BAe et leurs U(C)AVs

glitter · le 13 mars 2006

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.

And one crash ahead of Bae :rolleyes:

Fonck · le 13 mars 2006

"And one crash ahead of Bae" you mean your brain have crashed again? Care to do some more than your usual mediocre chien ecrase rubrique. Must be constipation.... Get yourself a good diet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try these fo size.

RM-Nod · le 13 mars 2006

Nothing to do with this. I was trying to be informative without making ANY particular point.

So you mean you were purposefully posting irrelevant things? Why?

On the video, the control methods and internal systems required for a tailless design like that are not too complicated or bulky to be implemented in an aircraft of around 2.5m wingspan and 60kg weight; you’re making that up. There are plenty of similar aircraft that are around the same size that either have the same control problems, the same internal space or both. Aircraft that come to mind include the X-36, SHARC, FILUR. Also will you explain why, if that aircraft is the Moyen Duc, why it has landing gear later in the video when the Moyen Duc was never to have landing gear at all?

I don't see your point in posting all the pictures, they don't show anything that hasn't already been discussed beyond a couple of concepts which every company produces.

As for whether you’re knowledgeable than I am, I prefer to let other people judge that.

Edit - By the way, since you're into the habbit of posting things that have nothing to do with the topic "just to be informative" then can I ask how much of the rest of your posts are just there to be informative without making a point?

vendest · le 13 mars 2006

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).

Having technology is different than exploiting it. I mean that if u have all the required item to do a "project", that doesn t mean you ll achieve it when time comes to put all together.

For example, we can take the first european "rocket" (if i can say), which was called EUROPA. The purpose of that was simply to launch some satellite in space. So some countries, including France (dunno for UK) agree on the project and it was decided that each country do one stage of the full rocket. All respected their schedule of conditions and they put their work all together.

The result was 11 flights, 11 failure.

EDIT : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_rocket

So my point is that it s not all to have some technologies if u don t work/is able to put it all together. It s not all to have some tested stuff "on the ground" if u aren t able to use it/exploit it in a full system. I m not tellling it s useless to have that kind of stuff, but just that it can be considered as an acomplishement.

By the way, it s the same for the F117 (according to what i read, i insist). The performances of, that plane are considered to be pretty bad compared to the state of art, but he is stealth. So that doesn t mean americans aren t able to do good plane (they demonstrate the contrary a lot of time on other planes), but they aren t able to put good performances + stealth, even if they have both.

Then, of course i m for DASSAULT, their approach on Logiduc was better in that point of view than the one of BAe. Indeed, it s clearly written on their website that they worked "by step" on their DUC, so when they do one DUC, it has to demonstrate new improvement plus the assets of the previous one.

RM-Nod · le 13 mars 2006

I agree but no one has gone that step further and integrated it all together yet. My point is that some specific technical capabilities can be demonstrated in isolation, it's not necessary to test a particular flight control system with an RCS reduced airframe for example. Integration is a necessary step but it can't be done without first developing the basics which is what the various companies have been doing over the past 10 years or so. Some bits and pieces have been stuck in the same demonstrators but no one has done everything in one vehicle and it isn’t very significant that they have. Neuron is taking the first steps towards integration but that's only just started. That's why I said Dassault has had the better long term plans. However it’s been confirmed that the MoD and BAE will be funding an integrated demonstrator as well. BAE has also been working in steps; Raven was first preceded by Kestrel for example. They’re not just building bits and pieces for the sake of it; there work has becoming increasingly more sophisticated as time has gone by.

vendest · le 14 mars 2006

My point is that some specific technical capabilities can be demonstrated in isolation, it's not necessary to test a particular flight control system with an RCS reduced airframe for example.

Integration is a necessary step but it can't be done without first developing the basics which is what the various companies have been doing over the past 10 years or so. Some bits and pieces have been stuck in the same demonstrators but no one has done everything in one vehicle and it isn’t very significant that they have.

I was editing my post when you posted yours, so i ll quote myself :

I m not telling it s useless to have that kind of stuff, but just that it can be considered as an acomplishement.

BAE has also been working in steps; Raven was first preceded by Kestrel for example. They’re not just building bits and pieces for the sake of it; there work has becoming increasingly more sophisticated as time has gone by.

I m too rookie in that domains to deny it, and i m happy to admit it. But, on a personal note, i think BAe fails some project not because they don t have the technologies (whatever how you got it), but because they don t master it as it should be before beeing used. So they automatically have problems with interface when comes the times of developpement/production. And btw, that kind of lack in the management of interface was shown on the point of Fonck about the integration of AMRAAM. But as i said, it s my personal point of view.

And to finish, i m more happy to see that UK do things by itself (himself ?), instead of systematically go to USA. We can do good things here in Europe...

....(Nationalist statement :) ) and even better in France ;)

RM-Nod · le 14 mars 2006

I don't want to get into the subject as it's a long one and I'd prefer to keep things concise. But a lot of problems have been caused by mismanagement within the MoD, not just BAE and not all are relevant (Astute for example has nothing to do BAE's air sector) and not all brought up by Fonk are even real. It should also be noted that BAE is over five times bigger than Dassault with the number of projects reflecting that, it's only natural that there'd be more problems and for the few that have occurred there are many more that are doing well.

vendest · le 14 mars 2006

I don't want to get into the subject as it's a long one and I'd prefer to keep things concise. But a lot of problems have been caused by mismanagement within the MoD, not just BAE and not all are relevant (Astute for example has nothing to do BAE's air sector) and not all brought up by Fonk are even real. It should also be noted that BAE is over five times bigger than Dassault with the number of projects reflecting that, it's only natural that there'd be more problems and for the few that have occurred there are many more that are doing well.

Yes it s probably another problem. When u are too big, you want to do all, and u often do it badly finally. The other problem is when you do your stuff internal, i mean without contract between society. You have no legal resort (exact translation from french for taht word), so their is less pression and lack of efficiency, loss of money. And some other stuff like that.

Politic is of course one of the best (of the best) source of problems too.

But btw, it s the same problems for all the society, including Dassault.

But when u come at that point, isn t the time to reform the institution, is it ? And it s more the case when you loose lots of money. (no flame, we have some institutions like that here in France, but our defense isn t based on them). So yes maybe BAe isn t well managed internally (work between service too), but i still maintain that BAe have a lack of transversal vision of a complete system in order to offer the required management of the interface between technologies.

Hmm sry my post didn t fit exactly to what i think, but it s too late to have the required reflection i need to explain it in english. So it s said pretty badly, looks like a flame, but that wasn t the main purpose, which was about internal management problem inside BAe.

To finish, NO FLAME, but can u write some recent BAe projects which were sucessfull plz ? (My whish is to see some full systems made by good integration of technologies to prove me i m wrong)

RM-Nod · le 14 mars 2006

Don't worry I didn't take it as a flame, as long as its kept civil I don't mind. I wouldn't say BAE has never had internal problems but I think it's an exaggeration to say that they don't have the management skills to perform there job. Significant strides have been made in the past couple of years to improve the companies performance and it's doing very well now, not least thanks to there improved relationship with the MoD. As for successful projects, off the top of my head there's been the M777, Terrier, HALO, Hawk, GR9, T45, and LSDA. But these are the major public ones, there's a lot more that I don't even know about, they've got hundreds of contracts and if they were that bad they wouldn't be getting the contracts or making the money they do. The problems encountered are greatly and unfairly played up in my opinion.

vendest · le 14 mars 2006

Okay i wasn t enough precise about that. But i m not telling BAe don t have the required skill internally, but u know, in such big company there is difference between having skill and beeing able to use it (political problem brake your effort, friendship between 2 different services can put some pressure on another, media obliging you to do it faster, etc). I mean there is a lot of factor that can act as a brake, even if u have the skills.

But, in fact the

lack of transversal vision of a complete system in order to offer the required management of the interface between technologies.

was more in the aerospace branch of BAe, not really on the other because i simply don t know something about; or at least not enough to make a judgement.

EDIT : Oh and i just see the last part of your post about contract and money that BAe have/do. It can be easily sum up in my opinion : UKL is a wealthy country who have to maintain a decent army (like all the G8 or member of the NATO countries). And BAe is his only industrial to do his equipement.

So, it s an obligation for the government to give you money (a lot). And for the sell contract, your country was always good to sell some stuff (even if the methods are "talkable" *), so contract comes from here. And with contract you have money.

* : dunno if the word exists but i m too lazy to look at a translator at that time. In french it s "discutable".

RM-Nod · le 14 mars 2006

I’m not sure what you mean, the problems you brought affect every company and there’s not really any evidence that they have affected BAE in such an adverse way as you suggest, at least not in my opinion. BAE itself generally does well, in some cases there have been problems which usually down to bad decisions made while competing for the contract (quoting too low a price for example) or through interference from the MoD, not all the time but in many cases. What I’m trying to say is that they’re not indicative of a wide spread problem within BAE Systems. But in the context of this debate these past problems like the MRA4 are of little relevance to BAE’s Military Autonomous Systems (Air) which are separate entities and that’s the point I’ve been trying to make. On where there work comes from, the MoD doesn’t use BAE as much as would be thought, last year only 5% of MoD contracts went to BAE and these were worth £573m. Though it is the UK’s biggest defence company by far it is not relied upon for everything. BAE has a lot of activities abroad. It should also be said that the MoD is one of the most pro-competition customers in the world when it comes to defence (hopefully that is changing).

TMor · le 14 mars 2006

Guys, please, try in French... I remember a time when Rob wrote in French... :rolleyes:

glitter · le 14 mars 2006

"And one crash ahead of Bae" you mean your brain have crashed again?

No and I gave you the link on PM.

Guys, please, try in French... I remember a time when Rob wrote in French... :rolleyes:

Une section anglaise serait peut être pas une mauvaise idée.

L'intêret serais sutout que les francais se lachent en anglais.

Ils auront une autre bonne raison de surfer sur ce site.

TMor · le 14 mars 2006

Une section anglaise serait peut être pas une mauvaise idée.

L'intêret serais sutout que les francais se lachent en anglais.
Ils auront une autre bonne raison de surfer sur ce site.

Tu veux dire une section anglaise, genre "ici tout est permis", avec injures, mises à feu et à sang, nationalismes exacerbés et tout le reste... :lol:

Une vraie bonne raison quoi !

glitter · le 14 mars 2006

Tsss, l'autre hé.

RM-Nod · le 14 mars 2006

Sorry TMor, like I said I can't speak much French but I can stick it through a translator if you'd like but you'd end up with stuff like this... Je ne suis pas sûr que vous signifiez, les problèmes que vous avez amené affectent chaque compagnie et il n'y a pas vraiment de la preuve qu'ils a affectée diplôme niversitaire dans telle une façon défavorable comme vous suggérez, au moins pas à mon avis. LES diplôme niversitaire que lui-même fait généralement bien, dans quelques-uns reconnaît il y a eu des problèmes qui d'habitude en bas aux mauvaises décisions faites pendant que concourant pour le contrat (citant trop bas un prix par exemple) ou par l'intervention du MoD, pas à tout moment mais dans beaucoup de cas. Que j'essaie-t-il de dire est qu'ils ne sont pas indicatifs d'un problème large de diffusion dans les Systèmes de diplôme niversitaire. Is that any good?

vendest · le 14 mars 2006

No lol, that s crappy.

Fonck · le 14 mars 2006

LOL

RM-Nod · le 14 mars 2006

lol I just put it through a French to English translator, it isn't brilliant is it :D I guess you’ll just have to make do with my promise to stay in this thread only. Sorry :) Fonk, it's relevant if you can prove it to be so. You only brought up three recent cases in which there were actual design problems and made up at least one. Of those three one was to do with BAE's Submarine Systems which are totally separate to there air systems. At the same time you're refusing to recognise the facts that there are hundreds of other projects that are underway or complete that have gone very well, BAE is successfully getting contracts from everywhere in the world despite there supposed incompetence and that there Military Autonomous Systems (Air) sector is a separate entity to those you’ve brought up. If you can prove that that everything they touch goes to pot then fine but such a limited list of examples spanning over 20 years does not do that. I’m sure I could to dig around and find a few problems that Dassault has encountered but to be honest I can’t be bothered.

Fonck · le 14 mars 2006

First learn your elementary basics before humiliating yourself AGAIN. Second your denials are not helping YOU. I HAVE every evidences and the only way you can expect ME to skip them is by being plain lazy. You want THEM? You'll have them.

ASTUTE: Design and management.

Nimrod MR4 Design.

Harrier II Rear fuselage (BAe design fatigue) cracks midway thriugh their service life.

Tornado F-3 Same for the BAe designed fuselage plug.

Nimrod AEW total fuck-up. etc.

AMRAAM and ASRAAM integration on Tornado etc...

We will skip the EFA wing design issue for preserving your ramain of sanity here.

Now take a hike you're only poluting the topic with nonsenses.

"I don't want to get into the subject as it's a long one"

This particualr SUBJECT is of a primiry importance:

It shows EXACTLY what is BAE level of design and technology expertise.

As for Nod remark it also shows how he choose to ignore realtiy on a dayly basis.

Notre that he is trying to imply that i mislead him: Which is not the case. I was given the information on Moyen Duc by OPIT (Rapport d'Information) only AFTER i had received an incomplete anwer to my question to Dassault on it apearing on the previous movie. "Higher technologies".

Now Not only we have this Senat rapport but we have a SECOND movie too.

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

DASSAULT_ACTIVITIES_vod.zip

Thats what is going to make of you a semi-educated being (ranked beginer) if you choose to learn.

"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."

So you have to admit that Dassault and BAe are NOT at the same level as Turner says clearly they need more UK programmes to be a viable partner in case of a collaboration with the EU or US. AND THIS IN 2004.

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

More to the p[oint they dont have this TDP yet.

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."

A FULL TWO years minimum after Dassault were fully ready.

BAe is way behind not only historically, design-wise but technologically as welland this is one reason why they don't get what they want from MoD.

They are incapable of doing anything at cost and in schedule and a full scale TDP is rather a costly and high risk issue.

They need to do some more home work and even Turner says so..

The fact that you can't make the diffeence between a mock-up and a flying fully stealth UAV is your problem not ours and reality is as i stated not your punny interpretation of it.

"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."

It doesn't make any difference to the real issue which is: Stealth features present on the vehicles.

"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."

Nod you don't KNOW what you are talking about.

Prototyping is the process building a physical vehicle (physical meaning real sized aircraft) to demonstrate its capabilities of doing what it was designed for: Flying or more, conducting a mission.

When technology allows, scale models are used to reduce cost. In the case of AVE-D and FILUR this was possible.

Protoypes are all first aircraft to roll out designed with the full industry design points. i.e.

Stealth, Aerodynamics, Structural, Industrial (tooling).

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5592/sonicwave9yu.jpg

Here is a simulation of Rafale aerodynamic characteristics in transonic flight, see the sound wave???

Dassault is in no need to do prototyping anymore, in 2000 they were already doing "rapid prototyping" with AVEs BAe are well behind them.

So design-wise experience-wise as well as technologically the advanyage is to Dassault with no need for photo-finish.

"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".

There are every reasons for it: Validation.

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1596/irsupress5js.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/254/irsupress021by.th.jpg

M-88 IR supression measure: The Nozzle is NOT visible from this angle. The "ring" surounding it is made of IR-supressant Materials.

First M-88 flight on Rafale A 20th Feb 1990.

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2088/anechoidal6ro.jpg

As fopr Rafale its sealth characteristics are well known of ONERA/SNECMA and Dassault...

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9533/furtifrafalesmall9eh.jpg

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5653/raven1nozzle8zc.jpg

Same here, the principle ALSO involes the use of the aerodynamic characteristics of the exhaust area for the AVE:

The pressure zone at their level is mixing cool air from the boundary layer to the hot Air from the engine.

This IS a well known IR supressing design measure at least for those who choosed to learn their SH!T before opening up wide and making fools of themself..

DASSAULT_ACTIVITIES_vod.zip

Thats what is goimng to make of you a semi-educated being (ramked beginer) if you choose to learn.

AVEs nozzles are not only recessed and shielded, they are integrated into an enssemble composed of materials and aerodynamic features:

That of Raven is obviously proheminent, but also NOT protected by ANY form of fairing.

POINT:

You still can't validate the UAV with your IR supression features by not flying them on it and more to the point if you do, it saves you the trouble of having to test them on another aircraft...

Endly once you do that you can see the end result in the real article at once and can validate your design solutions as: Stealth, Material and Structural.

All you are trying to do is spining here. The goal of prototyping or demonstratimng features is to make sure they work on the final artcle. There again the advantyage is to Dassault.

Tools: the digital age

"Dassault Aviation uses digital modeling for calculating airframes, aerodynamics and the effects of electromagnetic radiation, for computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM), and for research into the operational use of weapon systems.

The IT department also creates simulation tools and technical documentation systems used in providing support services to civil

and military aircraft. However, the Company continues to use conventional physical resources for design and validation such as test banks for flight control or automatic pilot systems. The entire industrial chain (Product Life Management [PLM]), from design to production and finally support, is based on software developed by Dassault Systèmes (CATIA V4 and V5, ENOVIA VPM and DELMIA), thus ensuring consistent, continuous, secure and effective production."

>

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/8305/virtualtool18fu.jpg

Clearly they are doing their home work, developiong new design and production tools that put them a full decenie ahead of BAe...

virtual-tool-2.jpg

"Also when you’re testing materials, ground based demonstrators will do;"

True, but i'm NOT the one constantly inflating my list number with the equivalent of Replica and Nightjaars mocjk-ups which are researche non flyable models.

This works ALSO in case of Dasault, which is what you tried to dismiss as their work is directly linked to that of ONERA.

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9436/spacial9hb.jpg

Which by the way goes far beyhond steath UCAVs, UAVs and and conventional aircrafts, civilians like military in both case...

This sort of researches have been long done both by Dassault (Rafale) SNECMA (M-88) and more to the point ONERA who are in charge of them at experimental level. Down to the effect of PLASMA on materials...

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/5449/oneraplasma3bq.jpg

"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)"

LOL like you know your subject that well as to try to spin it that way too.

CG simulation in itself is enough to demonstate radar return. Material tickness, pgysical and stealt hcharacteristics are also CG-simulateable.

What matters is the whole solution and there is no need for full-cale mock-ups anymore expecially at Dassault as they can do without any prototype at all:

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1274/amil3stat0ii.jpg

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9555/onerastealthgerardbobillot8zn.jpg

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9555/onerastealthgerardbobillot8zn.th.jpg

http://www.onera.fr/cahierdelabo/english/amil3.htm

Size doesn't matter that much, materials and shapes are first tested independently in CG then together and so there is a direct data pool for their characteristics and performances available.

This is why scale models can be used for particular taskes and why SAAB/Dassault but also BAE used them.

PLUS: By adding Replica to the list, you try to compare technologyes of totally different decenies and state of advance in BOTH stealth and material.

PROOF? The obvious difference in shape and Materials used in Replica and Corax/Raven, the sort of details which doesn't escapes me but is way above your head.

"The fact is that both companies have developed EM, IR signature reduction technologies along with advance, novel aerodynamic configurations."

TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and etc...

FACTS: Dassault hads designed, built and flown more FULL stealth UAVs than BAe has NOW before Raven first flight as well as getting the DGA contract for the NEURON programme.

"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."

How really? Sorry to couterdict YOU again.

At least I READ BAe staments and work results you apparently do not.

More to the point Dassault have been focusing in different areas where SAAB wasn't in front of everyone else, and this is flying UCAVs from a Rafale rear or even (single) front cockpit.

DGA demonstrated a fully equiped cockpit last year at Eurosatory and Dassault disclosed details of the sofware used for the simulation.

Note that i HAVE duely informed everyone in the WAAF forum but that you toons choosed to ignore the facts as usual...

Why should Dassault have worked at autonomous flight controling UCAVs when they had agreed with DGA since 2003 to use SAAB best field of expertise???

This WAS Dassault first task as AGREED with DGA for the NEURON programme, find the most effiscient way to collaborating with partners as well as seting up the right tools and methods to do so.

In your hurry to try to prove ME wrong in my stament of SAAB being the world FIRST to conduct a mission fully autonomouysly, you forgot one point: (WAAF).

The US never did include automated take-off and landing in their demonstrations. SAAB did, so they have the world first truely autonomous UAV demonstrator in their portfolio.

"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"

LIAR = LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR.

1) There is no sources saying it started in 2001 with first flight scheduled in 2003.

All the Anglo-American sources are giving it "apearing" in 2003 with first flight shceduled for the same year, most of them mystakes it with Slow/Fast too.

The expected design/developement of these are about 7 month to start with, no other sources gives it date of 2001, only the "Single" source is a multiple one:

2) The "single" source is the OFFICIAL one, that where the rest of the world is geting informations from.

3) IT IS the most informed and ALSO most RECENT:

22 Feb 2006.

4) This information was NEVER disclosed to the press before as proven by the large amount of confusion which reigns in the press worldwile.

>>>>>

About the people involved in the making of this document:

Ingenieur general de l'armement Thierry Duquesne.

MM. Phillipe Coq. Directeur des programme Male.

MM Patraick 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.

>>>>>

a) As you can see there is a lot more brain power and expertise here than in BAe's own fat-cats board and this by a confortable margin.

b) You can't DENY that at LEAST TWO French Intelligence high ranking Officers are involved:

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

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

C) You keep talking SH!T and have NO point to make at all.

>>>>>>>>

Looks like you will never learn.

"You’re answer to this is that Dassault lied, does anyone here actually believe this do you think?"

Dassault lied? Says WHO? You are saying this, what i daid is cristal clear and you are TWISTING again.

Military intelligence IS involved and this i think not only everyone believes it (appart from you three cartoon characters) but also knows it for a F.A.C.T.

"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."

DefenceSubscribeYou are in: Home › Defence › News Article

DATE:24/06/03

SOURCE:Flight International

France budgets $350m for UCAV demonstrator

PETER LA FRANCHI & CHRISTINA MACKENZIE / PARIS

So acording to YOU: on 24/06/03 the definition of Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast as well as the dates for the programme launch and first flight, the whole thing given by Dassault WAS accurate then???

And since ity clearly isn't the case this make them LIARS? Not everyone uses lies in a dayly basis for flaming in topics and iventing capabilities your industrials and forces doesn't have. That's your lot's habit.

>>>>>

Citation:

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."

FIRST NOD you are a proven LIAR.

For most of last YEAR you and Rob L tried to imply that there was a fully funded UCAV TDP in the UK, which obviously isn't true. Anyone curious enough to have a look at the WAAF on FOAS topics can verify this.

There is every evidence that; you got NO point to make, can only use your worse spin and twist technics but it would be NICE if you were to stop been a LIAR in this forum.

"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."

W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R. Trying to apply the same framework to both companies and coutries is laughable.

Citation:

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."

Dassault are contracted to DGA, DGA in under Military intelligence orders as to WHAT they can or can't disclose to the public. FACT.

Citation:

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."

Personal attack are proven FACTS and TRUTH.

Dassault would have been given the same contract by DGA in 2003 for a manned stealth vehicle if it had been DGA plans, they got the NEURON contract instead.

"The French defence procurement agency DGA is committing €300 million ($350 million) to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator. Dassault will be the prime contractor for the project, with the aircraft to be based on its existing company-funded Logiduc UCAV concept. First flight will occur in 2008."

DATE:24/06/03

SOURCE:Flight International

France budgets $350m for UCAV demonstrator

PETER LA FRANCHI & CHRISTINA MACKENZIE / PARIS

SIX MONTH BEFORE RAVEN first flight.

You LIE, TWIST, SPIN and got zilth in terms of technical/historical facts and arguments to oppose to reality.

Your usual WAAF mediocrity revisited.

Reality strike:

DATE:21/06/05

SOURCE:Flight International

UK rethinks Tornado replacement

Now the bits that really matters and that you keep bypassing for obvious reasons:

-1994 BAe press release:

"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"."

Source: Jane's.

>>>>>

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.

2006 STILL NO UCAV TDP.

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

Meanwile at Dassault-Aviation...

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3853/moyenducagain9xo.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3853/moyenducagain9xo.th.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.th.jpg

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1296/slowfastmodel1lb.jpg

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1296/slowfastmodel1lb.th.jpg

He! What do we see here? The model of Slow/Fast on the desk....

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.th.jpg

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8269/tvc3dh.jpg

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8269/tvc3dh.th.jpg

Even TVC as it apears, decidly, there ARE a lot of things people doesn't KNOW about them, not only Dassault but the whole of the French aerospacial industry.

RM-Nod · le 14 mars 2006

Harrier II Rear fuselage (BAe design fatigue) cracks midway through their service life.
Tornado F-3 Same for the BAe designed fuselage plug.

Can you actually provide some sources for these two because I can’t find any evidence of BAE being the cause of any chronic cracking issues in either of these aircraft.

Now Not only we have this Senat rapport but we have a SECOND movie too.

Yeah but Fonk, the senate report says the Moyen Duc “appeared” in 2001 and the video does not say what aircraft it shows. However numerous sources say that the Moyen Duc was launched as a programme in 2001, that first flight was planned as being for 2003 and then 2004 and that the Moyen Duc was to be a catapult launched vehicle with no landing which the aircraft in the video (both of them) is not. So which is more likely, the Senate report using the word appeared to mean that the project was launched in 2001 or that every source that has ever mentioned the MD is wrong?

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

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2002/04/23/146531/Dassault+and+Sagem+unite +on+UAVs.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2003/04/29/164955/Edelstenne+'A+lot+to+lear n+from+US'.html

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

Seriously, when it comes to powers of deduction you are no Sherlock Holmes.

So you have to admit that Dassault and BAe are NOT at the same level as Turner says clearly they need more UK programmes to be a viable partner in case of a collaboration with the EU or US.

No that’s not what he said, he said the UK needs its own TDP before taking a decision to join either the US or Europe, I think he’s right and that is what is happening. That doesn’t mean the UK is in a worse position than Dassault, it means that they want to remain competitive which is entirely sensible.

You’re still far too obsessed with stealth, there is far more too it than that. The F117 was flying around long enough ago but that hasn’t stopped Boeing and Northrop Grumman beating LM and being picked for J-UCAS did it.

Nod you don't KNOW what you are talking about.

Prototyping is the process building a physical vehicle (physical meaning real sized aircraft) to demonstrate its capabilities of doing what it was designed for: Flying or more, conducting a mission.

When technology allows, scale models are used to reduce cost. In the case of AVE-D and FILUR this was possible.

These vehicles were meant to demonstrate highly specific technologies, not complete systems. They were not prototypes nor is there any need for them to be hence integrating everything needed for a UCAV into one vehicle is unnecessary.

There are every reasons for it: Validation.

You really don’t read my posts do you. I didn’t say there was no need to test them, I said they there was no need to put them onto a UAV. You can validate them on a Hawk just as BAE did.

As for all the “I know more than you” crap I won’t rise to that so you can pack it in now.

It’s a plain fact that the UK is known to have started on the necessary technology specifically for 4th generation + aircraft in 1994 and was producing actual hardware and has been able to develop from there while Dassault began in 1999 and only produced any hardware in 2000 after a much shorter development trimeframe.

The UK is known to have had a budget of at least €60m in addition to private funds. You have no evidence of French expenditures.

On Neuron, again the final contract was only signed last month, it doesn’t matter whether the DGA originally mooted it in 2003 or not.

On the one hand you’ve said “BAE are just producing little mock ups” but on the other you’re saying that Dassault can do anything BAE does in the real world with CAD and the same or better results.

"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"."

Why are you posting this again? You’ve already said that it doesn’t make any point; if you’re going to keep posting this then why not address the fact that Dassault was requesting a manned TDP in 1997? Or are you just flooding your posts in the hope that I won’t respond?

Oh and it’s interesting to see that you’re starting to delete entire posts now. It’s pathetic if you ask me, why can’t you just debate it like a normal person without the ego or childish “twist and spin” whinging or editing your posts after people have replied? You’re nearly 50 years old!

Edit - Since you've decided to spam WAFF I'm stepping down from this one rather than spoil two forums. I don't think anyone is going to be convinced to change there minds anyway. I hope you'll end your tedious campaign and perhaps learn to accept when people disagree with you.

Fonck · le 15 mars 2006

First learn your elementary basics before humiliating yourself AGAIN.

Nod YOU haver NO ponit to make but deny the reality.

Second your denials are not helping YOU. I HAVE every evidences and the only way you can expect ME to skip them is by being plain lazy. You want THEM? You'll have them.