GlobalPressPerhaps because the only source to say that Rafale was grounded had withdraw.
Or perhaps because the Rafale actually fly over Afganistan with a Windows XP onboard. The virus has not stopped the support of ground troops.
you are all funny ones, can’t beleive it!
GlobalPressI would agree if we could be sure the story is true. But the MoD denied the fact that the Rafale were grounded.
there’s still ppl beleiving Rafale is windows vista “inside”, lol
that a worn could ground fighters squadrons! 😮
GlobalPressThe great Charles is back in Operation!
With 17 rafales!
😀
GlobalPressEADS is not 50% French. As of 31-12-2008, 47.01% of EADS shares are publicly traded, including 0.45% owned by French state-owned bodies. That leaves 46.56% in the hands of whoever happens to buy them.
The remaining 52.99% is divided up as follows:
Spanish state: 5.49%
Daimler: 22.50%
Sogeade: 25.00%Sogeade is jointly owned by the French state & Lagardère.
The above are in a contractual partnership, which votes its shares collectively, thus controlling the firm, but the trend has been for the publicly traded share to increase, as Daimler, the French state & Lagardère reduce their stakes. Since the end of 2005 they’ve each disposed of 7.5% of the company, reducing their joint stake from 62.5% to 47.5%.
http://www.eads.com/1024/en/investor/Stock_information/Shareholding_structure.html
It gets more interesting: Dassault owns 26% of Thales, & the French state owns 27.1%. 43.4% is publicly traded. But EADS owns 46% of Dassault.
Now calculate the French share of UMS. :diablo:
floating public aren’t owning ones dude, even the russians tried to buy most of it, they’ll never have any right on EADS
talking shares in general isn’t the p^lot, i’m talking about shareolders shares, French are the bigest shareolder!
EADS military france is confidential defence, and in the agreement no one from the partner can get a nod into the deterrent and dassault shareolding part of EADS france!
EADs france got more share in the Rafale than EADS as a whole in euro******!
nice try swerve, but the french owns you brits, haha 😮
GlobalPressI also did understand him, but UMS was formed in 1996, and 50% of the shares were owned by what was then called DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG (DASA) … And those shares are still firmly in German hands. That´s why you find “EADS Deutschland GmbH” in every UMS document.
Cheers
its wrong, EADS is mainly 50/50 franco german, with lagardére groups owning 5% of Dasa!
mains R&D sites are in france, and main assembly chains are in france..;)
GlobalPressLOL, funny how Airbus & EADS here is seen as French only by Mr. Francois le Troll Quebec libre. :dev2:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/340035_tanker17.html
need more?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23467526/
more??
GlobalPressUnited Monolithic Semiconductors his owned by THALES and EADS Deutschland GmbH, each of them accounts for 50% of the company…
EADS is a integrated compagny, franco german, that ums build in germany change nothing, they could build it in romania, as Dassault build falcons in USA, as the first A320 build in china will not be “chinese”, or the ford focus “english”
GlobalPress1. Perhaps not, which is why I have edited it.
2. True, but completing development of CAPTOR-E for a major export customer is not dependent on EF consortium government funding. The manufacturers could finance it out of the anticipated profits from the contract. They’re not starting from scratch: they’re already well into development. And in any case, they do have government money, though not as much as they’d like.
3. You should pay more attention to the content of posts. Some posters devote their entire efforts to bigging up the products of a particular nation,& running down the products of another. This renders their input meaningless.
4. Another stupid comment. Can you not understand that some expertise – and even hardware & software – is portable? The entire Selex range of AESA airborne radars, for example, uses identical T/R modules, from PicoSAR on up. The (operational, exported – including to the US, beating radars from US manufacturers) Seaspray radars have GMTI, SAR (not exactly useless for a strike aircraft) & air-air modes. Can you really not see how that carries straight across to a fighter radar, built using the same T/R modules?BTW, Thales, Indra, EADS & Selex have co-operated in AESA research programmes. They have a fair degree of shared knowledge.
Well, you seems to beleive that developping an “MMIC” antenna means that you develop a whole AESA radar system, AMSAR was to put comps together to develop comun MMIC knoledges, wich is 15% part of a full AESA radar system!
UMS is deveopping GaN and GaS MMIC, and got nothing british in it, its a THales EADS comp, 75% french, claiming that APG79 is 3 years old is as ridiculous as claiming Thales AESA history started on a Falcon in 2003, in fact 80% of the AESA system knoledge for the RBE2 started in 1986 , and far before in the USAF case, Raytheon got no advice to get from anyone around the planet on this matter!
Why Captor-E? or ERC90-E? isn’t an achievement? because it share only the antenna with its most advanced competitors, as an ad hoc stuff, when LM updated the F16 52 to 60, they no only changed the antenna at cheap cost!
regards
PS; i’ve found this on another site
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
The average unit procurement cost of fighter aircraft produced in the NATO area is $112.43 million,
and varies in a ratio of almost 3 to 1 from $62.1 million for a Dassault Rafale C, $ 68 for a JAS Gripen,$118 million for an Eurofighter to $177.6 million for a Lockheed F-22A.
GlobalPressUntil then things with the CaptorE might be more clear.
Captor E is a cheap way to claim “we got an AESA antenna”, lol but swaping with gaN modules an antenna will never makes a real AESA radar system, they to spend far more money in R&D rather than making glossy things, at the start typhoon system is based on past generation sensors, you can imagine how far goes thier “sensor” fusion!
Selex will only swap antenna, and Captor will still use same freq modes, sad story!
“Euroradar says the proposed Typhoon flights would be aimed at demonstrating overall integration of the new radar with the aircraft’s mechanical, structural, electronic and environmental control systems, as well as avionics and displays.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/06/06/207043/hopes-raised-for-captor-e-tests.html
“Various targets of opportunity were also detected and tracked. Data recording was successful and we have demonstrated track revisiting [looking back at targets detected earlier]. For cost reasons, the
CAESAR array was not fully populated with T/R modules, but approximately 75 per cent.”
I/J band vs C/Ku bands, Rbe2AA still got the edge
GlobalPressWhat’s a proven record? Selex, the chief Euroradar partner, has sold more airborne AESA radars than Thales. Not fighter radars, but it’s still useful experience. And it has an AESA fighter radar on the market.
hahaha, lol
what’s selex? not even 1/10 of Thales, so their R&D? 😮
would be funny a typhoon with a SEASPRAY 7000E to lock on fighters! haha:D
GlobalPressThe selected aircraft should allow the air force to project its power in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea, which meant that they should have a bigger range and additional requirements such as AESA radars. This will have major implications for the contenders, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16 Falcon, RSK MiG-35 and Saab Gripen.
bye bye F16, Gripen and eurofighter!
GlobalPressNo. Because “TMor”… 😀
from byke to rafale
GlobalPressAnd here are the changes in the technical critera from the magazine Greg mentioned. Unfortunately, not all are here, but the modified ones. This is as posted in greek forum, quoting the magazine:
The above seem contraddictory, if we believe them of course, as, from one side they photograph an “A-7 replacement” for mainly air-to-ground missions and from the other side, they improve EF’s chances.
A plausible scenario (plausible if we take the above as granted and want to explain them) was written in a todays’ newspaper, which would like this: The deal will “break” into 2 pieces. 10-20 F16s as immediate solution with LM giving very fast deliveries, as A-7 replacement. This would satisfy some of the above. And 20 EF (+option for 20) as an interim solution, before a next order at around 2015 and things will be more clear about F35’s capabilities. According to the newspaper’s model, HAF is satisfied with a quick and continuous flow of deliveries and EF will become the “Mirage” of the future, while the 2 US aircrafts will be the “F16” and “F4” of the past.
If you ask me, the above newspaper scenario, only makes sense, if we follow later with a 2nd EF purchase. Because keeping only 20 EFs, has no logic whatsoever. It would make an even bigger sense, if the EF can deal effectively in BVR with the export version of F35 and in 2015, buy more EFs and few F35s, while the Turks will be commited to the F35.
Otherwise, IMHO, it makes sense not to brake the deal in two.
buying fighters isn’t the behaviours of a bankroot country, it is?
so if we look at your logic, buying 2 european fremm or european helos will bar the way of the french or rafale in greece??
curious, Greeks wich look for 65% air ground capability could buy the laggar of
this cathegory wich is dearer and without AESA rather buying rafale..
Courious logic ? isn’t it? :o:o
GlobalPressstop boasting arthuro! 😀
The Eurofighter isnt too far behind in development 😮
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1126790/SFO-investigators-set-force-BAEs-hand.html
yes
GlobalPressWould be nice for our greeks friends to open a “Greek competition” topic rather than flooding your BS on a rafale topic!;)
:rolleyes:
THX
Sign In
