This is ridiculous, the statements are perfectly clear, the Taranis is both a UCAV technology demonstrator and a UCAV demonstrator. It has weapons bays already integrated, and if the demonstration programme is successful, the Taranis has the potential to become a UCAV. The same is true of the X-47B

Sorry my friend, what is ridiculous is to pretend that a single non-officlial (and notoriously inacurate) source make of it an UCAV when MoD programe goal statment cleraly indicates it only will be emulating weapon release.

BTW these goals also indicates OTHER role for the TDP; Weapon release, REAL attack of targets as well as demonstration of weapon systems or real attack capabilties are NOT listed at any time.

Considering the COST of developing a stealth internal weapon BAY (roughly 1/4th of nEUROn budget), in comparison to that of the Taranis TDP, EVEN taking into acount the much more intensive use on COTS and existing technologies from previous BAe UAVs, you’re welcome to EXPLAIN to the rest of us what would make “Emulation” of an attack more cost-effective than droping the load and make sure the whole thing does what it says on the box? 😀

Please, MoD definition of UCAV is also there for everyone to SEE, Taranis is an UAV demonstrating UCAV technologies and will be unarmed, the REAL UK UCAV is still planned (perhaps if you’re lucky with economics you’ll see it) and is BTW planned for INTERCONTINENTAL strike capabilties in mind.

My guess is that it is clearly designed not only to keep up with the rest of Europe but also as a technologic leverage for US collaboration; a technology demonstrator is expansive, a real UCAV is simply unrealistic for the UK on its own even more so NOW (expecialy one with intercontinental range), expect a collaborative programme with the US (or EU country, Germany coming top of the “possible” list) instead.

Now since you guys keep at it PLEASE prove me wrong then and show us any form of Official stament saying it posses a weapon bay and will be droping weapon as part of its demonstrative goals. I’m waiting.

=21AnkushONLY OTHER CUSTOMER, AdlA has ordered..

You forgot Marine Nationale… 😎

besides, I don’t understand where the attitude comes from when the Rafale has failed to secure a single export order so many years since its induction.

Perhaps they are tired to participate to tenders which have only for results to boost US aircrafts sales? 😀

Rafale will export in due time, with a 30 years+ service life and 7.000 flight hours guaratee from Dassault (Maximum structural load WAY abvove international stadards at 1.90) it is still early days and the aircraft have to see a litle more technologic growth too after F3 standard.

Don’t forget that the programme was unfunded (therfore iddle) for so many years it is actualy laughable, but i personaly considers this as a blessing in disguise because there aren’t that many in French forces service to upgrade with AESA, M88, MIDS NG, OSF NG etc, so the overal cost of doing it EVEN without any export (YET) is STILL sustainable which isn’t the case of some concurents.

Aircraft developement time have increased dramaticaly since the time of the F1s and Dassault/GIE have their sight clearly on the F-35 as the main technologic concurent.

Wait and see. 😎

59k ft is the upper limit of operational ceiling,

= NO my friend it IS the Operational altitude and the 2000 for example is well KNOWN to have fabulous acceleration and reaches its TOP Mach at 37.000ft+ the fastest from subsonic speed; precisely because it was DESIGNED for it.

Otherwise SAID; Dassault, the Top AdA squadron, MN knows their ABC.

YOU on the other hand insist into refusing to admit these FACTS:

1) You are WRONG.

2) You still dont KNOW what you’re tralking about.

On purpose during an intercept of a high flying target for example they will do so, but not on a regulare base.

= NO my friend it IS the Operational altitude and the 2000 for example is well KNOWN to have fabulous acceleration and reaches its TOP Mach 2.2 at 59.054ft Operational ceilling the fastest precisely because it was DESIGNED for it.

= BEST performance for the Mirage 2000C (D/A) M53-5 was obtained only at slightly lower altitude i.e. 57.500ft.

= And Yes they regularly TRAIN to fly and FIGHT at these altitudes since it IS the role for which they are OPTIMISED and the threat (Mig 25/31) doesn’t wait for Mr Scorpion agreement to cross borders or for the AdA/MN pilots to be ready, they need quiet an intensive and regular training for role.

These French fighter ALWAYS were designed for interception at the tropopause by requierement since the Mirage III and this means best performances at <> 58,080 ft; the two 5F squadron are well trained at high-altitude interception because it IS their primary role…

They trained to do just that since the IIIC and later IIIE which best performances were obtained at 50.000ft.

Here to SHUT you off, a composite image which doesn’t need commenting…

This nice document also show that the IIIE MAXIMUM ceiling with pressure suite was 75.000ft.

HERE: Typical Mirage 2000C (D/A) Intercept scenario with weapon release at 16.000m (Matra Super 530F), they would have to be able to see for (and TRAIN FOR) a SECOND wave, eventualy using Magics IR AAMs in a frontal attack, and THIS from, sea-level up to 55.000ft without pressure suite.

Your accusations against me for bluring the difference between upper operational ceiling limit and normal operational ceiling can just be given back.

You clearly didn’t study ANY serious documents on the French AdA nor on its role, doctrines and equipment, more to it, there isn’t any sign of the slightest level of comprehension from your side of the words OPTIMISATION and REQUIEREMENTS.

These childish trick of yours deserve the Airfix award for Mickey-taking…

Se below:

Scorpion82 =Can the aircraft operate there? Yes it can! Does it operate there on a regulare base? No! And why doesn’t it operate there? Because the performance at such altitude would be insufficient!

Did YOU or disn’t YOU write the above nonsense?

For someone who has a flying license and who is consistently playing the smart guy you know surprisingly few about operational realities.

Who is making FALSE allegation and INVENTING himself standards here?

Plafond opérationnel : 18 000 m
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/au_coeur_de_la_defense/aeronefs/chasse_bombardement_reconnaissance/mirage_2000_5f

HERE the Official Defense Minister “Newbies” link for you, what does it say???

Mr Scorpion I as opposed to YOU do not NEED to DENY on INVENT Operational realities and take on people personaly while trying to pass myself for a poor victim of agression.

I KNOW my ABC including military since i was precisely equiping the IIIEs with their Matras and AIM9s, which is clearly NOT your case and i am also not exacly a grounded keyboard warrior who pretend to know that a Mirage 2000 best performances are obtained at the upper-limit of its Operational altitude supposed to be <> 55.000ft when the IIIE was capable of 75.000 Maxi.

This Operational altitude is fixed for a set of very good REASON and YOU keep ignoring them and trying to imply they are inexistant standards, infortunately for you these FACTS are well documented and some of us KNOWS about them if you DON’T…

These aircrafts have been designed around a set of requierement including HIGH-ALTITUDE/HIGH-SPEED interception and their performances at these Operational altitudes reflect just that.

As opposed to what you try to imply, these are NOT the “Operational upper limits” but the BEST altitude for performances (that given by the 1/ 2 is the most accurate), they actualy can fly easly higher than that but this would requier them to use a pressure suite for safety reason.

Higher than that in case of decompression your blood would start to boil (I beggin to suspect this happened to you in your craddle time).

As Dassault puts it with AdA/MN standard “Operatiopnal” ceilings imposed by the services once the aircraft performances have been validated Operationaly and for safety reasons. = BOTH 55.000ft (artificialy limited).

As the 1/2 indicates the aircraft ( 2000-5F) REAL Operational ceiling is slightly higher than that.

You of course wouldn’t know since you keep inventing all you didn’t learn and i’m sorry to say it turns out to be a lot.

At 3.2808ft per meter this gives YOU 59.054ft Operational ceilling for the Mirage 2000-5F. Cheers.

http://escadron1.2cigognes.free.fr/moyens.php

BTW please post the Oxford definition of the word cinematics.

The Gascogne EC-2/7 rafale squadron is being reactivated (former mirage IV P nuclear deterence squadron which was closed in 2005).

The first rafales with the “colors” of this squadron can be seen in St dizier AFB.

It will be fully operational in 2010 with the ASMP-A nuclear missile.

source : air&cosmos from the 9th january.

Good info thanks!

Si i’ll take it they will be equiped with ASMP-As and endorse their traditional Nuclear role?

CdG is BACK in service guys!!!

pfcem The comments made BY THE TEST PILOTS WHO FLEW THE FLIGHTS!!!

Appart for the FACT that it did not at any time go supoersonic nor above 8 Gs of so this is PURE speculation.

SPECIFIED MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS!

FALSE: Requierements weren’t giving ANY Mach (Supersonic DASH) but what DOES is the DESIGNED Mach LIMIT.

You COMPLETELY missed it AGAIN!!! To LM, the US DOD & the USAF when talking about 5th generation aircraft (i.e. F-22 & F-35) the supercruise threshold is Mach 1.5. 🙂

FALSE: Supercruise definition EVEN for L-M have little to do with a Mach value but CRUISE as defined by the USAF standards; the FACT that you don’t know them is YOUR problem, not mine.

NO, NO LESS THAN Mach 1.6. It is a KPP THRERSHHOLD.

FALSE: DESIGNED MACH LIMIT. Hard for you to comprehend what it means?

YES IT IS! It is part of the requirements.

NO it AIN’T, requierements are SPECIFICATIONS, NOT which aircraft it will replace (AGAIN).

You’re simply atempting to rewrite history and the ol’ book here.

NO, they have PURPOSELY NOT GIVEN ACTUAL PERFORMANCE VALUES & have instead just regurgitated KPP THRESHOLDS since they are already public & the aircraft EXCEEDS them.

FALSE: They designed the aircraft with features which DEFINES its performances, another aspect of the industry you keep ignoring as well as the word LIMIT.

NO, NO LESS THAN Mach 1.6. It is a KPP THRERSHHOLD.

FALSE: It is the airframe DESIGNED Mach LIMIT, meaning it is NOT designed for reaching higher speeds BTW it is quiet OBVIOUS looking at its design features only.

Since you’re not aware just YET:

The ability to supercruise will be mostly defined by the design CRITICAL Mach which depends on wing sweep angle.

Considering F-16 with a higher level of optimisation for Operational ceilling and Max Mach can only reach 1.1 M with 40* swept leading edge and a laminary wing profile designed for supersonic speed, you GENIUS are going to tell us how you are planning to get F-35 supercruising AT ALL with a supercritical profile draging MORE in supersonic, a 33* swept wing and a similar TWR.

So we established FACTS from L-M documentation no??

No supercruise, structural G limitations from 7.0 to 9.0 G and M LIMIT of 1.6.

Scorpion82 =Can the aircraft operate there? Yes it can! Does it operate there on a regulare base? No! And why doesn’t it operate there? Because the performance at such altitude would be insufficient!

Please go and tell the 1/7 pilots their knowledge is insufficient, their webmaster incompetent, their aircraft not performant enough at Operational altitude…

I SERVED at the SAME A-B it is the SOLE Air Defense A-B of the AdA, so i think these people from the simple PETAF to Pilots knows damned WELL what Operational altitude means…

At 3.2808ft per meter this gives YOU 59.054ft Operational ceilling for the Mirage 2000-5F. Cheers.

http://escadron1.2cigognes.free.fr/moyens.php

Super Nimrod;1346704]It is one thing to demonstrate that it can integrate weapons and quite another to demonstrate that it can use them in anger. There is quite a lot about it on the UK Parliament website and it does suggest that some sort of integration will take place although no specific weapons are mentioned.

Only in the furure and not wit this vehicle… This one is only meant to demonstrate technologies it is an UAV.

It has to demonstrate some sort of capability in this area to justify its expense as like nEUROn

Several Millions on the weapon bay and integrated systems only, the difference is visible with only a look at the budget.

So it must be able to offer more than just a bit more autonomy to justify its existence, particularly when the UK is already flying a platform that already is attacking targets in Afghanistan.

It’s technology demonstrator also meant to acquier the necessary slills to be able to design an UCAV in the future, IF the budget allows for it, forthe time being they still have issues to overcome to achieve full IR stealth and in this respect nEUROn will be the FIIST European Vehicle (UAVs or UCAVs) to be fully L.O…