But as far as I know, the French fired MICA IR, so the claim seems valid.(radar guided aam shot)

No, the press release says it was a MICA RF.

The pilots or crew is part of the empty equipped.
Empty equipped does mean a fighter ready to go without payload.
Payload is all fuel outside the lubricants and weaponsload including the related pods, what does give the mission range. By the way, the reason, why George gave the TOW and related fuel weight only.

I agree with your definition of empty equipped (i.e. “operating empty”). However my point is that other fighters’ published empty weights are generally NOT empty equipped. For example, the F/A-18C weighs about 23,800-24,700lbs empty (10,800-11,200kg), but its “operating empty” weight is 28,000 lbs (12,700kg) once you include pylons, pilot, expendables, lubricant etc. Similarly, the Typhoon’s 11,000kg or the Gripen NG’s ~7,000 kg empty weights are not “empty equipped”. That’s why for an apples-to-apples comparison I’m subtracting the pilot and pylon weights to get to 10,150kg empty for the Rafale B (this is the upper limit, since still need to subtract lubricants etc).

The author did not write two 3,540 lb capacity drop tanks [each], but
“With 9,350 lb of fuel in the internal tanks [wich is the total intern] and two 3,450 lb capacity drop tanks on the inner wing stations.”
Are the 3,450 lb the total extern of both tanks similar the 9,350 lb of all internal tanks or did he miss to write 3,450 lb each?
The weight of the empty tanks and related pylons was added for the subtraction.

Clarification is welcome about that.

From a grammatical perspective, “Two 3,450 lb capacity drop tanks” means that each drop tank has a 3,450 lb capacity. In English, the “each” is implied.

This also matches expectations, since 3,450lb = 2,000L, and we know that the Rafale regularly carriers 2x 2,000L drop tanks. It can’t be the 1,250L drop tank, because 1,250L = 2,200lbs.

well it might have resulted in an Anglo-French EFA (not too sure about German, Spanish and Iti involvement maybe they would be involved but i’d wager they would buy SHs instead.)

but multinational consortiums with the French never went too well (theres no way to word that well)

Actually, the French have had many successful multi-national consortiums (Transall, Alphajet, Horizon, FREMM, Helios, not to mention all the Airbus and Eurocopter aircraft, including NH90).

For whatever reason, it’s only on the minority of projects where both the French and the Brits are both onboard that problems arise: Jaguar, CVF, Eurofighter, Horizon… The only exception is for missiles (PAAMS, Storm Shadow). Who’s to say the French are to blame? :diablo:

No. The French Army is losing all its Roland & Hawk systems, which won’t be replaced. However, it is gaining the Air Force’s short range Mistrals. A total of about 200 Mistral launchers will be split between the 10 combat brigades artillery regiments, with 18 launchers for most brigades and 24 launchers for a few of the larger ones.

The French Air Force will take over the Hawk’s long-range air defense role. The 10 SAMP/T batteries (i.e. 40 launchers) will be spread across the 5 most strategic airbases: Luxeuil, Istres, Mont de Marsan, Avord & St. Dizier (all bases for nuclear-capable squadrons, AWACS & refuellers). 4 of these 10 batteries (so 16 launchers) will be permanently available for use by the French Army or expeditionary missions.

Unfortunately, the older Crotale 3000 EVA systems that currently protect most French Air Bases will also be withdrawn without replacement by 2012, since they are at the end of their service lives. It’s unclear whether the 12 Crotale NG launchers, which are much newer and are split into 3 batteries at Avord, St Dizier & Istres, will be retained, redeployed to new bases or withdrawn from service.

One of the main things I don’t understand about the concept is the nuclear propulsion. For ASW or convoy escort missions in the Mediterranean or North Atlantic it would have been completely unnecessary. For amphib operations, she would have most likely deployed with non-nuclear LPDs and other non-nuclear ships. Contrary to a CTOL carrier, high speed endurance was not needed for helicopter operations or deployment to crisis spots.

No not propeller problems – propulsion problems. Something to do with the connectors between the steam turbines & gearboxes – there are 4 connectors, 2 per shaft, and the vibrations are affecting one connector on each shaft, meaning that she still has 50% power on each shaft.

One possible cause that’s been suggested is a misalignment or cracks of some sort. Some of the replacement parts that were added during the refit were modified slightly, so maybe they’re not working as well as the original parts.

Here are some more detailed Buccaneer drawings if you want to draw it to scale:
http://www.hunterteam.com/buccaneer_tech_specs.htm

This image in particular would make a good starting point: