that this would be the case when my own contacts with Dassault were severed at once end of 2003. >>>>>On the role of propaganda: Does France keep her programme secrets and uses propaganda??? First: They have done this previously with Rafale, never actually giving real datas on the aircraft performances and weight. France leads the field in the EUs with the possible (Still to be confirmed) exeption of Germany with her Barracuda programme(which was also kept secret). Much depends on the combat capabilities of the German drone, as there is no question that the amount of stealth features of the AVEs and NEURON designs is far higher. Barracuda is designed around the lines of an UAV as was seen in the late 80s, looking more like Slow/Fast (A tactical recce drone) than the more recent AVE developements. We will know later on if Barrakuda is a true UCAV demonstrator or a simple UAV part of a UCAV programme, depending on its future demonstrated combat capabilities. What this shows is that secrecy and propaganda plays a role here and there is no reasons why France secrets services, and military intelligence wouldn't have put a stop as to what information was made public on UCAV researches. This interesting image shows images published for a press conference in 2004, if a picture of Petit Duc is shown, the Slow/Fast configuration is according to another Dassault statment, different of that of Moyen Duc. This image says otherwise. http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9242/ducs3lf.jpg As for Grand Duc its shape also counterdicts Dassault own staments, giving the Moyen and Grand Ducs the same configuration, it i single engined but also posseses a belly-mounted air-intake which by today standards is totally laughable. Other contemporary pictures of mock-ups show a diferent configuration, consistant with Dassault stament, saying that the second Petit Duc, moyen Duc and Grand Duc were to be given the same. i.e tailless. "Dassault says a second version of its Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration. The first Petit Duc demonstrator has been flying since mid-2000. The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc." DATE:24/06/0 http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3677/grandduc9ph.jpg So no doubt about the great level of confusion which have been reigning in the press since 2001, as apparently Moyen Duc "apeared" following AVE-D and AVE-C in 2001, according to the French Senat Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. Some time ago i have sugested that the latest Dassault video was showing Moyen Duc, not a Petit Duc. One of my reasons for doing so was the fact that AVE-D was too small to be equiped with experimental equipements, the drone shortly shown in the movie possesing an aerodynamic probe, suggest a somewhat larger aircraft. More to the point, it is never shown on the ground, which would have given a better idea of its actual size. Another clue: We know AVE-D was designed by Dassault, not built by them. There is no such evidence for AVE-C nor Moyen Duc (obviously). So chances are: AVE-C IS Moyen Duc, a 500 kg aircraft, large enough to posses its own FCS and experimental equipement as the probe suggest, apeared as early as 2001 and was flight tested "discretly" ever since..... >>>>>So, how about the UK and BAe then??? Something is for sure: There is NO UCAV TDP in the UK and none of the actual flying researche demonstrators are UCAVs. BAe "Skunkwork" was kept secret for a long time and i believe Dassault played the press the same way while disclosing some of their work. MoD and BAe chaiman agrees on something though: There is a need for a UCAV TDP for the UK to develop stealth technology further: SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." clearly asking for more even before they can consider being viable partners in a programme like NEURON. The researches conducted since about 1994 were just that, researches. Not the fully funded Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) that Rob L and RM Nod tried to sell us for the whole of 2005. Nice as a flame bet but far from the truth, and this, after it became obvious that France was launching NEURON and Dassault main contractor and design lead for the programme. They don't have it, they have to invent it as most of the rest.... >>>>>About French investments in stealth technology: As opposed to what Nod is implying with an outdated an innacurate article: Dassault have been given all help they needed by DGA as well as the technology researched for and with them them by ONERA since the pre-Rafale era. Another point they chose to ignore for obvious reasons.... http://www.onera.fr/actualites/onera-rapport-annuel-2004-2005-fr.pdf ONERA budget for 2004>>> 188 million Eus on European programmes only. >>>>>On the design issue: Denying any experience acquiered from the Falcon serie is a total nonsense and only goes to show some pretty obvious ignorance of aerospacial matters and refusal to aknowledge industrial realities: For god sake, these guys don't even KNOW what te word design implies, try to take credit for BAE on _JAS-39 Gripen wing (when in fact the prototype flew long before BAe was involved in Gripen International) And "part of" F-35. Designs point are alien to them, just flame point. Conceiptual being no diferent from aerodynamic, no different from structural, no different from industrial for production tooling etc. Reality is: BAe are WAY behind in terms of design skills and technology as shows their many design and managemental fuck-ups. Managing is the first part of the design process, one have to know how and what to delegate to engineers withing a design team or simply not being able to take the process through. (Nimrod MR4/ASTUTE). This is where Dassault have a world-leadership no one in the industry would dare denying them, smaller, slimer but load more effiscient. Dassault-31. BAe ------6. No need for photo-finish. Most of the recent Falcon designed by Dassault are FAR more complex and uses more advanced technologies and design techniques than Corax and Raven. The only difference is the use of stealth specific material and shapes (NO evidences the same materials are not in used in Falcon designs either but he, we can't know it) as well as aerodynamic laws. All design issues are traited the same way with CATIA and the virtual tools. Most Falcons have higher performances than Corax and Raven too if not all of them. "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" "From the performance point of view, the most significant advantage of FBW was that it enabled Dassault to take full advantage of the three-dimensional Catia design technology applied to the wing, which is totally new and is thinner and longer than any of its forebears. This introduced significant issues with wing flexing and its coupling with the structure during flight – aeroelasticity – so the full performance could be realised only with FBW. The result in the 7X is that Dassault has been able to combine high- and low-speed performance as never before.".... "Fly-by-wire also confers homogenous aircraft handling throughout the flight envelope, regardless of speed, altitude, weight or centre of gravity, and brings pilots the added benefit of sidestick control, which means they enjoy a clear field of view to the instrument panel and – again in common with Airbuses – free space in front of them for a pull-out table. Dassault's FBW experience dates back to the original Mirage 2000, although in 1963 the company installed a prototype system on a vertical take-off version of the Mirage III, the Balzac, which transitioned to horizontal flight using FBW control of its engine nozzle. The Mirage 2000 is fully FBW-controlled, but uses four analogue computers, while the new Rafale has three digital computers and an analogue back-up." "Things have moved on. The Falcon 7X features three dual-channel main flight computers (MFC) and three single-channel secondary flight computers (SFC), all of which are fully digital." http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/13/199184/Falcon+7X's+Belle+epoch.html So here again, a clear advance in technology and design, applyable to all aircraft including UAV/UCAVs i.e AVEs and NEURON. >>>>>A bit further down the line. France Aerospacial Industry is firmly involved into developing her own and European UAVs, UCAV and stealth technology through established and DGA led and funded programmes. The UK have only being developing stealth technology through researches programmes, up to Dassault AVEs point of 2000 Material/EM/IR aerodynamics and flight control. The much awaited UCAV TDP should have been launched as early as Jan 2006. Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) was awarded to Dassault by DGA on 24/06/03 but goes a step further in that its MAIN design goal is Networked combat capabilities NOT UCAV stealth technology. DGA is also involved in developement of new technologies both nationally and through collaborative programmes. Dassault didn't STOP their own researches on stealth and UCAVs since they got the contract, claiming that would be ignoring their own programmes (Slow/Fast and Moyen Duc) as well as saying that they didn't test the AVEs in their Anechoidal chamber since 2001 and 2003 respectively...... Developement of Slow/Fast is continuing even so the French Army have cancelled the programme in 2004 after failing to define the full requirement for its sensor suite, it didn't involved the aircraft itself. There is no need nor for France nor Dassault for using for using "nugget technologies" as a way of "leverage" in any collaborative environment as is the case for BAe. (OUT OF THE SHADOWS) Quiet the opposite, the other EU company to fly a stealth UAV, SAAB, insisted they wanted IN the NEURON programme with a minimum of 25% workshare; not for the stake of it. They went on to fight their own politicians and were rewarded with the acceptance of the Sweedish gouvernement in funding Sweeden share of the programme. This is an issue constantly brought forward by the British press, but also constantly denied by RN Nod and Rob L in their long term atempt to diludes us into thinking that the UK is not only "more advanced" but also had for most of last year, the equivalent of the NEURON programme going on. (WAAF FOAS topics). To do so they also denied the fact that the UKs were involved with the US J-UCAS programme, claiming that the UK programme was a fully indigenous one... "The import of the British Defense Ministry's clearance for BAE to begin to discuss the Raven also plays into the far wider issue of U.K. collaboration in developing an operational UCAV. Britain had signed up for Washington's now defunct Joint-Unmanned Combat Air System, with a transatlantic acquisition program likely to follow. Continuing--and, some British sources suggest, worsening--problems with British access on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program also play into this arena." (OUT OF THE SHADOWS) Quote RM Nod on the WAAF: "How? The only way I could have been wrong is if the UK is actively developing one of the X-UCAVs which it isn’t." He is wrong all the way, the UK have signed-up to J-UCAS and US-based UK companies WERE involved in this NOW cancelled programme with the loss of money involved in top of the F-35 cost-over-run ones. FACTS: BAe Chairman Mike Turner have been crying out for this TDP for more than ten years for a very good reason, they NEED to keep up both technologically but also and even more so design-wise. As Dassault is not only EU number ONE but also, in design and production procedures World leader as proven by Falcon 7X. FACTS: While BAe had partly state-funded researches programmes going on with Mock-ups, and diverse researches vehicles (Corax/Raven/Chameleon), NONE have ever achieved the same goal than AVE-D on its own nor did they allow the company to reach the point where Dassault were in 2003. Most of this type of researches with material and stealth are conducted by ONERA and then Dassault when it comes to the applyable part of it. FACTS: AVEs might at least be three in number, as well as their Slow/Fast derivative. That's THREE Stealth, THREE aerodynamic configurations, THREE different scales/weights into four different vehicles and we talk about existing UAVs not NEURON. From 50 to 500 kg. ALL of which posseses the full stealth features, materiaLs, EM and IR. Corax and Raven shares the same body but ALSO the same flight control systems. AVEs doesn't share more than the same body shape and engines for the Petit Ducs. So saying that BAe acquiered MORE experience from their work in both stealth, technology and design is also false. The opposite is very obvious. Quoting Mike Turner BAe: DATE:20/07/04 SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." >>>>>About what is coming next: Since 2003, Dassault have been working at puting together an industrial solution for the programme NEURON. This aspect is the most important of all when it comes to design solutions as used in the Falcon 7X programme. This was aimed to allow for the collaboration in the programme by european countries in the same fashion as have been done Nationaly on the Falcon 7X. "All that has changed with the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) system used for the Falcon 7X. The entire aircraft is now described as a three-dimensional virtual entity, using Dassault's new Virtual Reality Centre at its St Cloud, Paris headquarters. Engineers visiting the centre use stereoscopic spectacles to view all aspects of the 7X design in as much detail as necessary and can seemingly enter the structure to view pipes, electrical wiring or complete systems to check how they interact with the aircraft. The power of the PLM system is that it enables everyone involved in designing and building the 7X to share exactly the same information. The entire design and manufacture process is now linked so that for the first time the digital model of the aircraft contains enough information to manufacture it. As a result, Dassault has been able to vastly refine its relationship with its suppliers by linking them all with the Falcon 7X database. For the preliminary design phase all of the suppliers, initially numbering 400 people from 27 companies and seven countries, gathered at St Cloud. Once preliminary design was completed, they returned to their companies to work together on Dassault's unique, shared database, connected through a France Telecom-supplied permanent high-speed datalink." http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198909/Virtual+system+produces+digital+dream+.html So; cut the bull you funnies (Rob/Nod/Gliter), Dassault is at least two full decenies in advance both technologically and design-wise over BAe and this is partly WHY France Aerospace Industry is Number TWO worldwhile.... It's too easy to take the mickey expecting people to be as uneducated as yourself. Another example: "Dassault is leading a team of 37 partners in the European Commission-funded High Speed Aircraft (HISAC) study programme." http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198917/On+their++Machs.html >>>>> http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2004/07/20/184476/BAE+pushes+UK+on+UCAV+initiative.html DefenceSubscribeYou are in: Home › Defence › News Article DATE:20/07/04 SOURCE:Flight International BAE pushes UK on UCAV initiative Manufacturer stresses importance of launching national programme before making decision on collaboration BAE Systems is pushing the UK government to launch a national unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) programme ahead of any decision on whether to sign up to projects already under way in Europe and the USA. The USA and the French-led Neuron group are forging ahead with UCAV work, but the UK Ministry of Defence is yet to reach a decision on initial gate approval for the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS) programme, which will almost certainly include a UCAV component (Flight International, 6-12 April). "We have to see [the UCAV discussions] come to fruition in the next few months," says BAE chief executive Mike Turner. Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." The MoD's Defence Procurement Agency says an initial gate decision on FOAS is still expected this year. It adds: "We are still at quite an early stage. We are looking at all the options and no decisions have been taken." Initial gate approval has been repeatedly delayed, with the most recent target date having passed last May. Intended to replace the Royal Air Force's Panavia Tornado GR4 strike aircraft from around 2018, FOAS will provide the capability to conduct long-range attacks against time-critical targets and is likely to comprise manned and unmanned combat aircraft, cruise missiles and air-launched unmanned air vehicles. The MoD has requested information on the USA's Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) programme from the US Department of Defense, and the possibility of a Joint Strike Fighter-style international collaborative programme has been discussed. The J-UCAS prime contractors are Boeing, developing the X-45C UCAV, and Northrop Grumman with the X-47B. The USAir Force plans to use UCAVs for suppression of enemy air defences, while the US Navy envisages an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance role. Europe's Neuron UCAV demonstrator project has Dassault Aviation as its prime contractor. The system is seen as a potential replacement for current-generation fighters including the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab/BAE Systems Gripen. Greece, Spain and Sweden have also joined the project. ANDREW DOYLE / LONDON >>>>>Conclusion: It's so easy for some Brits to take the mickey and start "soft" flame topics: Not knowing what they are talking about is what characterise them. There is a difference between trying to inform or simply being a Jack-ass emulator, implying "superiority" where reality show otherwise, most of the time the opposite. French forum readers have NO need to invent programmes and capabilities, even the Anglo-American specialised press reconise France as a clear leader in the Aerospacial industry, as does the real figure: What a pitty that Thunder/Fonck/Gegene is an educated enthusiast with access to the same information sources (and a lot more) than the Anglo-Americans... We are the best in Europe and second ONLY to the US. French drone, or collaborative programmes: http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/774/dronessdtifrance15pj.jpg http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4109/sperwer2hq.jpg http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4223/322966478oq.jpg http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1448/dronesmaleeagle1kirunaeadsiai1.jpg http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/8564/droneminiatureprojetensmm12vi.jpg http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3503/droneminiatureprojetensma14hd.jpg http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9154/droneminiatureauryon12fi.jpg http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4585/dronessdtifrance14fq.jpg Et j'en passe...

[RM-Nod]

"No Dassault asked for a manned demonstrator in 1997 which they didn’t get."

LIAR they havd a full 300 million two YEARS before BAe Raven first flight.

So Dassault had a manned demonstrator did it or was Jane's lying? If it's the first then please provide the evidence and if its the latter do you accept that your quote about BAE wanting a demonstrator is meaningless?

Since we've come down to some fundamental disagreements and you're now just repeating yourself instead of actually discussing the issues perhaps its time to agree to disagree.

[Fonck]

We're talking about UCAVs, the manned demonstrator is NOT needed before 2020. so you keep twisting the subject HERE. Point is: Years more experience in stealth UAV a full TDP two years before Raven first flight and the only one which is fully stealth complient. You have NO point to make.

[RM-Nod]

So why did you post a quote about BAE wanting a manned demonstrator in 1994? Twist and spin eh? ;) :rolleyes:

[Fonck]

Nothing to do with this. I was trying to be informative without making ANY particular point. The shift to unmanned is common to both France and the UK. BUT the possibility of manned aircraft remains in France plans and firmly in that of Dassault.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2825/ave011zq.jpg

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8176/ave025xl.jpg

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2566/ave032ng.jpg

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1975/ave049md.jpg

There is more to it. Yet ANOTHER UCAV configuration at least simulated by Dassault virtually.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8211/ave074uh.jpg

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1319/ave88zv.jpg

Combining V-shaped tail and crancked delta CANARD configuration...

As for you two funnies at thw rate infos are coming from Dassault in the form of small clues, you're in for some pretty hard time...

Pitty you never bother learnig by simple (total) lack of interest.

Another clue: The second AVE flying in the last (Yes another one) Dassault movie seems to have a totally differentr flight patern more alike that of an heavier aircraft...... Anything between 350 and 500 kg...

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/503/ave061zq.jpg

Yet another one, as i told YOU Nod, the "Crocodile" configuration of the ailerons of the second AVE is somewhat complicated for a small (50kg) UAV. Too complicated too. It is only advantageous on a large (enough) aircraft.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4089/ave055ak.jpg

Since you too are (I'm sorry to say) far from being where i am in knowledge of such things, even at BIA entrence level, you simply cannot comprehend the logic behind it.

Analysis restes mainly on knowledge and the best analysts doesn't get doctorates for nothing....

I'm far from them, but i'm far ahead of you and more to tha ponit i'm interested and learn from them. You two uses this subject as flame bet no passion, no interest, no understanding.

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2803/neuroninternals6sn.jpg

So here is the level of advance in NEURON design for you. Keep claiming they are late.....

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9681/neuroninternals028sz.jpg

Have a nice one.