Few interesting infos (or confirmations) in latest Air Fan “special Rafale” issue.
SATCOM IS integrated on two prototypes planes B301 and C101. You can see it on the B 301/nEUROn/Falcon flight. Atm it is working on inmarsat civilian network, but will of course work with others.
A HMD is being fully integrated (my bet would go on scorpion as Thales has bought visionix, but no clue)
MLU will mainly concern sensors, weapons and EW. Time schedule unclear, lets say 2025. smart skin/cheek arrays seem to be involved, aswell as more offensive capabilities for RBE2 and very high bandwith directional datalink. Mica NG also.
Standard F3.4+ being tested at CEAM.
Now my guess :
Recently, we have seen CARAA study plan finish (possibility of physical division of the antenna of RBE2), aswell as INCAS (which led to improved spectra with GaN modules) and DEDIRA (very secret program, means discretion demonstrator for Rafale, all we know for sure is that it is flying and working fine and no special plane having been spotted it is arguably and improvement of ECMs).
MELBAA program, intending to lead to GaN RBE2 with divided antenna AND parallel calculators for those divisions has just been funded, both for Rafale and FCAS.
Add to this Tragedac (aimed at sharing tracks between planes so as to consolidate them)…
I see a schem there, not you?
I don’t want to bother you with my dear Rafale and pollute topic, but it is starting cooperation flights with nEUROn within months.
My question is what would be more Xth Gen : F-35 or a Gripen/Rafale/EFT couple with a ultra stealthy UCAS?
Btw, Jay, Canada was invited to drop into french part of FCAS in cas they’d select Rafale…
i wouldn’t quote JY Le Drian as incompetent…
Btw here is a concept art shown to day in St Cloud for the signature of feasability studies.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232982[/ATTACH]
Camcopter has an inertial capability no?
First multiple PIV release from P1Eb
Hornets (F/A-18A/C) – NOT Super Hornets (F/A-18E/F)!
The Hornets that “operated” (actually, did light-load landings & take-offs without significant external payload) from CdG are smaller and lighter than the Super Hornets Brazil was looking to buy – and weight is a major factor for carrier operations, as the catapults and arresting gear have to be able to deal with launching or stopping that weight to/from the aircraft’s flying speed – which is basically the same speed for both Hornet and Super Hornet.
Super Hornets require more powerful catapults and stronger arresting gear (as well as a stronger impact area in the flight deck) than do Hornets.
http://www.colsbleus.fr/gallerie/1366/op%C3%A9ration-bois-belleau
Super hornets. Opération Bois belleau
Gripen has a couple of other advantages over most other landbased aircraft in developig a carrier variant. Because of the nature of how the Swedes operate their aircraft, it already has the ability to routinely fly a constant AoA approach all the way to touchdown. In addition, it has the over the nose visibility required to repeatedly do that. It shouldn’t be forgotten that those two characteristics required both proposals for JSF to be radically redsigned from their original configurations.
Also, I beleive that with Gripen you can remove/install the engine vertically underneath rather than pulling it out of the rear. This is important in a naval aircraft since space for maintenance is so limited on the flight and hangar decks. One of the things the USN had to give up for commonality’s sake in the F-35C was this much desired feature.
Gripen’s lower weight and required flying speed should also reduce wind over the deck requirements as well as runout distance over landbased designs, and that is a signficant factor if you’re talking about smaller carriers. Based on results of operations from the Charles DeGaulle, it isn’t all that certain that even if they had bought the Super Hornet they would have been able to operate it from the carriers they envision.
Bad move, F18 regularly operated from CDG recently…
i have a very precise question, if anyone can answer. Can AGP79 physically divide its antenna so as to simultaneouly (not fast switching) perform different tasks?
Presently, 186 planes are ordered. Another tranche was announced in january (in order to replace ageing Mirage 2000). Expecting for export orders, the Loi de Programmation Militaire disminished the delivery rate. If no export order is signed, french state is contractually tied to accept 11 planes / year delivery.
Point is considering budget constraints, slowing down deliveries to armée de l’air would be welcome! (in particular they’d like to buy new tankers).
I do not undeerstand what you mean by all the avionics and engines to perform its basic missions?
i’d like to insist on a point. YES, LO IS an advantage. However, the important part is to “break the kill chain”, which can be achieved by several means distinct from LO.
licensing, ToT and building an assembly line is extremely costly…
Why not Korean TA50?
one shot buy mirage 2000
The funny part is SAAB proposed the studies for Gripen M to be part of offsets i think 😉