I suspect Taranis is doing it’s trials in Aus now 🙂

Ahh I see certain French members are going with the cherry picking of evidence again, anything that shows Rafale as better is valid, anything which shows Typhoon as better is not valid! I wonder what conclusion they will come to, whilst analysing in such a manner :rolleyes:

Captor-E will be better than RBE-2AA in that it has:
1) A bigger antenna and more power
2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes.
3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.

4) Is opinion, but it’s a widely held opinion. The original PESA RBE-2 was a technological dead end, and not a great performer. I’m afraid that the other points are simply fact, Buddy.

All very true, but I’m sure we won’t let such clear facts as those above get in the way of cherry picked evidence viewed through tricolore tinted glasses…

That just means that in any project you need someone who can say “ok, your point of view was very very interesting, it made a lot of sens, that’s why we’ve spent a lot of time to evaluate it,….. but finally that’s not the solution WE keep”
And since the time to evaluate every point of views has been well taken BEFORE (and not after if possible…), everybody accept the decision.

The airframe essentially defines the capabilities of the aircraft, what sensors will be integrated ect. Considering we are discussing equal partnerships, each side should have 50% effective control. So if France had airframe control, Britain should have subsystems control. That said my preference would still be combined control for most of the UAV. A BAE + Dassault airframe will be vastly superior to a BAE or Dassault airframe alone, only those with inflated egos say otherwise.

I think your fear is legitimate by what we saw in the past.
Come on, let’s those companies to be imaginative.
Can’t we imagine two program, lets say manned fighters and unmanned drones, one program leaded by Bae and the other by Dassault ?

That would seem like a reasonable solution, but on closer thought I don’t think the French, and particularly Dassault, would be too keen on it. Whilst the manned fighter aspect may have more pride value, it’s also the most likely to be axed, and the most likely to face cuts in numbers. The future would also be pretty bad for Dassault after the programme since the prospects of another manned fighter after it would be slim, and BAE would effectively own the UCAV market.

@Lindermyer
The cooperation on ASW is because Britain scrapped it’s Nimrod, so actually France is probably taking the lead there. Interestingly, Britain is “exporting” UAVs to France (simplification), not the other way around.

Why would France have retained engine capabilities any more than the UK would have retained airframe capabilities with that compromise?
…
for example, it is an equally plausible notion that the UK was too proud to give in on the airframe question, even if offered propulsion system leadership in exchange.

Simple, France would retain the engine capability because they would have civilian engine work! There would be little or nothing for the UK airframe design capabilities to do if Dassault is doing the airframe design. SNECMA could come back into the fighter engine game if France did a separate project at a later date, albeit they would be significantly behind RR. Britain would have far more difficulties regaining the fast jet design capability and so France would hold a far stronger hand, essentially meaning that in any future project Britain would be just a supplier to the French programme.

It’s not about pride, nobody is interested in pride. It’s about skills and capabilities, keeping high tech work in the country.

Going over to the realm of xenophobia now are we? I assume you vote UK independence party and read the Daily Mail regularly? Damn Johnny Foreigner might do some things better than us.

Little point debating with someone as prejudiced as yourself! If we are playing logical extensions then you are obviously a supporter of the Nazis and Adolf Hitler, whereas I am a supporter of Winston Churchill 😎

In an ideal world, what should have happened in ’85 is a compromise where France/Dassault would have led the airframe and the UK/RR the engine, IMHO. From what I can tell the EJ200 is a seriously brilliant piece of engineering and owes a lot to RR’s experience with the XG-40 demonstrator, and while the M88 is no slouch, it just isn’t quite as impressive all in all.

Problem is France would have retained the engine and airframe capabilities, UK just the engine capability. France wanted to be the core of the fighter market in Europe, and I don’t think they would be willing to go in for anything shared except where they the ones in control. No to British control. No to shared control. Only French dominance is acceptable.

It’s hard to balance a budget that isn’t predictable in its change.

BAe will go for it if the options are

(1) Accept Dassault control and get quite a bit of R&D money.
(2) Reject Dassault control and get no R&D money and no product to sell down the line.

LOL at the usual arrogance from the French. Their lofty opinions of their own importance and abilities never fails to entertain :rolleyes: