Clearly, the Catapults of the Sao Paulo and Ski Jump Equipped Carriers have Weight Limitation. Yet, the point is the latter consider those limitation as exceptable.
The limits for the catapults of the São Paulo are 15 and 20 tons. The Catapults have been striped clean and remade.
That’s not true when the UK entered the JSF programme it intended to purchase 60 aircraft for the RN to replace the Sea Harrier. The RAF’s interest in a Harrier replacement let to the plan to purchase 90 aircraft totaling in 150 airframes. The number was later cut to 138 and the rest remains yet to be seen.
Not quite. Its true that when GB was evaluating its needs the first “plan” or “intention”, was precisely what you have described (Staff Target 6464, 1996). By the time that the MOD actually joined the JSF team, those “intentions” had gone out through the window and the “Joint Force Harrier” was in full swing (1998).
The selection of the JSF has the JCA was confirmed in 17 January of 2001 with signing the of the JSF Team MOU.
Royal Navy:
F-35B: 138 –> 50 (?)
SSBN: 4 –> 3.
SSN: 12 –> 6 to 8.
Type 45 destroyer: 12 –> 6.
Type 22 and 23 frigates since 1999: 26 –> 17.
The F-35B fleet has never been intended to be a Royal Navy asset…
http://jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/americas.shtml
In other words the Gripen wins the power point battle but is about to loose the real world war.
Engine: American,
Radar: Italian-english,
Missiles: American,
Fly by wire: British,
Targeting pod: Israeli,
Etc, etc,What remain? They want to transfert technologies but they’re gona transfert what?
Even the Indians are capable to design a fighter aircarft in such conditions.http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091111_1_n.shtml
LOL. In other words: let’s send the Brasilian ahead to sweep the cast.
There is an army of programers working at Thales since 2003 on the AESA, comming after a electronic scanned radar, and the americans have made even worst (they’ve opened the road).And SAAB which was with Thales 2 month ago has now a Selex one all ready and all? They’ve made it in 15 days?
the Air Marshal Nigel Maddox understand it perfectly well: they need a pigeon, and they want Bazil to make the job they were too lazy to make themselve.They have nothing. No techno, no funds, no originality, no power, no independance, no fundation, nothing… just Power points.
It’s like a nice hambuger and when you open it there is only salads (nice one but still….)
Well, that Gripen equiped with the new radar, the new MAWS, the new Satcom, the new internal tanks, the new pylons, etc, that is flying from 27 of last month must be a flying power point…
And for christ sake, SAAB had the Erieye IOC in 1997… They were testing the first NORA in 2002… And Thales has been working in AESA since the end of the nineties, not 2003 (the first RBE-2 with an Raytheon AESA dish was tested in 2002)…
Lots of military movements in Gibraltar at the moment – maybe Gordon is going to declare war on Spain? Could be his Falklands moment …
One here, more here:
http://www.thingysoft.com/myblog/2008_week087.asp#11
.
You must be joking… Oo
Cheers
Tests have been done by the french already (ONERA using a Mystere 20 testbed).
http://www.onera.fr/actualites/2006-0146-liaison-optique-lola.php
If you don’t read french or a google translation doesn’t work I’d be glad to translate the article for you.
By the time the operational dvpt of Neuron comes online it could very well be a reality.
And in my post I wasn’t describing a real time communication, but a download of target data and ROE, and fire authorisation. Even a manned bomber isn’t going to look for targets by himself on a 1st day of war scenario and let the pilot decide what or what not to engage.
Nic
edit: I think I remember that the laser satcom was mentionned to be a part of the Rafale mid life update for around 2020.
I do read french, and i am aware of the ONERA tests, but thanks for the offer. 🙂
The point that DJcross was making is that you do need real time communication for that “2020 peer scenario” (i do agree with him), and that consumes a huge amount of bandwith that must be encripted/secure and resistant to jamming.
The use of laser satcom is a wonderful answer, it has massive bandwith (the 2006 test managed a 50 Mbps on real time, taking into acount that the Sat was 36 000 km above earth, this is fantastic, i have seen theoretical maximums of 360 Mbps for this technology), its almost impossible to jam, and the time delay is less than one second even if the receptor is on the other side of the planet.
But the drawback (and you can find in the internet documents about the Onera LOLA that state this, including severall in French) is that you must have a stable and predictable flight path.
Imagine this, you have two send/receivers laser modens, one in the Sat, and another on the UAV, they are separated by thirty six thousand km´s, both the sat and the UAV are moving, at that distance the laser must hit one antena with a few cm2… The 2006 tests were made with the aircraft flying in straight line for periods of 20 minutes, if it went left or right, up or down it would lose the signal .
http://www.icsoconference2008.com/cd/pdf/S13%20-%20Fiber-Free%20Space%20Optic%20-%20Vaillon.pdf
Not exactly a 9g´s capability is it? 😉
Cheers 🙂
I think by the time an operational Neuron/Taranis descendant will reach operational service, laser satcom is probably going to be operational too. Good luck jamming that. Your UCAV can be programmed to be at a certain place at a certain time, and “download” target and ROE info.
If datalink jaming becomes an issue, then I sure wouldn’t like to be a F35 pilot in a very high threat environment and no global tactical picture because my datalink doesn’t work. EO/DAS and APG81 sound nice and well, but I wouldn’t be confident relying just on that to wage a complex war against against a very complex IADS. Besides a human pilot ALSO would need to receive the authorisation to fire at the last moment. Which means he’d have to receive it prior to taking off if datalink/Radio are to be jammed during the mission
Nic
Nicolas
Laser satcom has its own problems too. Using a laser for comunications means that we are using a “direct line of sight” channel on the strictest sense of the word “direct”.
You have a sat a few thousand km´s above earth, equiped with the laser, that beam of light MUST hit an antena with a very small size in the top of the UAV/UCAV… Both the Sat and the UAV/UCAV are moving, there´s a distance of thousands of km´s between them… This makes Willian Tell look like a blind man!
To use a laser satcom, the necessity of a stable and predictable flight is imperative. Thats pretty ok for a Global Hawk over the Pacific patrolling the northern barrier, not so nice for a UCAV trying to DEAD a S-400 battery with Flankers nearby.
The Laser setles the bandwith, timing and jaming issues, but it brings its own problems.
Cheers 🙂
Sintra,
TPs are taught to communicate, and most of them write very well. Just read John Farley’s stuff, or Craig Penrice’s. I think that Flight took the easy option on this, and hasn’t served its readers as well as it could have done.
I have been reading this kind of “stuff” for three decades now (and if i am not mistaken, more or less the same amount of time that you have been writing :D), and i thought that was a very good text.
But i get your point, i remember one article written by Craig Penrice in wich he describes is first ejection, he has a very nice sense of humour.
Cheers
Zedro,
It’s not that PC isn’t qualified to comment. He obviously is. But it’s not hard to see that Flight could (and in my view should) have found someone even better qualified.
Jack
I do understand your point of view and i agree (in part) with it, but one thing struck me, that text (unlike my dreadfull English) is a very, very well written piece, i could almost feel the flight!
And having read a huge amount of flight tests (two and a half decades of Air International, flight globals, air&cosmos, etc, do this), this was a very good reading.
My point is, you are not going to find a lot of pilots with the “right” background who can write such a good article.
And “flight” is in the business of selling “text”…
Point for “Flight”.
And if someone is expecting a direct comparison between the “Eurocanards”, the Swiss Air Force promised to release its evaluation…
Cheers 🙂
you’re using fanboy maths, arent you
it has been stated that a loaded rafle is m .9.
i asked if that was high alt. if it is, a pig is 2.5 now, an uber-pig will probaly be m 3
Jack
This must be one of those “i want to won the sillyest post of the month” text!
You are doing this (the “Monty Pyton” part, joking with the rest of us) on purpose aint you? 😉
Cheers
Are you offering to pay? If so, could you throw in a bottle for me?
http://www.wine-searcher.com/find/chateau+le+pin+pomerol/1999
Sweet Jesus Swerve
I work in Telecomunications, and i am not the CEO (far from it)!
I dont have THAT kind of budget for wine (:()
Merci: Pour a ceux qui pensent a donner le credit (tout merite) a un grand monsieur qui a assez de bouteille pour dire la verite et le magazine Editors pour le publier.
Cheers, Mr Peter Collins and F-I!
Dare2
Thats a bottle of beaujolais nouveau?! 😮
Peter Collins and the Flight International team deserve something better…
Here you go:
http://www.interestinwine.co.uk/images/categories/le_pin/le_pin_1.jpg
😉
Cheers
To me it seems that all the three Eurocanards are fantastic flying machines 🙂
I just hope that the Swiss Air Force release the technical evaluations has promised.
😉
Cheers
Radar range is not everything, pilots repports being able to detect a Typhoon at a range 50% greater than another Rafale in the same conditions, as for the RBE2 AESA its non-quanted array maximises the frontal range.
Any quote for that?
Ok so do you admitt that inline RBE2 AESA will have approx 1000 module as officially stated ? Because I find it hard to believe so called geek specialists versus an official thales statement.
Secondly from my brief personnal experience in the defense industry (SAFRAN group) I can tell you that they are usually cautious to “make up” hardware to fight against industry espionnage. Basically by presenting slightly ill proportionate dummies in the case of missiles for instance (it is the case for Sagem défense et sécurité, a subsidiary from SAFRAN). So to tell the truth I am a bit skeptical to say the least that the photo correspond to a real radar. If some forumers can find so precise infos then imagine what a competitor could do !
Undoutebly that the RBE-2 AESA has “AROUND 1000 T/R modules”, if that means 1000 or 863 T/R modules, well… I think that one honest person wont rule neither untill the definitive production radar is publicly shown.