I beg to differ, but before i go into that,
are you serious ? so development on 4th+ gen is useless, that includes Rafale, so any further development of Rafale, including AESA is useless in your opinion ?

I’m saying they should buy ToT and invest in technologies that are going to be implemented circa 2020-2025.

Co-development means extra costs, and extra time so in my opinion they should skip on this step and head straight to the next, ie the MLU market of whatever plane they chose. The israelis have fantastic technology but did they co-develop a plane? They tried to but it became a fiasco (Lavi)

Or is there a special clausule on co-operation ? and if so, why ?

?

Or is the clausule only valid if it’s non-french ? and if so, why ?

?

What’s neuron then?

If a total of 80 Mirage-2000-V frames are to be purchased, then the MRCA must be scrapped. These 80 units will definitely serve the original MRCA purpose very well, as they will easily equate the F-16 and Gripen in strike capability.

Upgradation of our existing Mirages can also continue simultaneously.

I agree completely. Buy a whole fleet of recent 2000-9 and update the rest of the fleet and you got your MRCA for much cheaper…

Maybe you could even get the 2000-5f from france to add up to the 126 aircrafts number and you’re set.

Nic

I’ve heard that lockheed and other US manufacturers went after all the former MBB/Rockwell/Whatever engineers who would have experience on delta canard and went through all of their work, and then concluded that it was worthless in comparison to the normal layout.

After all normal layout worked very well with the P51, which proceeded to win the war all by itself.

Nic

I will certainly not accept that bet.

Perhaps the Thales AESA has progressed further than the Saab/Selex; I do not know, and I don’t care much. However I strongly doubt that the difference is “four years” as some claim.

That’s perhaps a bet I could consider: “if RBE2 AESA is launched on a production Rafale 4 years or more before the Gripen or Typhoon AESA I will — hmmm leave this board”

:diablo:

Lets cross fingers folks :p

I never claimed 50° for the Hornet. 40° min, was what I found for Shornet, which is still more than eurocanards… And NO, it does NOT stall at that angle.

The rafale for instance can maintain controlability at more than 100° AoA, but it’s software is limited to 30 something. Why? Because as robban said it’s useless except for airshows.

You make me think of someone who’d pick an A5M instead of a Tomahawk because it has a better turnrate. Suicidal.

Nic

Well this could possibly be along with the M-88 at 90kN because it would be like flying a 737…:rolleyes:

Well the 90kn engine would materialise with a UAE order and should be part of a later batch for french Rafales to standardise production. The other french birds would probably be retrofitted as the 75kn engines wear out.

With 90KN and 27Ton MTOW, a CFT equipped version is quite likely.

Imagine a CAS version with 12 AASM (say 6 250kg and 6 125kg, or a combination with 6 AASM and 6 GBU) + 2 CFT + 1 2000L ventral tank + 4 Mica + 2 laser rocket pods + 1 damoclès pod :diablo:

Or say 6 AASM + 2 CFT + 1 dual GBU12 launcher (or 1 GBU24 under the belly) + 2 2000L tanks + 2 Laser rocket pods + 4 Mica + 1 damoclès pod

Or 6 AASM/GBUs + 2 2000L tanks + 2 CFTs + 1 Reco NG pod + 4 Mica + Damoclès + 2 laser rocket pods.

Those would be pretty serious loadouts.

Nic

Edit: replace the two conformal Micas with Meteors for good measure!

8 missiles for peacetime QRA?

Talk about a waste of missile flying hours… :confused:

I’d say 2 AMRAAM + 2 ASRAAM would be plenty already.

Nic