Scorpion :
Also , since the French MMICs (GaAs and GaN) are made in France by UMS S.A.S France (Orsay plant) under Thalès survey , the British (and others like Selex) have very little idea of what the RBE2-AA is made of .
What UMS Germany is doing for the Captor-E is a different matter .

Nop.
The AsGa MMICs are made in the German UMS plant.
Now our MMICs have been funded 50% by the Germans, we’re not going to complain about it, and for now they have no use of them (as long as they don’t fund properly the AESA development for the EF, that’s it)

The GaN plant is in France though. That’s why we though for a long time that the RBE2-AA could well be GaN from the beginning.

The DGA always had an eye on GaN. For a long time.
The first time I heard about GaN was with French articles and quotes.

Let’s not forget SOITEC too. This company is world leader for substrates and this is very important for GaN (because of power density if I understood well)

I think (and I hope) that we could have news with GaN sooner than most expect. For SPECTRA first, side antenas and the main antena itself later as prototypes now that they are all quoted in a roadmap.

Thus the Thales guy bragging possibly, or it was just that he drank a little bit too much of Champagne on his booth during the show? 😉

http://www.foxalpha.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17206

In every Rafale news thread there is a link to the previous one on the first post 😉 so you can find them all if you so desire. And this one makes no exception.

Nic

Not really Nicolas. There are some breaks and sometime the link arn’t in the first post and not even the first page (I remember a Rafale thread started by Jackonimo without the links: a clear evidence of a conspiracy to sabotage our Rafale threads :D)

But if you want I’ll try to gather all the links tonight, just if you could stick them in your first post after…

The Mica IR seeker is quite unconventional,

I think, but I’m not sure, that ASRAAM and Iris-T seakers are both derivated from a Hughe aircraft seakers (I’m not 100% sure).

Anyway there are 2 parameters touted by the Mica brochures: very resilient to counter-mesures and the big NEZ thanks to the longer range.
It’s more complicate than 60G>50G IMO.

The logical consequence of 60g>50g and 90° > 60° is a slightly widder angular NEZ.
Possibly. But in any cases MICA’s range allow a very big NEZ – in deepth.

To complete Eagle post conserning the Rafale improving path:

– every Rafale will have its OSF soon. 51 more OSFs have been ordered in 2009 for the batch 2s which were ordered without OSF,
– the side AESA antenas and the GaN projects are decoupled. The GaN antena will be first installed for the SPECTRA and the first side AESA antena for a 240° coverage aren’t necessarily GaN.
– They actually want to use the Recco NG reconaissance pod as a super-targeting pod dispaching targeting coordinates to all the patrol in real time. It’s rather a good move IMO.

Well but he insists that Eurofighter claims that this is somehow unique to the aircraft, which isn’t the case if you read the link. Thus it’s more or less the usual Eurofighter bashing.:rolleyes:

Ok Scorpion, let’s read the link togather :rolleyes:

Perfection in airframe performance can give the pilot battle-winning edge, providing that airframe is part of the Eurofighter Typhoon Weapon System.

yeah, yeah, allright, allright. Calm down. And it makes Wrrooom and we say Waoowwww? :rolleyes:

Eurofighter Typhoon has a foreplane/delta configuration which is, by nature, aerodynamically unstable.

Wrong. The Mirage3 was a delta and was stable. Did they invent the delta also? :rolleyes:

The instability of the aircraft is derived from the position of a theoretical “pressure point” on the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. This is calculated from the contribution to lift from each of the aircraft components (the wings, the canards, fuselage etc). If the pressure point is in front of the centre of gravity on the longitudinal axis, the aircraft is aerodynamically unstable and it is impossible for a human to control it.

Well, it’s usually called the “lift point” and that’s the first time I hear about “pressure point”. Is that the translation from German to Italian to Spanish and then English which created this new aerodynamic “pressure” concept? :rolleyes:

With the Eurofighter Typhoon, in subsonic flight the pressure point lies in front of the centre of gravity, therefore making the aircraft aerodynamically unstable, and is why Eurofighter Typhoon has such a complex Flight Control System – computers react quicker than a pilot.

That’s what I said: Eurofighter Typhoon invented the late 70’s instable FBW plane :rolleyes:

When Eurofighter Typhoon crosses into supersonic flight, the pressure point moves behind the centre of gravity, giving a stable aircraft.

Oh yeah, how are they doing that? Oh my god, unbelevable that they could make move the **ahem** “pressure point” like that? Too strong! :rolleyes:

The advantages of an intentionally unstable design over that of a stable arrangement include greater agility – particularly at subsonic speeds – reduced drag, and an overall increase in lift (also enhancing STOL performance). 😮

No wonder that it become dificult to believe their claim after that. It is not serious really.
So you’ll have to excuse me when they clame something which is true finally but with such BS on the official Eurofighter site, it’s obvious they really treat us as retards…. I mean… they treat YOU as retards (It’s not us who pay the bill so…) 😀

http://www.eurofighter.com/capabilities/performance/aerodynamic-characteristics.html

That’s aerodynamic of the late 70’s for dummies :rolleyes: Mr. Obvious at work in this internet page.

Seriously, what is spinned as EF exclusivity is common practice since 1977 on the F16; and 1978 on the M2000

I would have expected the EF to remain instable at supersonic speed which would have been a kind of exclusivity but no such thing apparently.

The question I wonder is which is more instable at sub speed between the EF and the Rafale (or which is less stable at supersonic).
Usual consensus is that it’s the EF.

However, it’s better to take with salt such consensus when they originate from such dumb EF web page… 😎

I didn’t say that Germany would vetoe countries which use nuclear energy. That would be stupid to say so actually. I didn’t say that, re-read the post.

I just said that this event showed that the German population is hyper sensitive with politically correct issues and the German politician are unable to resist it.

And since they tend to lecture everybody with it (IMO) I wouldn’t fully trust a country capable of such dramatic decisions on the name of politically correctness. Debatable, certainly, but the risk is not null (in case of war, that’s it, and especially nuclear war).