Brad PiffOh yes, obviously. Here’s another Greek magazine discussing it (pp. 36-39).
And a French page, netmarine. “Après, les bâtiments font cap sur l’ouest du Péloponnèse, le nord de la Crête, le large d’Athènes. C’est dans cette zone que de nombreux exercices ont lieu avec les forces navales et aériennes helleniques. Dans le prolongement, diverses manifestations de relations publiques vont être organisées.”
Clearly, didn’t happen :rolleyes:
PEAN 2009??? ok…what about MEDOR 2010????
still doesnt sound like something big…
Brad PiffAnd FWIW the Marine Nationale mentions it as well, although they don’t go into any details the Charles de Gaulle’s “journal de bord” page briefly mentions the exercise in its March 2010 entry:
Cette inspection générale est intervenue pendant la sortie MEDOR 2010, sortie d’entraînement profitable en particulier pour amariner les 24 pilotes fraîchement qualifiés mais qui permettra aussi à l’ensemble des pilotes du groupe aérien embarqué de se confronter à l’environnement changeant des espaces aéromaritimes.
Likewise “an earlier entry” in the same “journal de bord” mentions the PEAN exercise in its November 2009 entry:
Présent à bord avec son état-major dans le cadre de la préparation de l’exercice PEAN qui débute le 23 novembre, le contre-amiral Kérignard, commandant la force aéromaritime de réaction rapide, a détaillé au CEMA les objectifs de cet l’exercice et les capacités mises en œuvre par le groupe aéronaval constitué du porte-avions et de son escorte.So yeah. The Greeks were more vocal about it for whatever reason, but there’s no question the exercises happened.
LOL…do they even mention the greeks?? doesnt sound like a serious excercise…lol
Brad PiffThe link is from strategypage Iwant to confirm the exercise existed before I start with links.
the medor excerscise is written in some greek defencepaper, however I thought the CDG were to be deployed in the persian gulf in october, on a NATO mission with the USS truman and abraham lincoln.
the exercise might have taken place on the way to the afghan mission? I’m sure some french publications will write about it if it did happen.
Brad PiffIf, as I believe, there is no big ghost in the program
and that it’s a penny pinchin’ mismanagement move,
maybe France should just input a tad and buy Nimrods?
No, the Nimrods are not working systems, there are allot of prolems to solve and millions to spend. Don’t get caught up in the hype.
Brad PiffIRST are widely used in western sam systems. Theres many years since I worked with the NASAMS, but they sure use ir detectors to find objects flying under the radar, or stealthy objects. It’s nothing new.
Brad PiffAFAIK the lasts statements from Jobim he has focused on ToT not price.
The French are frustrated but perhap also the Brazilians are as well?
They want a strategic partnership with France and perhaps it’s difficult for them to understand why they cannot get a significantly better ToT from their strategic partner than what the Gripen consortium can offer, in particular considering that the price is much higher…
Anyway, IMHO France still has very high probability of winning this. But maybe they should not take it for granted?
when it comes to ToT, what are they putting on the table??
Brad PiffI can’t believe anybody still believes that fighter performance is more important then political ties. At the end of the day, it’s all politics.
Taigy,
interesting stuff, thanks. Do you know how the SA-6 was detected? Detection of emissions or something else?
Saab has been working on Carabas for quite some time, a nice summary from Signatory:
The SA-6 teams tried to emulate tactics used by Republika Srpska during bosnian NATO airstrikes, so it’s probably luck that made the Rafale able to detect as it werent turned on when the weasels cleared the area. Ofcourse the tv-optics made it easy for the rafale to identify and destroy, withing ROE.
Brad PiffBrad i see it this way.
1. We live in a democratically elected society where most programs have some form of over site.
2. companies are allowed to compete for a contract.
3. While the system is far from perfect, we have a professional officer core that
will not tolerate the air force buying a plane that has absolutely none of the capabilities that are advertised.4. Competition ensures that companies work hard to meet weight and performance requirements.
5. In order to accuse Lm and the USAF of buying a plane that meets none of the requirements would imply large scale graft over a wide range of areas. which would include career officers going into future battle know that there planes do not work.
6. While we have some incidents ( see v-22) I cant see the usaf pulling the wool over the entire congress, every single air force officer, turkey, Israel, Britain,Australia, Canadian, and still get away with it. especially after a competition for one of the largest aircraft order in history. BOEING would run screaming to the congress. and people would go to jail.
I don’t know why you are telling me this? The only thing I said is the truth; and that is CC is not the best method for passive RCS reduction. And if you believe that any of the public RCS numbers has anything to do with reality then you are an (!). I’ve seen simulations on a wellknown aircraft in our inventory, and the result gave us up to 5-6 db in difference, trying different software. Trust me, these numbers are not public, and they say nothing about the conditions to achieve these. 😀
Brad PiffI got to give it to you jessmo, you are on some hardcore LM type of agenda. I wouldn put to much weight on known data about their respective RCS. However I still believe that the all-aspect RCS of the F-35 is much higher then the F-117, and I know for a fact that CC is not the most effective RCS reduction method.
At the end of the day, time will tell. Hopefully we will get them in our airforce soon, and hopefully Il be able to work with the F-35 squadron, and see whats the fuss is really about.
Brad PiffOkay, fine. Whatever. Simply pointing out that L-M does INDEED consider the F-35 to be an all aspect LO design and it’s a bold claim to make that just because something “looks” different doesn’t mean it is almost as effective.
I too have read that the F-35 is less stealthy than the F-22. I have also read that both the F-22 and the F-35 are MORE stealthy than the F-117. Given 25 years additional research and development of signature management technologies since the F-117 was designed, that hardly seems surprising to me, but some here seem to consider it the pinnacle of LO design, so who am I to argue?
Unless someone here has got access to RCS pole test data, which quite frankly I doubt, then I think it might be best if some would admit that they are doing nothing more than speculating and move on. Otherwise they might just as well speculate about tomorrow night’s lottery results…
Take a look at the YF-22, then the more stealthy YF-23, what do you see when it comes to the use of CC?
When it comes to the F-35 vs F-117 I have to remind you that stealth is not static and the lo performance can differ from angles of the plane and radarband.
Brad PiffPresumably the key issue with choosing the Rafale is not cost, or loss of work share on the F-35 programme, or even the fact that the RAF is not going to buy into the programme so it would be an FAA only type, but that Dassault cannot wait until the UK is ready to make decision – we are not making any decisions until the 2015 SDSR on numbers, which means that the earliest we would make an order is 2016, and while that is no problem for LM with the F-35C it does seem like it would be a problem for Dassault.
In terms of leasing the Super Entendards, my logic was this:
We are primarily agreeing to use CdG as a platform for training, given that we and France train the pilots with USN to fly cat and trap, it would be more about training ground crew, especially in the new roles like Shooters, and keeping your qualified pilots certified. The Super Entendards are a known quantity on CdG, are a useful intermediary between Harriers and F-35C’s and if you are being paranoid about Argentina, stops Argentina buying them (given that Argentina has experience of operating them and they have been modernised, they make a nice addition to Argentina’s strike capabilities before they spend serious money in the 2020’s on a 60 – 70 thousand ton CATOBAR carrier, Rafale’s, SSN’s and modern escorts as seems to be the current plans according to others who have posted on this forum).
The Super Etendard are quite underestimated, especially if you look at their deployments, they If I remember correctly had the best performance during 99 Nato airstrikes. But if there really is a need to lease them I don’t know, couldn they train when they recive the F-35?? It’s not like the RN uses catapults now?
Brad PiffBut the argument is that CC isn’t important! HOW Can it be important or relevant, and NOn relevant at the same TIME!
I never said it werent relevant. it’s just less effective. You got me confused whit another user.
If I’m not mistaken the F-22 uses high altitude also am I correct?
The F-22 has another role then the B-2.
Brad Piffso your saying the B-2 doesn’t use curvature? Please explain while you are trying to get to see the hidden faceted surfaces. explain to me!
wait, ew what? don’t understand your question….didn’t I just say B-2 used curvation??
ah…wait I think I used CC instead of curvation…sorry…:dev2::diablo:
Brad PiffYour saying that the B-2 does not use curvature? and a major RCS reduction tool?
yes and no. because of it’s operational altitude, it can use CC in areas which are not facing ground radar to better aerodynamic performance. Obiously CC reduce your signature quite a bit.
Sign In
