Touché 😀

Coulé 😀

Perdez pas votre temps avec ça!

he’s a google world geek , whatever doesn’t come from google or internet articles doesn’t exist! sad life!

I don’t know whether you genuinely can’t understand, or whether you’re just being deliberately argumentative.

It’s clear that someone whose operational experience is Harrier GR3/Sea Harrier FRS1 and who retired from military flying 15 years ago (even if he had one or two trips in a Mirage 2000 for his ETPS course evaluation) is less qualified to judge the merits of Rafale than a more current, more recent pilot with operational experience of a more modern fighter.

Had Collins done a full tour on the Mirage 2000-5 that would make his opinion more useful, but it would be most interesting if his experience was on an advanced fighter from a different manufacturer, with a different design philosophy, and better still if he’d flown several comparable types.

Nor is it a case of needing a comparison with Typhoon – in many respects it would be most interesting if an F-16MLU/F/A-18E/F/Gripen experienced pilot flew Rafale.

If I were to be pretentious enough to correct Collins, you’d have good grounds for questioning my credentials. I am, however, qualified enough to point out that Collins is not very current, and that he has relatively little recent relevant operational experience. It’s not that he hasn’t been flying Typhoon, it’s that he hasn’t been flying anything relevant for more than 15 years, and hasn’t flown any of Rafale’s competitors.

And that’s a missed opportunity, if you want to learn.

If however, you just want someone to be blown away and enthusiastic, then a low baseline for comparison is a great thing.

Come on Yves Robin, let me fly Rafale. I’ll be even more enthusiastic….

“Collins’ principal goal is to head the ASTOR flight test and mission evaluation programme in the UK. Given his extensive experience of both military and civil aerospace operations, during which he has accumulated over 6,600 flying hours in some 68 types of aircraft, this should not prove problematic.

During his RAF career Collins rose to the rank of squadron leader, completing two frontline tours of duty flying Harriers in Germany and serving in the Falklands in 1982, flying Sea Harriers while on detachment with the navy on Illustrious. Following two years as a pilot and later team leader with the Red Arrows, in 1989 he qualified as an experimental military test pilot and was appointed Officer Commanding of the Aerospace Research Test Squadron at DRA Bedford where he worked on the Joint Strike Fighter.”

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/266989/Flight+recorder.htm

i bet that among the 66 others birds than harry and shar there could be somes typhoon and amazing superjets he flew , especially when asked about his exeptional experience on to notch projects and leader, i’ll not doubt one second on his says comparing european actual plateforme! 😉

do you?

Mon ami,

I agree but only 50%. Of course Gripen and Mirage are single-engine light-weight fighters whereas Rafale and Typhoon are twin-engine medium-size fighters.

However, in some roles the NG will give in particular the Rafale a tough challenge, I suspect in particular a2a.

Consider BVR: Rafales AESA will have approx. 850 TR elements, vs the 1000 elements of NG, that’s 18% more! In addition the swashplate will give a higher scan volume but also a longer range since the positioning can be optimized. The NG will also have a very very low RCS; RCS of the A was 0.1m2; the C had significantly lower than that, and the NG will have a significantly lower RCS than the C… First look, first shot!

Add to that a strongly improved MMI and sensor fusion, a very good data link, supercruise, and to top it off the Meteor missile, in a 4 vs 4 I would expect the NG to dominate over the Rafale in BVR.

In WVR it may be more equal, both will have they strong and weak points. However also here the NG will have some advantages, like the HMD in combination with the HOBS of IRIS-T.

You may want to bring up SPECTRA, however the NG will have a strongly improved EWS… Look up NORA — of course the most interesting bits are highly classified. Already the current Gripen has a decent EWS; The NG will lift that to a highe level with combining the AESA with the other EW stuff.

Of course the Rafale can also get the Meteor and the IRIS-T; then I think they become roughly equal in a2a.

In a2g the Rafale is to be preferred, however if one considers that the price is rougly twice as high…. I would much rather have 120 NG than 60 Rafale 😀

For many missions one NG can perform as well as one Rafale; For some missions it cannot, but then you can just send more NG… Quantity is a quality of it’s own.

Typhoon will of course give the NG a tougher challenge in A2A. However also the TYphoon should not feel too safe….

In simulations the NG scored 6:1 against the future SU-35, however that was in a multirole config, it would most likely have performed even better in a clean a2a config.

On paper the F-15 should always be superior to the F-16, however in real tests against the F-15 the F-16 surprised a lot of people… And the gap between the Rafale and the NG will be much smaller than the gap between the F-15 and the F-16….

pure nosens, Mon ami!:D

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hwENIDUTWQC032LIQEALBh0Ip9ZQ

😉

I thought the general opinion was that TVC on the eurofighter would be a marginal investment, given it’s dominance other it’s competitors in manouverability already vs the weight penalty imposed by TVC?

this aircraft is already unbalanced to the rear, tvn will accentuate this, anyway for years supliers purposes lots of things, tvn aren’t complicated to any engine builders to develop, the problems remains into reliabilities costs! and the eurostuff is way dead about any futur developments..

I thought the OSF were ordered for the F1s and F2s, I knew that it was limited to 48 sets.

Is the F2-to-F3 upgrade process complete? Surely not?

Who gets priority for the OSF? The Navy? EC 1/91?

And what is an F3, in reality, as of now?

It was supposed to have:
1) implementation of all currently planned modes for the RBE2 radar – NO
2) AASM capability – YES
3) nuclear strike, with the ASMP or ASMP-A; NOT YET
4) antiship attack with the Exocet or ANF; NOT YET
5) reconnaissance with the Reco NG pod; ???
6) DVI; LIMITED VOCAB COMPARED TO WHAT WAS PLANNED
7) the helmet-mounted sight – NO
8) Support for an improved tanker pack – ????

GESHTAPO? 😮

Some of these allegations seem far more solid than the Saudi ones.

I remember that the Tanzanian deal raised a lot of eyebrows at the time. Nobody could see why the Tanzanians would buy all that expensive kit, far beyond their stated requirement.

Ex-attorney general Lord Goldsmith has backed attempts to prosecute defence firm BAE Systems on corruption charges.

Allegations that BAE paid bribes to win contracts in several countries were “serious” and ought to be pursued with “vigour”, he told the Guardian.

But he said comparisons with the probe into BAE arms deals with Saudi Arabia, controversially dropped in 2006 on security grounds, were “misleading”.

The Serious Fraud Office intends to prosecute BAE unless it pays a fine.

It had been in negotiations with the company, but the sides could not agree what the firm would admit or the appropriate financial penalty.

The SFO will now seek approval from the current attorney general, Baroness Scotland, to begin legal proceedings.

‘Tough stance’

The case refers to allegations BAE paid bribes to win contracts in Tanzania, South Africa, Romania and the Czech Republic.

It is right that a tough stance is taken
Lord Goldsmith

Q&A: How arms deals are done

Writing in the Guardian, Lord Goldsmith – who left office in 2007 and is now chairman of a leading law firm – said these were “serious cases” which merited prosecution if there was sufficient evidence.

“I applaud Richard Alderman, director of the Serious Fraud Office, for his vigour in pursuing corruption cases in Africa and eastern Europe against BAE,” he said.

While not briefed on the current state of the investigation, Lord Goldsmith said it was clear from his time as attorney general that the cases were serious.

“It is right that a tough stance is taken,” he added.

But he dismissed comparisons between the current investigation and that into allegations over BAE arms deals with the Saudis in the 1980s and 1990s, which were dropped by the SFO in 2006.

Critics believe the decision to abandon the probe was politically motivated and that Lord Goldsmith came under heavy pressure from then prime minister Tony Blair to close the case.

But Lord Goldsmith said the circumstances surrounding the Saudi probe were totally different.

“As the then director of the SFO repeatedly stated, it was their decision – and not one they had been ordered to take – that national security considerations and the risk to UK security interests meant the case should not be pursued.”

BAE says it is still trying to resolve the current case, but will deal with matters in court “if necessary”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8286559.stm

How hypocrits are these guys! haha, amazing