dark light

glitter

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 11 posts - 1,366 through 1,376 (of 1,376 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Singapore defers fighter decision #2694783
    glitter
    Participant

    Hi all

    In the french magazine Air&Cosmos it is said taht the rafale team has been shock by BAe who promised the RSAF an active electronic array radar for the EF2000 in 12 or 18 months when Thales (which was supposed to be really ahead of them ) cannot show the active RBE2 before 2006.

    HAve you got some information about that ??

    glitter
    Participant

    So, what abut figures for this year ?

    USA 401 billions

    France 32,4 billions of euros or $39,4 billions according to

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/perm/afp/pol/031205215017.jfan4bgw.html

    glitter
    Participant

    In your top5, you forget the REAL chinese budget 😉

    glitter
    Participant

    I can’t see what could prevent the CdG to be JSF compliant after some light modifications.

    The French future LHD could be a naval base for JSF if the right materials for the deck are used.

    On the other hand, a pure JSF carrier would need heavy modifications to use Rafale.

    glitter
    Participant

    Originally posted by ****Ant
    18 Billion FF is 3.4 billion USD$….thats still an awful lot of money……

    1) A nuclear carrier is expensive, specially if it’s your first.

    2) Your $ is at 5 french francs ??
    It was more 6 francs , so closer to $3 billions.
    From 3, or even 3,4 to 4, that’s a pretty wide margin

    glitter
    Participant

    Originally posted by Steve Touchdown
    Touché, Glitter!

    Maybe that’s why I was asking :p

    But from what I hear the deck’s not big enough to turn them around…so what happens next!?

    Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News

    ok

    1) When the DCN design the deck, the CdG ( or should I say, the Richelieu) were supposed to get Super Etendard and RAfale only.

    2) The French Navy decide that Hawkeyes would be a very cool feature.

    3) Well, I supposed the DCN check with the USA the haweye’s physical behaviour on a deck

    4) the real lives test show that if the E2 catch the last wire(unlikely or during a bad weather or during a stress period), the hawkeye should be in a akward situation and couldn’t quickly get away of his place and would block the movements for over one minute (during a storm or a stress period = war, that wasn’t what you call a good news).

    5) The solution ? to add 2 meters of deck. Cost ? 40 millions of french francs. For a 18 billions francs program, it wasn’t a real problem.
    Yes, 18 billions of FF, not $4 billions.

    glitter
    Participant

    Originally posted by Steve Touchdown
    Does anybody know what happens to the E-2C Hawkeyes once they’ve landed and taken the wire on the CdG? 😀

    I’m sure you even don’t know exactly waht was the problem with the Hawkeyes.

    glitter
    Participant

    Re: Re: Re: Re: lol

    Originally posted by Crusader
    Among others I have read..

    Contact: Sortir du Nucleaire, 9, rue Dumenge,

    Sortir du nucléaire ??? 😀

    what about the book “How evil the USA iis” by Lenine ? :rolleyes:

    glitter
    Participant

    Re: Re: lol

    Originally posted by Crusader
    Has there been any more info on the higher than expected radiation levels? I hope they can get the bugs worked out.

    Higher expected radiation levels ??

    For what I heard it’s that with the delay of the building of the ship, several european standard changed and the CdG nuclear shield weren’t complyant with the new one.

    Edit: your link is quite funny.

    Back to the topic.

    If, as lots of experts thinks, future conflicts will be of low intensity, it’s obvious that Type 45, Ef2000 or nuclear carrier are pointless.

    in reply to: General Discussion #401311
    glitter
    Participant

    Originally posted by Sauron
    Geforce

    I may be mistaken, but hasn’t the French government also recently passed a law to protect the French president from prosecution while he/she is in office?

    1953 for the correct year.

    in reply to: The Economist writes open letter to Mr. Berlusconi #1977738
    glitter
    Participant

    Originally posted by Sauron
    Geforce

    I may be mistaken, but hasn’t the French government also recently passed a law to protect the French president from prosecution while he/she is in office?

    1953 for the correct year.

Viewing 11 posts - 1,366 through 1,376 (of 1,376 total)