Page 2 – Key Publishing

topolo

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 44 total)

← 1 2 3 →

Author

Posts
September 16, 2012 at 4:16 pm in reply to: Possible BAE/EADS merger #2308830

topolo
Participant

I do beleive (and may be you share this opinion), that a BAE/EADS merge will have no impact on DS…

But for DA and the DASSAULT group, I do not have the same opinion, in the past years DA has tried to build a larger A&D pole with Thales and some other participation in french A&D company.
I do think this strategy to build a major european A&D group around DA is killed by a BAE/EADS merge, as the group around DA will never be a major one, neither a significant player in europe after the merge…

After such a merge, I do not see how DA can keep its Military A/C activities in a long term perspective, And I do not belive DA can exists with only its BizJet activity.

So even, if the merge will have no direct impact on DA governance (as you say, EADS has no way to drive these choices), I see this merge deeply modifying the DA perspective in A&D sector.

September 16, 2012 at 1:11 pm in reply to: Possible BAE/EADS merger #2308907

topolo
Participant

Dassault is hardly affected, BEADS, if created, will not compete with Dassault on its 2 main line of products: high end business jets and PLM/3D software.
As for Thales, one can expect a probable merger with Safran with still Dassault as a major shareholder.

The PLM/3D Software is not an activity of DASSAULT AVATION, but DASSAULT SYSTEMES, and EADS is not a share holder of DASSAULT SYSTEMES.

September 15, 2012 at 5:28 pm in reply to: Possible BAE/EADS merger #2309216

topolo
Participant

How does Dassault fit into this picture?

Very bad !
The company had spend a lot of money in Thales (and I beleive Nexter, but not sure), trying to create a larger A&D company.
These efforts means that DASSAULT do not beleive any more than “small is beautyfull”.
But compared to EADS+BAE, DA+THALES+Nexter is quite nothing (I mean in term of revenue), so there will no more place for DA in the game, I fear.

September 14, 2012 at 6:51 am in reply to: Possible BAE/EADS merger #2309573

topolo
Participant

If a merger occurs, it will be interesting to see the US government’s position on BAE defense facilities in the US. The USG will lileky require extensive measures to prevent data leaks to locations outside the US. If those measures are not satisfactory, those facilities could be stripped of USG contracts.

Strange to see how BAE is considred as a US company… (or UK as the 51th state of the union ?)

September 4, 2012 at 2:17 pm in reply to: If Mirage 4000 was bought, would Rafale exist? #2312402

topolo
Participant

My mistake…
Seems that this retrofit atually occurs in 1986 (I do not rember it was done, neither why, but since multiple sources say it, I should admitt I’m wrong)

September 4, 2012 at 12:40 pm in reply to: If Mirage 4000 was bought, would Rafale exist? #2312418

topolo
Participant

I do not remember if the 4000 has been retrofitted with M53P2.
I think (but of course I can be wrong) that M53-5 and M53-P2 can not be installed in the same airframe (this explain why old M2000-C had not been retrofitted with P2), so I do not see any obvious reason to update M4000 airframe when M53-5 were available (this would have a cost for DASSAULT AVIATION without significant benefit)

September 4, 2012 at 7:55 am in reply to: If Mirage 4000 was bought, would Rafale exist? #2312517

topolo
Participant

In term of maneuvrability and climb performances, the reference for the M4000 program was the F-15 (kind of benchmarck), and all its test pilots have said it reached the expectation.

The agility (g-onset, nose authority, roll rate, high AoA behavior..) of the 4000 was very close to the 2000 one in subsonic (despite its higher intertia), that is rated better than the one of the F-16.
If, in term of maneuvrability F-15 and F-16 are not far, F-16 is said much more agile than the Eagle. So logically, M4000 is more agile than the F-15 in subsonic. In the supersonic area, the mobile canard of the M4000 increase its agility (compared to the 2000 one) up to a level comparable to the Eagle one.

With its full 3-axis FLCS, the M4000 is at least as agile as the Viper and with its 2xM53, equivalent of better than the Eagle for maneuvrability and climb performance.

But, it ahs to be said that the M4000 had never seen its weapon system installed, and that would not have improve it’s performances… But on the other hand, it powered by M53-5, less powerfull than the current M53-P2, so we do not have aactual idea of the performances of a operational M4000

September 3, 2012 at 1:09 pm in reply to: If Mirage 4000 was bought, would Rafale exist? #2312724

topolo
Participant

M4000 had a fixed canard. It may not be as good as the M2000 or F-15 in manueverability.

M-4000 had mobile canard (in fact the basic FLCS laws of the Rafale Canard have been defined on M-4000), and M-4000 manueverability was better than the one of the 2000 (especially in supersonic, were the improvment was really significant, but also in high subsonic)

August 24, 2012 at 7:23 am in reply to: Questions about Nesher #2318795

topolo
Participant

Based on the consolidated information received, here are the results of my computations to document the performances of the AMD Mirage-5 / IAI Nesher:
NATOPS_FLIGHT_MANUAL-Mirage-5F/Nesher

August 16, 2012 at 9:30 am in reply to: Questions about Nesher #2333517

topolo
Participant

I agree with your analysis, it has been much easier to hide engine deliveries to IAF from French plants that frow Swiss (that has not been dimensionned to produce more tha internal swiss needs by the way).

So Nesher have been fitted with ATAR-9C3 (and later C5) “made in France” (the subversions has been mentionned in a similar thread on ACIG forum).

This distinction between french and swiss ATAR-9C is important for me (in order to evaluate Nesher performances), because swiss made ATAR have been known to have a much lower supersonic thrust (this defect has been partially fixed in the late 70’s accoding the swiss test pilot).

So I can assume Nesher performances are exactly the one of the Mirage-5F

BTW, some answers have been found in the mean time:
Mirage-5J/Mirage-5F/Nesher definition is based on Mirage-IIIE SN#546, so it includes leading edge fuel tanks. If we except the “inverted flight tank” of 60l, the internal fuel capacity of this planes is 3,380 liter.

The zero fuel weight (including pilot, guns, but no shells) of the Mirage-5F is 6,780Kg accoring its french flight manual.

August 14, 2012 at 5:10 pm in reply to: Questions about Nesher #2335166

topolo
Participant

Thank you Sens for this analysis…
Concerning the engines of the Nesher, I share with you the idea that they have not been manufactured in Israel (the required technology does not seems to be handled at this time in the country), but we still have 2 possibilities:
ATAR-9C manufactured by SNECMA as spares and delivred to IAI, OR, ATAR-9C5 made by Sulzer AG in Switzerland and delivered to IAI.

Why do you think Nesher engined have been build in France ? (I guess the answer is on the manufacturing plates of the engine of any Nesher in an museum with its engine, but I do not have one to look in)

July 12, 2012 at 12:46 pm in reply to: Questions about Nesher #2359556

topolo
Participant

Non public documents (neither classified, but never published, and without any publication authorisation), so they has not been listed in the Bibliography section… sorry
But all data taken into consideration in my documents are referencing the page number where they are coming from.

July 12, 2012 at 10:07 am in reply to: Questions about Nesher #2359593

topolo
Participant

Thanks again,
if you are intersted, here are few links to documents I have written to describe Mirage III familiy performances.
(Of course the section related to Mirage IIICJ retrofited with ATAR-9C may be reworked if I go to the conclusion that isrealien ATAR-9C behave like the underpowered swiss one).
The Mirage-5 and the Nesher are curretly on my workshop, as you can guess.

Mirage-III-Flight ModelIdentification

NATOPS_FLIGHT_MANUAL-Mirage-IIIC
NATOPS_FLIGHT_MANUAL-Mirage-IIICJ
NATOPS_FLIGHT_MANUAL-Mirage-IIIE

July 11, 2012 at 9:44 am in reply to: Questions about Nesher #2360385

topolo
Participant

Tanks, so at least Nesher are not supposed to have additional equipements compared to 5F/5J, so their empty weight should be equivalent or lower.

February 22, 2012 at 12:16 pm in reply to: F-20 Tigershark vs Mirage 2000 #2299672

topolo
Participant

I appreciate the thought…but you still don’t seem to understand what a High Yo-Yo is used for.

“Doesn’t do what?”

In fact ITR or STR does not make difference in F-20 vs M2K, at any altitude or subsonic speed, M2k has better ITR and better STR than F-20 (as said here
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 44 total)

← 1 2 3 →