Well, I understand the choice of a Merlin over a NH90 because bigger size, 3 engines and a much better range, but I wonder why they would chose the cougar over the NH90?

Nic

I’d agree with that, though also add CFT’s so Dassault can use its range to an advantage even more. I’m not too sure but I assume the ALA has no requirement for CFT’s?

Oh also, a twin 90KN Rafale we be a sight to behold.:eek:

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Miscdet/Images/3971.jpg

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rafale/images/rafale_9.jpg

Anyone have an idea of the cost of the various helos one is talking about here?

EH101, AW149, NH90, EC725, S92? Any other that could be fitting?

I think the EC725 could be a pretty potent alternative to the EH101 and NH90 in terms of capacity as long as it came cheap enough.

But I don’t quite understand why the french chose the EC725 and not the NH90 to develop a dedicated a RESCO variant. I suspect a dedicated RESCO variant of the NH90 could have sold like hot cakes.

Also why did Italy order so many NH90s when they build the Merlin?

Nic

OK, this is presumably in a clean config — still there must be a reason why all the companies making 4.5 gen a/c work hard on reducing the RCS; look at the SH for instance. Even if adding stuff increases the RCS, I guess it still can give an advantage, perhaps in particular in a light a2a config?

Fuel tanks could be covered with RA paint, or CFTs could replace them. Besides some weapons are supposed to be stealthy, like the scalp, so only the pylons would impact RCS much, and those aren’t going to be visible in a terrain following profile. Same for self defense missiles that are under the belly of the AC. Only wing tip ones are going to be visible in all aspects. Are they going to impact the RCS that much?

Back to Rafale

« le combat s’arrêtera parce que le pilote arrive à ses limites ; l’avion en puissance maximale garde toutes ses possibilités. Je me souviens de combat ici avec des jeunes où celui qui a gagné, c’est celui qui a tenu le plus longtemps sous 9 g. Et au bout de 40 ou 50 secondes sous 9 g, il avait le même phénomène d’épuisement que vous pourriez avoir au bout de 15 km de course. »

Translation for the english speakers of this quote from a Rafale pilot page 41 of the document.

“The fight will end because the pilot will reach his limits; the plane at max power retains all its capabilities. I remember a fight here with younger pilots where those who won were those who held longer under 9g. And after 40 or 50 seconds at 9g, you were as tired as after running 15 km.”

Sounds like sustained power is definately good enough.

Nic

Better/More RAM is quite likely if they want to work on RAM. And the air intakes will have to be fitted to reach 90KN anyway won’t they?

Nic

the pics that I’ve seen show the LGB being carried on the inner wing pylons..hereyou can see a picture of a 7 Squadron BattleAxe Mirage-2000 in an unusual green/brown camo scheme, carrying a Paveway LGB alongwith a Remora pod on the outermost pylon. I’m guessing the other inner wing pylon is also carrying a LGB and the outermost wing pylon is carrying either a RD-530D or a Magic-II missile. the center pylon is used for a drop tank.

How is the the target designated in that configuration? Was LGB designation provided by ground troups in Kashmir or were they provided by the Mirage 2000 on the wing pylon on the other side?

I’ve read only 2 seaters were used with LGB and single seaters were used with dumb bombs?

Nic