missileerIf I understand you right, what you say confirms that the problem is not a general one, but applies only to missiles with strakes made since the process was changed, & suggests that it should not be very hard to correct the fault in those missiles which have it.
That seems to be the case. A get-well scheme should be fairly easy to implement, since it will involve reworking only those missiles known to have been fitted with the revised strake. A manufacturing quality-control problem could have involved more work, with rounds having to be inspected to see if their strakes were faulty. But my understanding is that the more recent examples of the strakes were made to a modified design (or with a modified construction process?) that gives problems when highly stressed during flight.
missileerSo . . . a manufacturing defect in strakes, by the sound of it. Oops!
Yesterday was uncomfortably hot day to be visiting Cambridge, but I had the chance to discuss the Aster problem with Mercurius Cantabrigiensis. Apparently the problem was not a manufacturing defect but an unexpected result of a small change to a manufacturing process. What should have been a routine modification to the strake proved to have a ‘sting in its tail’ that only emerged when the round was manoeuvring violently.
missileerThe problem seems to have been fixed. MBDA has just announced:
“Over the last month, firings have been carried out from the Italian Orizzonte frigate “Andrea Doria”, the French Horizon frigate “Forbin” and the UK trials barge “Longbow” at two different ranges in the Mediterranean. The trials were conducted over a range of scenarios of steadily increasing complexity, culminating in a final trial featuring a salvo firing against a sea skimming target performing a high-g terminal manoeuvre. All the trials were fully successful with both the PAAMS ship equipment and Aster missiles operating as expected in each case. This draws to a close the complex and high intensity investigation launched within MBDA after problems encountered in two firing trials last year.”
missileerIf you are a real planes enthusiast, allow a day for the Musee de l’Aire.
Best way there is via the 350 bus which leaves from the street opposite the Gare de l’Est.
Can’t remember if the museum caff has terrible food or if it doesn’t even exist, but there are plenty of small establishments on the main road opposite the museum where you can get a snack and a verre or two of wine. The Musee front desk seems relaxed about visitors popping out for lunch than coming back and waving their admission ticket.
The Arts et Metiers can indeed be described as being what the Science Museum used to be before it was converted into an amusement arcade.
Paris also has a science museum at La Villette – easy to get to by metro. Not as old-fashioned as Arts et Metiers but good fun. It has a Mirage IV on display – can’t remember what else.
missileerCan anyone assist with top-side shots of the TSR.2 please? Special areas of interest are the vents at the end of the nose section, the aerials on top of the wing tips and the various smaller vents and details on the rear fuselage.
I had a discussion with Mercurius Cantabrigiensis some time ago on the TSR.2 EW system, so he can probably help with the relevant antennas. They were on the trailing edge of one wingtop and on either side of the forward fuselage. I’m due to have dinner with him one night during Eurosatory next week, so will see if he is willing to post a message here or to send you a PM.
missileerI don’t think you have been ‘prickly’ – you were just defending your viewpoint in the ongoing debate, just as I was defending mine. We are all (professional and amateurs alike) trying to understand classified and complex matters, and can get a bit like little dogs gnawing on a bone when we get locked into debates. Although not a religious guy, I appreciate the phrase from the Bible “”For now we see through a glass, darkly.” It fits nicely, whether we are talking about the F-35, the T-50, active cancellation, or the latest Iranian missile.
Regards,
Missileer
(who dates back to the era of the aircraft in his avatar)
missileerYou appear to be deliberatly miss reading my posts, In the first implying i was lying. in the second taking my off topic and random example, and answering as though this was my argument after I had CLEARLY stated the SAS quote was AN EXTREME AND OFF TOPIC EXAMPLE.
Now re Mr sweetman I like others feel that the refusal to answer a question is neither a confirmation or denial of the accuracy of the question.
Others believe that failure to issue a denial is confirmation of accuracy.
Arthuro has explained why he believes this to be the case, I have attempted to explain why i believe it is not necasserily the case.
this differring opinion does not make either of us wrong, idiots or liars.
In my comment about the SAS and Israeli nuclear forces I was not replying to the part of your posting that you declared to be off-topic, but to your claim two lines earlier that “Many organisations refuse to confirm or deny anything…”. I chose the two examples of such organisations that will be most familiar to readers. Was the SAS somehow ‘off -limits’ because you had mentioned it?
I’ve now re-read all my postings in this thread and can see nowhere were I have stated or inferred that people who disagree with me are “wrong, idiots or liars”. All I have done is to give an accurate version of what Bill Sweetman had written, plus a bit of background information on the conventions under which press interviews are conducted in the hopes that it will help other forum users judge for themselves whether Bill Sweetman’s conclusion was justified. Each reader is free to form his or her own opinion on this.
missileerI heard the following tale from Mercurius Cantabrigiensis:
Someone who’d worked on the TSR.2 programme recalled laboratory speculation that the Soviet Union would one day field an equivalent. How could it best be engaged, they wondered?
A series of barrage balloons strung across the aircraft flight path would cause the TSR.2ski to fly a pop-up manoeuvre, making it as easy target for anti-aircraft guns or unguided rockets aimed just above the line of balloons, one engineer suggested.
Another saw the balloons as a messy solution. Could a simple jammer be devised to take the TSR.2ski think it was approaching a hill? Then the guns and rockets could aim just above the crest of the imaginary hill.
A third saw a simpler solution. Devise a jammer that would make the TRS.2ski think there was no hill ahead, and you could eliminate the guns and rockets.
missileermy understanding is mbda was experimenting with AC to use with their cruise missiles
That’s correct. The Jane’s Missiles & Rockets article I referred to showed a mockup of a proposed steath cruise missile.
But neither the Aviation Week or Jane’s Missiles & Rockets were written by Sweetman, but by the “Two Dougs” of UK defence journalism – Doug Barrie and Doug Richardson respectively.
missileerplease show a link where Thales has done any ‘work’ on AC missiles
now about the thales and mbda joint AC venture which is the base of this claim
again i can find nothing to indicate this, do you have a confirming source
or do we need to contact thales and mbda to confirm this
after all BAE, EADS and Finmeccanica would of had to agree to it, IP is closely monitored
I’ve already cited two sources – Aviation Week and Jane’s Missiles & Rockets. But I consulted both in paper form. The on-line archives of both magazines are probably available only to subscribers.
it shouldnt be too hard to find the MOU for joint research into AC between thales and mbda
do you have a link to the MOU or will i email thales and ask for it or should i ask mbda ?
Why should we be looking for this hypothetical MoU? Thales and MBDA have openly referred to the work that they are doing in this area.
Re answering with a no or not –
Many organisations refuse to confirm or deny anything so that at no time can an answer be inferred nor is a lie ever required, now i dont know what dassault/thales policy is re this, but again its another possibility.
As a technical journalist I have some experience of dealing with these companies. It’s not like trying to talk to the SAS or the Israeli nuclear forces; the companies want to talk about what they are doing and want to see stories about what they are doing appearing in print. While a few companies will lie to journalists, they are the exception. If there is a security problem, the vast majority will indicate this, in many cases either by declining to answer a question and citing security issues, or even by declaring a given subject area ‘off limits’ before the interview begins. I’ve never experienced the “Many organisations refuse to confirm or deny anything” syndrome, while the only time I’ve heard someone tell a journalist ‘no comment’ has been in movies.
i’m going to email LM and ask the following
1. does the f-35 have plasma stealth through the electrified mesh in the composites
2. does the f-35 use extraterrestrial tech from when they visited us
if they dont answer, this will prove that the f-35 does have it and the rafale fanboys will accept that it doesi’ll let you know if they dont answer
There may be little chance that such an email will be replied to. We can only speculate how many emails from the public Lockheed Martin receive each week, but we can confidently assume that the resources of their public-relations department are limited and that some form of filtering will be applied to incoming flow. A common principle is that illogical or weird messages are ignored.
That said, I have heard that one well-known broadcaster on scientific topics carefully files the contact details of each ‘looney’ (his term) who writes to him, then puts the new ‘looney’ in touch with one of the opposite beliefs on the grounds that ‘looneys’ of opposite polarity will cancel each other out. I suppose that can be seen as a primitive form of active cancellation!
So all a silence from LM will indicate is that your email was judged not worth replying to.
Personally, I have no axe to grind on the question of whether or not Rafale uses or will use active cancellation. All I’m trying to do is to confirm that active cancellation is a documented technique and that Thales and MBDA have briefed a number of journalists on the work that they are doing in this field.
missileerThe thing is the journalist came to this conclusion, because he asked a question and the engineer didnt reply he just gave him a look.
Now i could be for the reasons you suggest or it could be that the engineer felt it was a really stupid question –
Given that Lindermyer is unlikely to have been an eyewitness of the interview, is this a reliable account of the incident? Let’s see what Sweetman actually said.
——————————————————————-
In a 1997 interview, a Dassault Electronics engineer stated that Spectra uses “stealthy jamming modes that not only have a saturating effect, but make the aircraft invisible… There are some very specific techniques to obtain the signature of a real low observable (LO) aircraft”. When the author asked if the engineer was talking about active cancellation, he declined to answer.
———————————————————————
(And that’s taken word-for-word from the February 2005 International Defence Review.)
So the story of the engineer giving Sweetman a look is fiction. The engineer refused to answer the question. If Sweetman has been wrong, a simple ‘no’ would have been the logical answer. A journalist of Sweetman’s experience will be familar with the ways a subject can respond to security issues – even if the end result is unlikely to the stunned jaw-dropping recorded in Duncan Campbell’s famous ‘Zircon’ interview.
thats like the lightning strike protection on the nose cones, when asked if they are zippers, the answer is always yes
well ya have to have a bit of fun on open day, if ya have to stand around all day making sure no one steals the plane
But Sweetman was talking to what was almost certainly a senior engineer, not some luckless guy tasked with standing around on an aircraft on an open day. Companies tend to very careful in selecting the engineer who will reply to the questions of an experienced technical journalist.
engineers wouldnt use a generic term, they are quite precise in their terminology
they wouldnt even use the term stealth, it would be signature management or the like
You made that claim in another thread (Rafale News IX) and were told:
I have just pulled a technical book from my office shelf and within minutes found passages in which Paul Kaminski and Sherm Mullin both use the term ‘stealth’. Kaminski ran the US low-observables programme, while Mullin was Senior Trend program manager.
missileerbill asked, does the rafale have pixie dust, the engineer didnt answer, thus confirming to bill that rafale does indeed have pixie dust
not only isnt there a creditable link to the rafale having AC or even trying to develop AC for it, there is not a creditable link to anything in the air having effective AC, something that has been in research for a long time
What significant about the unanswered question is that the engineer being interviewed was free to use that useful little French word ‘non’. But he did not. My experience has been that company representatives are usually quick to deny any suggestion that their product has a technical feature that it practice it does not. So Sweetman was probably correct to see the non-answer as significant.
But despite what its detractors might wish to believe, active cancellation is not ‘pixie dust’ – it’s a concept that has been worked on for at least a decade and has been undergoing flight tests since around 2002 when French experimental work was reported in Aviation Week and Jane’s Missiles & Rockets. If my memory is right, the Jane’s report included a photo of a UAV testbed being used to fly experimental active-cancellation hardware.
missileerDo you consider this : a piece of un-biased, professional journalism?
I don’t think that the words you have quoted were intended as a piece of journalism. My understanding is that it was a private joke made to a group of on-line friends, but sadly leaked by one of them. (There is at least one aerospace company that I often refer in equally unflattering terms when talking to my colleagues.)
At one time, Fort Worth had a reputation of being somewhat unhelpful when responding to media inquiries, so that may have coloured Sweetman’s humorous response when faced with a trip to see them.
Aerospace journalists are no different from any other close group and their sense of humour can be a bit odd to an outsider. For example, it might be reasonable to assume that any journalist referred to as ‘Baron Spewish’ was third-rate at best. It sounds like an insult, but I’ve heard that epithet (and one even worse) applied to the late Mark Hewish by his friends in the defence press. Yet Hewish was widely regarded by his fellow journalists and the industry as probably the finest defence journalist of the last quarter century.
missileerOne bit of fallout from the matter of “l’affaire Sweetman” is that all of us who write about aerospace matters, whether as amateurs or professionals, must form our own individual conclusions as to how happy we are to write if there are limits to the views that we can express.
Censorship – whatever the pretext for its application – is not pleasant, and sometimes the only solution is to ‘vote with one’s feet’. And Aviation Week has just reminded me that it’s time to renew my subscription.
For aerospace professionals, whether engineers, journalists or whatever, “l’affaire Sweetman” is also a reminder that our employers or clients would probably be less than happy about informal views we post online. Lurking rather than posting may be wise move.
missileerjurno’s opinions get the wrong end of the stick quite often
To make a posting, the enthusiast often needs to write only a few hundred words. The defense journalist has to turn out thousands of words per month. At busy times such as the Paris and Farnborough air shows, thousands of words may have to be written in less than a week.
The enthusiast only has to consider (and hopefully keep abreast of) subjects that are of personal interest, but the defense journalist must cover the entire spectrum of military technology. So given the technological complexity of modern defense equipment, it’s hardly surprising that we get things wrong now and then.
But when our work is compared with the inadequately-researched ‘facts’ that sometimes grace this and other on-line defense forums, I don’t think that we do too badly.
Sign In
