I have two questions related to eye movements. First i see some notes about retinal projection. How doese it work if pilot turns his eyes? Same applies for targeting : Are helmets able to track eyes movements for targeting or do pilot select eg if several targets are in sight? How? Voice commands? Voice changes with gload, are voice systems reliable enough?
That’s a usual misconception about HMDS (probably due to Japanese animes featuring such systems)
What is traked is the head/helmet position/LOS. The HMDS simply works like a movable HUD (instead of having to move the whole aircraft, you move your head). You align the target you want to select with a reticul or you circle through the targest detected and dispayed with the appropriate HOTAS button.
AFAIK, eye tracking is not implemented in any HMDS today. But that’s certainly one of future improvements they could integrate.
A-2000 thunderghost II ! :very_drunk:
May be rare like f-16 with 4 AGM-88 , but i dont quite see why Mirage wouldnt be able to carry 2 Super 530 in the inner pylons
It seen carry something much bigger there
Because the missile launcher of the super 530D would not fit there.
France should have ordered A-4, modified it to their tastes, and dumped Super Etendard. Even Bought A-7 fit their ship better for long range strike. Super Etendard was built on an obsolete airframe using long in the tooth engines. A-4 had a pretty good combat record in comparison. If not for the Falklands fiasco against Exocet, I don’t think Super Etendard had a lot of remarkable performances.
Well it did take part in a lot of conflicts:
Falklands war
Lebanon war
Iran-Irak war
Bosnia war
Kosovo war
Afghanistan war
Libya war
Nothing to be embarrassed about as far as combat record is concerned.
Sinking a Type 42 destroyer is what made the a/c known to the public. But the Super etendard did a lot of more usual A2G war missions with little advertising.
can the F35 do a vertical loop
Wait what ?
Come on, that’s a 9G supersonic fighter we are talking about, not an airliner.
Ozair is right.
Links to the sources are very important.

Do i have to fork out 100 per cent of the development costs?
Well, as far as workshare (ie how many work hours you get for your country) is concerned having 100% of the development is rather a good thing š
Kovy, your analysis whilst looking pretty and nicely ordered is seriously flawed and does not present all costs and you are playing with %’s to portray a picture that doesn’t exist.
There is not a single penny discussed in it because it does not intend to address the costs or the benefit issue, only the wokshare per country… no more no less. That is, how many eurocanards are produced by who and what portion of this prod is exported.
So please, do not try to read into it what it does not intend to show.
I don’t want to assess the costs and benefit because most of the time you end up comparing apple and orange based on partial data.
For example, How do you compare the dev cost per country between UK and Germany knowing that their eurofighters have very different capabilities ?
Your Gripen production count fails to take into account imported parts, which are a big share of Gripen A-D & a bigger share of Gripen E. Lots of US & British stuff, for example.
Indeed (see note N°3)
This is also very difficult to do š
BTW, how does it count Gripens planned to be built in Brazil? And does it fully account for Gripen C/D rebuilt from A/B? They’re often counted twice, or not at all, & it’s hard to decide exactly how they should be counted.
Only for simplicity concerns.
I will check for the zombi Gripen A/B. I may have counted some of them twice. Imho they should be counted as 1 unit as their serial numbers should remain the same when converted to the C/D version.
Oh, so exporting more typhoons than the total number of all Gripen and Rafale respectively produced is a flop?
It is an export production flop considering that the production of theses exported aircrafts has to be shared between 4 countries.
What would you prefer ?
100% of 84 aircrafts
or
37.4% of 127 aircrafts
According to your reasoning, the best way to have exporting success is to discontinue internal order for the plane and give away the existing one at a token price.
what ?
Your numbers ignore the economic investment required to get to the point of export. Each of the Eurofighter nations input around 5 billion or less in total funding for development. Sweden didn’t develop even half the jet or its systems and a decent proportion of those manufactured jets are no longer in service compared to Rafale and Eurofighter. Comparatively, France had to outlay the entire development cost of the jet and the engine, somewhere around US$20 billion.
I would like to see your analysis take those figures into consideration.
Yes indeed, this is only a unit production analysis.
Cost analisys are almost impossible to do, especialy between different countries.
France went into a 100% national project that turned out to be exhausting for their own defence fundings, an export flop (until last two years) and ended up to being produced at snail’s pace for keeping production line open.
Well if you look at the figures, all 3 Eurocanards are export flops and the worst flops is the Typhoon.
As far as Eurocanards production is concerned (internal + export), Sweden and France get more work share than any of the 4 Typhoon partners.
Out of the total Gripen+Rafale+Typhoon production of 1141 aircrafts ordered so far (278 gripen + 264 Rafale + 599 Typhoon), Sweeden has the highest a/c production followed by France.
As far as export is concerned, France has the lead with 29.5% of the total eurocanard export production followed by Sweeden with 26%.
UK gets completely screwed by Germany and Spain as she must share its 84 Typhoon export production with partners that have barely exported anything compared to their contractual work share.
As a side note the total number of eurocanard exported so far is depressingly low : 285 š (74 Gripen, 84 Rafale, 127 Typhoon)
Note1 : Typhoon partners’ numbers are weighted by their respective contractual work share
So if UK exports 10 Typhoon, its actual export production will be only 3.74 Typhoon and the rest will be shared by the 3 other partners.
Note 2 : France Rafale 5th tranche is not counted.
Note 3 : For simplicity, Gripen and Rafale are supposed to be 100% made localy.
Note 4 : Gripen Leases are counted in the local production (ie, not as exports)
what if, they skipped the rafale instead. it would be skipping half a generation.
RD resources would focus on more advanced M2k upgrades while they build an actual 5th gen design.
what is a 5th generation design ?
And do the author know that 10 Rafale M (F1) are under refit?
5 actually
yes, Tiger too!
again, French make great helicopters. but when working with Germans..you guys should’ve gone Mangusta or Cobra
It would have been the same because this is what happens when you ask for a completely different version and want to do the assembly yourself …
You don’t want problems ? buy the same product as the manufacturing country and let them do their job.
Besides that, you also have to consider that these helicopter have been used in war conditions only very recently… which is usually what allows to fix most undetected issues.
France has used and is currently using its tigers and NH daily in very tough war conditions (Afghanistan, Libya, Mali) so you can bet that those machines are going to mature very fast now…
the strange thing is: why would they come up with the thought of produce a 1 way DL meteor specifically for rafale ?
it was right there, i read it
May be they thought it would have been cheaper… and then realized it was not the case and a bad idea in case they decide to upgrade to a 2W DL in a future Rafale Standard (possibly for an export customer)