PromHmm I think this particular edition was written by a different set of people.
Its much more errr.. aggressive, and I agree the style is more confrontational.
Now why the change? do they smell blood or is it a knee jerk reaction to impending bad news.
Its certainly different the real question is why?
Cheers
More likely a manager has instructed them to counter Rafale press over Libya.
TBH I don’t see anything much different to what all defence companies put out in such circumstances, though the French have the advantage that their media tend to put out the message for them, and the US have the advantage that senior officers do it. (gross simplification but with a lot of truth)
PromI dare any of you out there to point out what extra technology is required for a UAV and is absent on a manned-airplane.
As a starter for 10
In the case of a fully or semi-autonomous UAV it requires the control system to implement the mission, which in term involves additional planning infrastructure
In the case of a remote controlled or semi-autonomous UAV it requires the ground station, additional ATC interaction and technology to deal with loss of (accidental or malicious) control links
PromThe UK taxpayer just got raped
again :rolleyes:
The price of something is what two side are willing to agree. If the UK hadn’t accepted this offer, what would they have got?
Scrap value, which is a lot less.
And USMC could have bought spares elsewhere, but paid more.
So both sides won out of the deal.
FWIW a lot of electronics was removed some time ago to be re-used elsewhere where applicable
PromI do not say that triangular may not be the best compromise in some cases, but the losses are significant.
Significant enough for this not to be the case always
PromSignificantly yes. Laws of physics dictate the losses. Some of that can be made up by devoting more time-energy to the off-boresight sectors but that can only achieve so much, and is at cost elsewhere.
With a 4 arrays, you would not of course have a disk, and 4 plane arrays do exist in other contexts. I do not say that triangular may not be the best compromise in some cases, but the losses are significant.
It is also interesting to note that if an AEW aircraft is fitted with a fixed triangular array
1) the opposing forces can easily calculate the 3 optimal approach angles
2) They can tell the orientation of these from the radar transmissions
3) they can get information on the AWACS heading from the radar transmissions as well (at least narrow it down to 3 choices)
PromA fixed radome with a triangle of AESA arrays gives equal coverage in three directions, but at an aerodynamic cost.
A triangular arrangement also gives significantly more losses than either a rotating array or 4 sided array because of the need to transmit and receive at greater offsets from the orthogonal.
PromI disagree with that entirely, and the reason is the specific claims of both 1426 T/R, but more so the specific range of 59 km.
This is not the usual “around” / “some” prefix: it is a specific value that he is ready to prove mathematically.
And given the specific value he chose to present,
-he invite anyone to question him, (again unlike the usual trolling of “some” and/or “around” claims, that has become common to lie without having to stand for it)
I have no knowledge of this particular claim, but in the past I have seen a variety of misleading claims regarding radar range from a variety of companies from many western nations when bidding for work. All have mathematical and/or other evidence to back them up. These include:
– Using instrumented range (which for phased arrays can generally be set as artificially high as you would like)
– Arbitrarilly doubling (or more) the power output to allow for future unspecified technology improvements
– Assuming that the radar devoted all its time energy to a specific and quite small patch of sky (with no cue) and quoting the achievable range if a target just happened to fly though that small segment.
Some of these were made in official submissions in classified bid documents, so goodness knows what ‘adjustments’ they make in unclassified press releases etc
On the other hand, both in bid documents and press releases, I have sometimes seen surprisingly accurate numbers. Each company always believes the opposition stretch the truth more than them, except when they are partnering for that particular bid.
More salt anyone?
PromOPIT,
no idea what your sources are, but I know from experience (in UK procurements) that some people very involved with an assessment can have personal views of which option is evaluated more highly that conflict highly with others on their team and the official version.
Which is to be expected, these are complex beasts and it would be unlikely that every aspect of a technical evaluation came up with the same result.
So personally I always take such comments with a large pile of salt.
PromYeah and the Opiums Wars were all about the British trying to stop the Chinese from using opium. Or the British gave Hong Kong a true democracy for China to take away. I love how the Europeans think they’re they’re some sort of victim. Remember this financial crisis was driven by 100% greed. Not some natural disaster or something that wasn’t under their control that put them in this situation. The Chinese should be wary. All they have to do is remember the Galileo project. China invested money but countries that had no investment had greater access. Like China has never experienced being screwed by the Europeans? And you don’t think China should be asking for extras? The Europeans are the ones out making it sound like it’s an honor to loan money to them. Well, deny that “honor” to China. All of the sudden the poor and backward of the world have to think about the rich Europeans first. History repeating itself.
O/T but Gosh. I think you read far too much into my comment. FWIW I don’t think China should bail out the Euro, indeed I hope they don’t.
Promassuming that China helps Europe in the first place. I think if they did give money to Europe, its people would go nuts. the average sentiment there is to let Europe deal with its own poopoo and use China’s money to focus on its own issues.
That would be hypocritical, given that until Feb 2011, the uK was still giving China aid – not loans, but free money
PromIs there any slack in UK yards (well yard) to build any boats to sell to the Canadians? Even if a diplomatic charm offensive could be allied to a face-saving trade in for the Victoria class? I thought that as soon as Astutes are finished Barrow were going to retool for either Vanguard replacement or the strange Vanguard-Trafalgar combo replacement.
That would only leave second hand T boats and no matter how good the trade in deal on the four Upholders I cannot see that being popular.
So IFF Canada decides to go nuclear France seems the only game in town.
I’m sure Barrow could build more boats. The RN orders are just enough to keep them going really. I’m sure they could ramp up production somewhat from ticking over. But I doubt the Canadians would buy British for this
Promthe reason stated by bgnewf (to stop the Yanks infringing Canadian water) was the reason why the Canadians were looking at the Trafalgar class and the French nukes ages ago. They ran a series of trials before deciding to but the upholders “on the cheap”. That didn’t work out so well so I doubt UK submarines are top of their wish list.
Yanks won’t sell for the reasons stated, so if they want nukes it would be the French I guess. Shame, as the Brit boats would be better (they won the trials convincingly back then).
PromInteresting document, but it mainly refers to the number of helicopters shot down by small arms fire, which is certainly possible. But an F-111 is just a little bit faster and would not be carrying out a mission profile that would allow infantrymen the time to take aim and fire.
The fact is: incredible claims can only be supported by some incredible evidence.
As you say, it MAINLY relates to helicopters. But it does cover fixed wing as well, though it does not clarify how many.
There have undoubtedly been cases of both mission and hard-kill of FW aircraft using small arms, whether or not I can find evidence on the web.
Note US army training material on the subject (there is a specific section for FW)
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/sad.pdf
or note this discourse on the same subject (which again includes specific sections for FW)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/44-8/ch5.htm
Quite a weight of evidence that it is possible and happens. Against your assertion that small arms fire bringing down a FW is incredible, backed up by….?
PromShooting down an F-111 with Kalashnikovs?:confused: A bull**** story if ever I heard one…:rolleyes:
I have no knowledge of the Vietnam/F-111 case (too young you see), but there are plenty of cases where infantry fire has provided mission or hard-kills, e.g.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_2-88_chpt4.htm
PromTruth is that Rafale can very well hold is own against a Typhoon, both in B and WVR, and was quite capable against the F22 in gun fights too.
Truth is that no-one really knows because none of the aircraft have faced a capable enemy in an A2A situation.
Simulations, training exercises and all the rest are all very well, but there are many reasons why they may not duplicate the real thing
Sign In
