The RAF has “some” Typhoons with “limited” equipments required for “limited” AtG…
The MoD did qualify “some” pilots to use it, and then for some reason, they switched them back to AtA (tells you how confident they were in the type, but that’s just my PHO).

I don’t think it really tells us anything about their confidence in it for A2G. The number of Tornados available was far greater than the number of Typhoon, especially when we consider the number other taskings assigned to the Typhoon such as QRA.

France is THE second strategic partner with a base in the country, so for Dassault, it seems they think that nobody can replace us.
Germany will not found a base there and UK cannot (for what I understand, but a british friend told me that I read too much british newspapers 😀 ).

But Saudi has an even greater need for this! Can you remind us which countries they chose? It seems to have slipped my mind 😀

@mrmalaya
I do agree!

@Trident
It is impossible to provide the evidence you request, as that would require me to prove a negative, which can’t be done! However, here is the evidence on which I made my statement. Also, I have tried to find out more about BAE Replica from the MoD, but haven’t had much success!

“The existence of a secret programme to produce Britain’s own stealth plane has been revealed with the declassification of a single photograph and a short statement.

The craft pictured is full-scale model and was completed in 1999, after five years of work. The £20 million programme, codenamed Replica, was jointly funded by BAE Systems and the UK Ministry of Defence.”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3590-secret-uk-stealth-plane-project-revealed.html

@i.e
Unfortunately the algorithms are classified, so I can’t check the differences and tell you how they work. Perhaps if you ask BAE/Qinetiq nicely they will let you have a look 😀

@arquebus
The software to control an actuator can be quite complex depending on how far you take it. Even the core element of “changing angle” could involve advanced algorithms. There would almost certainly be some monitoring functions too.

So for all the management exercises and training they do, they still don’t seem to grasp the importance of staff happiness to a job well done. Let them chat, its an effective team building exercise which you don’t have to pay some pointless external company for.

@Prom
It’s not so much over blown claims, but outright lies and misrepresentations, such as the air air claims from Rafale pilots a couple years back.

Because it’s well known that everyone took JOUST for what it is, just nice slides for the lulz ??

JOUST was a simulator based on the data available to Qinetiq. Dassault could have performed their own evaluations if they wished, and perhaps they did, but just didn’t want to reveal the result for some reason 🙂 It’s their opinion, essentially, nothing more.

@Prom

i.e seems to be confusing reliability (though redundancy) with complexity. Of course an airliner needs to have more redundancy than a fighter jet, the former has hundred of people onboard, the latter has two guys with parachutes and ejector seats.

@i.e

OK here’s a specific technology required for UAVs, sense and avoid algorithms. Another? Target location and identification algorithms. Both of these are leading areas of BAE btw 😉 Airframe wise its currently designing airframes optimised for long range subsonic cruise with a low RCS. I look forward to seeing what engine developments come about though.

@i.e
Your statement is really rather ridiculous as it is BAE that is the only European country with its own 6th generation project (UCAV). SAAB is just a small partner in the French dominated Neuron project. Typhoon also quite happily beats Gripen (which uses many British part I might add). Any suggestion that SAAB is pushing ahead of BAE is not in keeping with the evidence before us.