I’ve spoken t osomeone who repeated the same story etc…

Yeah we’ve seen it again and again.. The old “i’ve spoken with” thing with no names no other sources than the guy posting it… Laughable.

The problem is they all say exaclty the same copy/paste story, counterdicted by the real guys time and time again.

As well as operational results. Note: They still don’t tell us in WHICH configuration the Rafale was “trying” so hard i think i can guess why.

There are a lot of discrepancies in their staments and lots of failures to elaborate in a fully “other than politics and rumour” way i can dig a lot of articles bashing up Typhoon for far better reasons but it France we have the decency to leave the “chien ecrases” rubrique for the BOFs, here we have the specilised press equivalent opf it and i don’t think i’d like to part of this particular club. Too mediocre.

————————————————————————–

I personally have more than enough with this topic:

We’ve seen a bit of everything and lot of whatever.
Questions:

Does that make sense that SEM can fly dry at M 1.3 everyday with a lower TWR than Rafale?

Does that make sense that Miragwe III Avon supercruised at M 1.3 in 1963 with a lower TWR too?

Does that make sense that some who can’t describe Rafale in a proper way can pretend that it cannot do it with a more modern layour, more dry power instaled and higher TWR?

Does that make sense that all French procedures and operational requierements are constantly ignored/denied?

Does that make sense that all sources other than that of favourable to Eurofighter are propaganda?

Does that make sense that history needs to be rewriten or forgoten for the Typhoon fan club to make their points?

Does that make sense that most of the “club” never actually heared any French spoken acount of the real thing by programme managers or pilots?

Does that make sense that none is versed in the basic of aircraft design and aerodynamics?

Does that make sense that all the photos taken of the Typhoon deployed to S’pore are that of unarmed/unequiped (absolutly clean no shaff/flare cartriges no Pirate etc) aircrafts?

Because at the end of the day it’s the Typhoon fan club problem… We all have the same impression:

The world began with Typhoon, MBB, BAe Aliena etc, doesn’t matter if Dassault is by far the most experienced in Europe and the only European manufacturer to really be capable of competing technologically with the US, so at the end of the day we don’t care if it doesn’t .

We’ve seen it for what it is and so did the Koreans, Dutch and Singaporian.

I have spoken with a few other journalists and editors, all a greed on this point; this article and the “Eastern smile” article aren’t representative of the reality.

And on Eastern smile, even members of the RAF detachement in Singapore desproved, the reason for it to be published anonymously in the first place.

So keep taping yourself in the back, GIE are working their way through without worrying about what you guys can write because at the end of the day, the customers knows the truth.

I knew it; i have taken care to ask for professional confirmation of it and to my knowledge, these sources are the most accurate in the UK.

And the most honnest too. Have a nice one, watch Dassault winning the competitions and reflect on the merit of both ways to tell things to others…

———————————————————-

I saw that and i thought of you…

http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/

“Pitch control is provided by symmetric operation of foreplanes and wing flaperons, while roll control is primarily achieved through differential operation of wing flaperons. Yaw control is primarily provided by the fin mounted rudder. Cross feeds among the various actuation systems are also implemented to optimise aircraft performance and handling qualities. The slats and flaperons automatically optimise the wing camber at all Angles of Attack (AOA).”

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html

FROM RAF WEBSITE:
Top Speed:
1,321mph (2,125km/h) at 36,090ft

[= M 2.0]

—–

Dutch fighters competition results:
F-35 : 697/850
Rafale : 695/850
Eurofighter : 585/850

Writen by the Dutch competition experts…

—–

F-15C/Su-27___+06.0db =6.0m²
Typhoon_______+00.5db =1.5m²
Rafale________+00.0db =1.0m²
B-1B/F-18E____+00.0db =1.0m²
LFI___________-20.0db =0.01m²
F-35A/B/C_____-30.0db =0.001m²
F-117A________-35.0db =0.0005m²
F-22A/B-2A____-40.0db =0.0001m²

—–

“Rebourg said that with a clean Rafale, using afterburner, you can enter a turn at 500 kt. and 10,000 ft., pull the maximum 9g and still accelerate.”

PS not a low altitude like a Typhoon display pilot quoted. 10,000 ft is more demanding for cause of lower air density, unless you want this natural law to be a product of French propasanda too…

—–

“Aerobatics
Thanks to her FBW the Rafale is extremely manoeuvrable. Depending on the configuration there are 2 flight domains : air-to-ground with heavy loads (5.5G max and 160°/s roll) or air combat (9G max and 280°/s roll rate) In emergency case the max load factor can reach 11G.
During test flights for opening the flight envelope at very low speed the aircraft flew at an incidence of more than 100° and at negative speeds of ’40 knots without loss of control.<
‘We consider that firing after a brutal nose-up like a Cobra are risked during combat because weapon separation problems can arise and pilot can be in a very dangerous situation if he fails to destroy his opponent(s). We prefer to use a very agile weapon, like the MICA and a helmet mounted sight’ says Jean Camus, test pilot and ex-manager of the EPNER french test pilot school) and former M2000 test pilot.”

—–

Ps i might have got a couple of figure wrong, but a least i’m not taking the P, just keep at it, that’s what you guys are good at…just. See ya’

Jack

“They weren’t, of course, and that’s not what I said, any more than Singapore were able to fly the F2/3 Standard Rafale C they require.”

There isn’t a difference of 1,100 kg between Rafale standards there is between Typhoon “standards”. They were coted as being more than a ton lighter, this doesn’t make any other sense than my explaination.

” I have been involved in producing entries on aircraft for Jane’s and I can tell you that JAWA relies on public-source,”

whatever they relied on, Eurofighter released the two figures of 9,900 kg ans 1.100 kg themself to start with i didn’t Janes for the datas.

“I recognise exactly where your weight, turn rate, and Alpha limit figures come from, and can only say that I would not place much faith in them. Especially weight.”

you do? really? About the test pilot themself like Philippe Rebourg, Eric Gerard Yves Kerherve or others? Unless they also are working a sa propagandist for Dassault lie the 12 F pilots? This is bigining to look ridiculous to say the least.

Looks like there is no other reliable sources than yours here…

And do You really think i need Jane’s for this?

“There is no suggestion that Tranche 2 jets will be heavier than Tranche 1, nor that Tranche 1 jets will not gain full A-G capabilities when the later EOC CP software packages are incorporated.”

Absolutly not my point: First i never quoted T2 second i specifically indicated the first RAF production aircraft, the very one which were flown to S’pore.

“Nor has there been any change in airframe weight in the production aircraft since BT001 was rolled out – though the released figure on leaflets and brochures may have changed.”

Well appparently if there have been any you can’t prove otherwise since you don’t even know about the change in specs and the interview i have seen. All you can do is to try to deny and denigrate this as been from a non-reliable source, from one of the Eurofighter representatives i think not.

I think my soirces are a lot more reliable than yours.

Similarly, you state with apparent authority that: “MoD was planing to fly them wihout the gun for some time as an economical measure…” which is quite true. You then say that: “BAe/QuinetiQ came up with a fix on the change of CG due to the weight difference and a ballast was designed and instaled on some airframes.”

Again all you can do is to put in doubt the work of one of your collegues in think thts was a an article either in AFM or F-I Eventually i’ll dig it out as well as the rest. From where i’m standing you’re only in a state of denial and try to have your point stick. I know better than that. I’ve heared it, seen it, read it.

“You’ve made up your mind that they’ve beefed up Typhoon for the A-G role. You’ve decided that the A-G role was a late addition.”

Well you miseed this part of the story and it was not the journalist answering his own answer but a Eurofighter representative. got a better source then Eurofighter?

“For Eurofighter GmbH the basic AAM fit (4+2) is clean.”

Doesn’t account for a difference of 1,100 kg or more.

“Singapore’s supercruise requirement was clearly not based around an A-G loadout (self evidently) but may have been founded on a relatively clean configuration and half internal fuel – in the air to air role, supercruise may be most relevant when heading out from, or back to, the tanker.”

This is a totally laughable assumption, you’re talking about half the loitering capability of Typhoon which doesn’t have much of it; as for Rafale the minimum requiered is closer to a couple of hour than half of it.

It doesn’t make any operrational sense to send aircraft in CAP with half internal fuel at all. In real operational conditions i.e. every day, Rafale doesn’t go CAP without at least one central 1,250l. That’s what would make sense for them to demonstrate as a capability.

I suspect that this “supercruise”t thing is joke and total manure no more than this goo PR fopr the Typhoon but far from real life that is.

“There was a degree of surprise among those I spoke to that Rafale felt they had to wait for the cool of evening to supercruise, and absolute astonishment that they then failed to get the ‘tick in the box’.”

Yeah? And in which configuration? Since they climb to 40,000 ft in less than 120 sec with a tank and 4 X AAMs and supercruise also thereafter… That’s the all point.

As for the rest it’s the usual explaination trying to imply Typhoon superority with absolutly nothing concrete to show.

First you fail to recall something a lot of other journalist have writen about, second you imply that i use Jane’s datas when in fact i keep e-mailing them and being on the phone with the editors to try to correct their mystakes etc.

As i say i’m sorry but in your article there as absolutly nothing concrete at all. most editors i spopken with agreed on thsi point including some members of the RAF personnal detached there; surprised?

First you totally ignore the fact that the Rafale could have been in a totally different configuration, second you imply that it is incapable to replicate operatrional performances in better conditions for weight, third there is a part of Typhoon history that you obviously don’t know about. Get real.

@Jack. Thanlk you sir.

I also preciate this level of civilities from you.

“The Singapore bid was always based on Tranche 2 aircraft at EOC2+. Anything else is simply incorrect, based on press speculation and rumour.”

Since when 2 aircraft at EOC2+ were flown there?The Typhoon dispatched were also quoted as being noticeably lighter than the others; about the same difference as the non-A2G capable to that of developement aircrafts… See the part on Typhoon design later on my post.

“There has been no formal campaign in India, no bid, and no offer, and therefore no rejection. Or have I misunderstood you?

True that but rejection is a no, they said no, not politics so this is still been rejected as was Rafale in Korea, i also refer you to the AFM/July 2004 article “RAF’s Early Production eurofighters May Be Exported”…

” Mica certainly isn’t superior to ASRAAM from a performance/effectiveness point of view, but may have political advantages, and logistic advantages if you’re using the other version of Mica.”

These are totally subjectice arguments as for the performance/effectiveness point of view, for the political aspect it was one of the rare point i didn’t oppose in the article “easten smile”.

“I don’t understand, unless you mean the weight of the A-G weapons? The Typhoon is designed to be a swing-role/multi-role aircraft,”

You don’t obviously: I think the first built Typhoons didn’t have the beefed-up airframe so they were also not fully representative of the multi-role ones. The respective weight are: <> 9.900 kg/ 11,000 Kg. Some difference.

As for Typhoon being designed as a fully multi-role, either your memory fails you either you didn’t know that A2A wasn’t in its requiered specs.

These requiered specs determines the design solutions. Hence the increase in weight from 9,900 kg to 1`1,000 kg as the specs changed, there was a clear need to beef-up the airframes to allow for a repeated and sustained use at high/speed low level…

“I don’t understand. RAF Typhoons have the gun, even though it will not be supported in service.”

Jack, MoD was planing to fly them wihout the gun for some time as an economical measure, BAe/QuinetiQ came up with a fix on the change of CG due to the weight difference and a ballast was designed and instaled on some airframes.

It turned up that its cost was prohibitive and finaly there was no financial advantage to it.

“Probably not. Nor on Typhoon.”

Agreed on the whole point.

“I don’t understand. Typhoon’s designers always new that the aircraft was expected to replace the F-4 AND the Jaguar in RAF service, and that low level air-to-ground was always going to be part of the requirement. This was not a ‘late change’.”

False: I witnessed a press conference where some journalist had the “cheek” to ask if the canards weren’t going to be within the pilot field of view. This was relative to the risk of adverse fire from a threat from the ground.

The answer from the Eurofighter boffin was that in any case Typhoon wasn’t going to do any mud moving at low level and that it will not be a problem as is was an air superiority aircraft with limited A2G role. That there was little chances for a thrweat to appear in this area of the pilot fiels of view.

This was previous to the change of requiered specs.

Looks to me that you missed a good part of the movie, the programme was i think a BBC2’s on Typhoon or Farbo’.

“I don’t follow. I believe that the supercruise demo did not require full tanks, and that Dassault were free to fuel the aircraft as they saw fit.”

I dont see how they could actually perform any mock-mission remotly close to be representative of Operational conditions other than with a fix set of configurations: i.e. ex: full internal fuel 6 X AAMs or this plus a number of external tanks etc.

Your sources might well have been taking the P on that one too, but myself will avoid to be fully affirmative here as obviously these events are still classified and i have little to validate yet.

But think; is supercruise any good to you if you can’t carry enough fuel and AAMs for a CAP mission? As i said earlier, Mirage III Avon was doing it at M 1.3 as early as 1963…

Given any configuration representative of real combat conditions, the rest is only good enough as laboratory and air show stuff, not much of a use for an air forces. And S’pore MinDef are no idiots, far from it…

Plus Rafale can easly do it on dry power alone, C-01 did it during its first flight with less powerful and slightly heavier developement M-88 and as you said, temperature are a problem but it would have affected both aircrafts.

This part of “Easten Smile” didn’t make much sense for most Rafale enthusiasts and must have had the 12F pilot hurting with laugh.

“Good day, as you always say.” Yep i wish your to be constructive, enjoy.

@PILOTHGT Get off my pubic hairs…

Playing hair crabs isn’t doing anything for your case, just showing a substantial lack of substance… I decided to ignore your post from now. Bye.

2Scorpion82; bienvenue… last reps writen last night

“Eurofighter GmbH’s ability to offer AMRAAM and Paveway LGBs -as well as new generation weapons including ASRAAM, Meteor, Storm Shadow and Brimstone”

First AMRAAM firing on Typhoon, March 15 2005, during a weapons trials at the QinetiQ Deep Sea Range at Benbecula.

MICA EM was first test-firing on Rafale June 1995, qulification June 1998, operational firing from actual in-squadron service aircrafts June 2004.

Now the IR version also have been fully integrated and fire-tested, so this statment is not only misleading, at the time it was writen, it was simply untrue.

Brimstone is also scheduled for cleareence with Rafale for export customers asking for the weapon.

LGBs, we’ve already been over, no reak need for pod integration yet but GBU-12 have been fired.

Storm Shadow, same, Rafale actually fired a few SCALP-EG and carrier-qualified the weapon in the process.

METEOR, they will more or less be able to integrate them at the same time, as part of the missile testing is conducted in France, with the added advantage of a different seeker and the choice for both.

Brimstone acn be integrated to Rafale pending custoner requirement.

Some statment in the French Assemblee Nationale clearly indicate that OSF is still in developement in a new version and this seems to imply a IR seeker for the new missile;

Obviously i cannot be a 100% afirmative on that one but it make sense to harmonise OSF capabilities to the new AAM although i have to speculate on this, having no clear staments but indications.

“- may be of pivotal importance in Singapore, offering the best avalaible air-to-ground and air-to-air weapon options,”

Same for Rafale with a clear advance in weapon integration and fire-testing.

“”and providing a real ‘capability edge’ by comparison with the other candidate aircraft.”

Totally desagree for obvious reasons, this stament simply doesn’t reflect reality and it is also obvious that the level of their respective weapon and system integration schedule played a large part on S’pore unusual decision to drop Typhoon from the competition so early.

When Typhoon requierements changed, i suspected that some of the early airframes weren’t going to roll out with the added weight of the beef-up measures and it seems to me that i was right.

S’pore seems not to have been presented with the final multi-role aircrafts, another clue, the suggestion by some members of the British parliament to sell the early RAF Typhoon was some sort of confirmation of this.

The RAF clearly indicated their desire for all aircrafts to be multi-roles and with good reasons, but this implied a weight penalty and cut the grass from under Typhoon designers feets.

Third clue; as soon as they were offered to India they were rejected on the ground of non-existing A2G capabilities, i became yet more suspicious.

Now it looks like this was also a factor.

The difference between the two is understandable, S’pore and India needs a real mutli-role not an optimised Air-superiority fighter.

“This goes some way to explain how it might be that “Singapore did not wait a little for Typhoon (even) if it was the best by far….”

The usual, the best in doing what? They didn’t really see anything close to the real article, were being demonstrated a lower level of capabilities than what they wanted while the performances would have been impossible to replicate with the the multi-role aircraft for the obvious reason of increased weight.

“We could argue all day as to whether Mica is an adequate alternative to AMRAAM/ASRAAM,” from operational, performance, political, and logistical standpoints.”

It is, MBDA/EADS are there to guaranty that, MICA is not going to put S’pore into risk as to weither it would be embargoed by a US senat change of mood…

“(Going by Fonk’s logic, the Korean decision would ‘prove’ that Korea thought that Rafale was inferior to the F-15K,”

For the role and in the form Rafale was proposed to Korea, F-15T was immediatly more performant than Rafale in A2G role.

They had a clear preference for the newer techologies involved with the Rafale programme but their need was for a more immediate availability of the capabilities they requiered at the time, in this situation F-15 was the superior option…

Same case as for Typhoon now, there is never a guaranty that an aircraft will reach its targets in performances once the full avionic and weapon suite are implemented.

Historically, all aircrafts tend to put on weight, the example of F-35 is quiet striking, but one exeption being the Mirage 2000, i believe Dassault are very careful to keep weight under control with Rafale too, the experience of the Mirage IIIE is still a good lesson for Dassault ans their customers.

“Price will play a part, the availability of particular weapons will be important, even the ability to integrate Israeli EW kit may have some influence and political considerations will be even more vital, and these are extremely hard to analyse.”

According to the Assemblee Nationale doc i have read on the subject, Rafale developement cost is lower as well as unit price although it depends on the deal offered to the customer obviously…

I do not think that there will be any problems integrating Israeli weapons to Rafale in the future.

“your other point was about maximum Mach numbers.”

This is where GIE policies are effiscient: Since its creation, they didn’t release any other perfomance/characteristic datas than the requiered “10 ton class M 1.8”.

Weither the changes in avionics and suggested weight saving measures are playing a part is open to speculation.

Even within the official web sites previous to GIE, the all thing was confusing enough, the only way to really figure them out is to follow the aircraft history very closely and there is still a margin for error either way.

For example: During carrier qualification trials with M01 and M02, the programme manager was letting out some precious clues as far as my own research work is concerned:

“at 9,650 Kg the M is jst above 500Kg heavier than C”; i doubt that they actually ommited to ballast the aircraft for this particular qualification tests requiering precise datas to figure the best AoA/glide slope angle and aproach speed.

RAF Typhoon were ballasted with the equivalent of the gun weight for the same reason.

OSF and SPECTRA maximum target weight were known and part of the design before Rafale C roll out, so there is no reason to think that with or without OSF/SPECTRA, Rafale M empty weight have changed that much.

Then the MN internet site gives Rafale M SU-0 in configuration weight for 14,000Kg with 4700Kg of internal fuel and clean configuration appart for wing-tip mounted Magic IIs.

This would put the aircraft empty weight to 9,250 Kg which doesn’t fit the aircraft datas from the manager point of view, exept maybe if one adds SPECTRA weight to it: = 9500Kg…

This would make sense as SPECTRA is way more evenly positioned aroung the CG than OSF is, being far away from it just in front of the windscreen.

SPECTRA and OSF were first tested and carrier-qualified on M02.

Some people seems to ignore the fact that the prefered option for Rafale in terms of requiered specs was a weight of 8.500 Kg, this was obviously not a viable design solution as far as low-level Max speed of 750Kt was concerned.

This would put Rafale C/Ds, in the same ballpark as Typhoon as for the TWC and wing load.

To a certain extand, the same story was repeated for Typhoon but Rafale designers included all the projected avionics to the preliminary design, by contrast, that of Typhoon were given the near-impossible task to adapt the design to new requierements for low-leve/high speed…

So i personally don’t think that Rafale attempts to reach supercruise without the use of AB in S’pore were conducted in the SU-0 configration but more likelely SU-2 at 19,000Kg from the runway.

Another factor which i think might have played a role, Rafale have to carry an equal-to-superior internal amount of fuel from the runway. 4,750kg vs 4,500kg

Even with both in clean configuration, it carries a weight disadvantage due to a higher fuel fraction.

On Max speed: Rafale A demonstrated a stabilised speed of M 2.0 at 42,650ft on Marsh 1987, while being about the same weight than M, having more vet surface i.e. a dragier airframe, lower instaled thrust as it was equiped not only with 2 F-404-GE-400.

Pre-serie M 88 wasn’t installed on the port engine bay before 1989.

Subsequantly, serie Rafale aerodynamics were also improved and optimised by a fair margin, while size and weight was reduced as well, considering that Rafale A wasn’t designed for carrier operation and more representative of Rafale C.

Both MN and AdA web site were giving Rafale M and C for M2.0 before reverting to the standard figures…

@Bombe Surprise

C’est pas la peine de l’insulter il en a deja plein so assiete et tu risques de te faire bannir, essaie departiciper au debat d’une maniere constructive!

@Kovy

You know that if some sources were serious as for the accuracy of infos, there is more to it than just late delvery… I have been trying to investigate these lately…

—–

It took all of this to actually undo what was wrongly done with the help of a few well writen articles with wrong informations.

The situation haven’t changed, Eurofighter cannot perform miracles with less and later involvements than the GIE even if they have more aircrafts to their disposal.

It takes time to flight-tests/fire-test aircraft systems and weapons and so far, Dassault, Thales, SNECMA have been non-stop at it.

The result is a difference of between two to three years in terms of options and availability in the best cases, lots of extra options for Rafale including a ready to fly M 88-3 and AESA radar tec…

Yes sir, you know better than the guys who prep them…

James bond strikes again 2+2+1= as i was saying 5 not 2/3 You dig it? And the year isn’t over yet so your little tease and neat picking is a nice exercise of style….

As for the reason why they aren’t there i leave your high superior being to figure it out by her altess self. LOL.

This mean in 2006 summer 1/7 will be equiped with 15 F2 Rafale and fully Op, a year or so before RAF can align 6 T-1 Typhoons in quick reaction duty.. I A2A only.

Is that not R.I.G.H.T or just smoke?

@TMor

We’re much too used to PILOTHGT/Jack type of soft-flame war and “Mine’s bigger syndrom” motivations. Let them do their home work, i’m not going to tit-feed these guys.

2seahawk
F-4 Phanatic

Not clear enough though…

Imagine knowing what he doesn’t know about S’pore being the third major competition where Rafale was significantly ahead….

Dutch competition? What Dutch competition?

French propaganda you see…

@cru

Question what does my nationality have to do with what i know about it in the way you put it???

“a unique EW technique that locates an enemy radar in range and bearing,”

Tha’ts the PRIMARY function os SPECTRA. ELINT/SINGIT. Not too much to do with active cancellation yet.

I suppose being French have one advantage over being only english speaking, we can understand what is writen by French officials and write (back) about it without making a hard mess of it.

“calculates the scatter that it will receive from the Rafale,”

ECMs again not too much to do with active stealth as yet, as for myself, as long as i haven’t validated my sources i won’t post any “Articles” on it…

“and transmits an exact mimic of the aircraft’s actual echo — but one-half wavelength out of phase, so that the radar sees nothing. “

Actually from French sources it is not NOTHING it is a replicate of the echo but not its actual real position. Which is a second way to decoy/jamm AAMs active seekers.

“If it works effectively, this will make the Rafale harder to detect and track than anything except an all-out stealth aircraft”

I think it’s more a case of stealth measure in the actual design, which obviously are not listed in this article and the possibility to use active stealth if ever…

“I don’t want to ruin your day but from a demonstrator to operational is a long, long, way.”

Before you can afford doing anything of the kind, you might want to be a USAF F-15 exchange pilot flying a Mirage 2000 5F with 2/2 and talk about your recent encounter with your ex-squadron pals flying the very aircraft you thought superior. Get real.

If you cannot make the difference between commercial brochures and actual practical performances you’re in trouble, i personally think i am not.

“tha’t a good one Have you heard about these operational radars: APG 63V(2), APG 79, APG 77, APG 80?”

Yep heared of them, so did Thales, and since they cannot afford so many variants of the same technology, they simply stick to the actual schedules for the RBE2AESA service entry while developing its technology further:

Latest: The choice between an upgrade and an entirely new radar isn’t made yet. Draw your won conclusions: Newer technologies in <> 2018.

“But I must admit that the French produces some of the bets target drones for USAF/USN they are called, let me remind, oh, yes Mirage!”

USAF aren’t operating Mirages which are 50 years old but Kfirs C2s which are just a little younger. I supposed this is too old an history for you to recall.

As for the US being ho so superior: How about the F-22 maximum AoA “soft” limit of 26*, and the bug discovered in its CFS when it allowed the aircraft to nearly shread itself in flight. Result; $26 million to sort it out.

This account for $ 1 million per * of AoA what a hard evidence of superiority. About you read about it alittle more?

We’re good, and at the heels of the US technologically happy or not, the fact that you don’t know about it won’t make any difference to us. Keep laughing.

@glitter

You’re right it’s always a question of balance anyway, but there is something that many are overlooking: PLI radars are still emiting, and as such are still detectable. Passive sensors are not. Thales does both.