GlobalPressFacts
Other “scoop” concerning the rafale vs typhoon…This MN pilot already downed a typhoon with a two supersonic drop tank config (for the rafale) in a simulated gun dogfight. It took him three turns to take the advantage.
interpreted thoughs:
So he didn’ felt that there was a big gap of performance between the two aircrafts in this area. He admitted that the outcome could have bee different as there is always a part of luck in this type of engagement but he insisted that both aircraft are quite similar for dog fighting skills
tree corners to out turns and kick ass the eurostuff with two tanks on the heavier config of the rafale, the M version, uhmmm 😮
pretty impressive!
even if he didn’t feel there were a big Gap, there is a gap, a gap that’s allow him to outperforme the euromess!
GlobalPressits the 100 years day of the first ever air show, not only Bourget is the first ever air show, but its the world bigger!
they waits alot of ppls this year!
GlobalPressBaE and briberies?
ohh of course not, they call this “lobbying”
😮
GlobalPressthat’s the fate when you teams up with the brits, they keeps them involved for 1/3 of the project, they claims to be the leader of it, and they at least buys only half of they was supporsed to acquire!
They are such gr8 wingmen isn’t it?:diablo:
GlobalPressBecause DASS was part of the agreed common core programme and software release standards, my understanding is that Germany had to pay its share of development and integration, and the only savings that would have been leveraged by not fitting it were the cost of the black boxes themselves.
“Britain as expected will only buy 16 of the 88 aircraft it is scheduled to buy. The remaining 72 planes will be sold off to Saudi Arabia.”
16 only? wow
“The average cost of a Typhoon is around £87.5m but it has been widely rumoured that Brown allocated less funding in an effort to try to win a better deal from industry on through life costs.”
wow, 53m, cost!
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9487
“But army chiefs are concerned Britain is cutting back spending on land forces while buying jets such as the Typhoon and the Joint Strike Fighter, whose long-term value to UK military operations they question.
“We’re in a position that is utterly absurd,” said one senior army figure last night as he contemplated the Eurofighter decision.
“We keep buying things that are irrelevant to the current fight in Afghanistan, yet we are starving the very army who are in the fight.”
Another senior military figure was no less cynical about the usefulness of the new Eurofighter, arguing that the aircraft were acold war relic designed to fight Soviet aircraft.
“In my view the best thing we could do would be to buy the planes and cut them up,” the senior officer said.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa2f2d24-40e6-11de-8f18-00144feabdc0.html
“So we can take it that Tranche 3 Eurofighter may be somewhat more of a Eurobomber than Tranches 1 and 2, but not as much as the RAF would like.
We can also take it that the UK government will sell on absolutely every Eurofighter it can possibly shift – to the Saudis, the Japanese, anybody it can get American permission to sell to. As nobody else wants a highly-specialised air-to-air only aircraft either, it will be the later and more capable planes which get sold. The RAF’s relatively basic air-to-air-only ones “will quickly be equipped with a potent precision ground-attack capability”, the government says – ie they will stay at the “austere” level for a long time.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/eurofighter_tranche_3/
so darn good aircraft that the users wants only one thing, GEt THE RID OF
GlobalPressHmm. With the new AESA, Meteor, and a HMD Rafale will pose a serious challenge to even the Typhoon in a2a… A pity all this arrives so late.
L
uhmmm after losing abroads challenges, the typhoon is today not really posing any problems …. exepted the clients that wanna end the overun money pour mess in cuting T3!
😮
GlobalPressBy the entry into service of the Meteor (currently projected for 2013) I would be astonished if the Typhoon hadn’t been updated with an AESA.
the captor specialists are claiming everywhere that thier “babe” is even better than AESA and they doesn’t need extra for meteor entry!:D
it would be the sole moment where the brits that aren’t no more able to build a fighter by themselves will taste the mica greatness, meteor has the mica head!
dah lost empire, dah lost economics illusions, dah lost pawar!:diablo:
GlobalPressKovy (et al)
JOUST may not be perfect, but it was rigorous, and was widely viewed by the real experts as being reliable and useful. Furthermore, its broad conclusions were validated by SILVE, and have been widely endorsed.
And its results chime with what most experts would expect. Rafale is a better A-A aeroplane than the F-15, but significantly less effective than Typhoon and F-22 in BVR.
I suggest that you get over it, just as Typhoon fans have had to get over the lower payload/range of their aircraft, and the immature state of its air-to-ground integration. Boo Hoo.
Snowy
I don’t know whether better programme management would have resulted in Typhoon having AESA already (I suspect not), but it would have saved billions, and would have resulted in a much earlier introduction to service.
is quinetiq, oopss “ex DERA” as reliable as the british Justice was to leave BAE bribing all over the world?
We need credible sources, for years what’s made in uk, and evaluated by a uk comp is all but credible!
“In 2007, the National Audit Office conducted an inquiry into the privatisation of QinetiQ to determine whether UK taxpayers got good value for money from the sale. The NAO inquiry looked at the following issues:
* choice of privatisation strategy;
* management of the process (the split of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency into two, the sale to Carlyle and the flotation);
* costs incurred and the proceeds achieved; and,
* whether the deal met its objectives.[27]
In November 2007, the NAO reported that taxpayers could have gained “tens of millions” more and was critical of the incentive scheme given to QinetiQ managers, the 10 most senior of whom gained £107.5m on a total investment of £540,000 in the company’s shares. The return of 19,990% on their investment was described as “excessive” by the NAO. The role of QinetiQ’s management in negotiating terms with the Carlyle Group, while the private equity company was bidding for the business, was also criticised by the NAO. Carlyle bought a third of the business for £42m which grew in value to £372m in less than four years.[28] However, the Ministry of Defence defended the sale:
“It has delivered excellent value for money, generating more than £800m for the taxpayer, while protecting UK defence and security interests,” said Baroness Taylor, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support.
There was a hearing by the Public Accounts Committee in December 2007.”
what a bunch of objective and credible ppls!
GlobalPressWith all due respect, this is complete nonsense. The constructive or destructive interference patterns generated by the emitting elements has zero impact on the amount of power they consume. For each direction where a destructive interference exists, there is another direction with a constructive one (integrating power density on a closed surface over the antenna will always give you the total emitted power, independant of the emission pattern).
The reason for AESA high power requirements are much more mundane: travelling waves tubes have a rather high efficiency, up to 40%. First generation MIMICs could hardly reach 20% and even the latest GAAs ones can only achieve 30-40% efficiency. Thus at equivalent output power, MSA are still more efficient. This will change with GAN modules that have been demonstrated with a 60% efficiency.
And BTW, module size is dictated by the minimum spacing between modules that avoids significant sidelobes which is a half wavelength. Of course, once you design a module that has to be spaced at lambda/2, it makes no sense not to use all the available space. Hence x-band modules are roughly 1.5×1.5 cm.
Whci give around 1000 modules for the RBE2 AA based on the rafale nose diamter, and almost 1700 for a potential CAPTOR-E.
eurofighter nose is twice bigger than the raf one?
lol :p:p
GlobalPressWith all due respect, this is complete nonsense. The constructive or destructive interference patterns generated by the emitting elements has zero impact on the amount of power they consume. For each direction where a destructive interference exists, there is another direction with a constructive one (integrating power density on a closed surface over the antenna will always give you the total emitted power, independant of the emission pattern).
The reason for AESA high power requirements are much more mundane: travelling waves tubes have a rather high efficiency, up to 40%. First generation MIMICs could hardly reach 20% and even the latest GAAs ones can only achieve 30-40% efficiency. Thus at equivalent output power, MSA are still more efficient. This will change with GAN modules that have been demonstrated with a 60% efficiency.
And BTW, module size is dictated by the minimum spacing between modules that avoids significant sidelobes which is a half wavelength. Of course, once you design a module that has to be spaced at lambda/2, it makes no sense not to use all the available space. Hence x-band modules are roughly 1.5×1.5 cm.
Whci give around 1000 modules for the RBE2 AA based on the rafale nose diamter, and almost 1700 for a potential CAPTOR-E.
eurofighter nose is twice bigger than the raf one?
lol :p:p
GlobalPressWhat can you do with an M-346 that you can’t do with a BAe Hawk for less expense?
things that hawk clients likes enough to switch for the italian beauty!
awefull hawk death bells are ringing
;);)
GlobalPressWhat can you do with an M-346 that you can’t do with a BAe Hawk for less expense?
things that hawk clients likes enough to switch for the italian beauty!
awefull hawk death bells are ringing
;);)
GlobalPressSo true 🙂 🙂
yes, true, somes can’t imagine the talent, the skill needed, the money, the time put into AESA new systems..
GlobalPressSo true 🙂 🙂
yes, true, somes can’t imagine the talent, the skill needed, the money, the time put into AESA new systems..
GlobalPressNope. Never increased in size. Never decreased in size. Fighter radar modules are always the same size because each radiating element is matched to the spectrum length of X-band. Its the same size even with the various PESAs. Its the same size—length of wave guide slot—even in all the slotted arrays. Its when you have longer wavelengths (wider band) that requires larger modules. The radiating element of a C-band radar is bigger than an X’s. The S band radiating element is bigger than the C-band. Goes down the line. If you see those UHF AESA, each radiating element is practically a Yagi fishbone type. Correspondingly, a Ku or Ka band element would be much smaller than an X-band element.
This is not dictated by semiconductor advances. This is dictated by microwave physics. Semiconductor advances would affect the back end processing systems only.
thx alot to grow education in basic physics to our mates, they still think that somes mmics will turn thier captor into a full AESA radar system, and without changing processors or programing and the million’s budget to program the frequency switching mode modules..
Sign In
