Fonck

"Whilst you are right that Neuron is similar to US UCAVs you forget to mention that it will fly about 7 years after the first X45. Barracuda is doing roll tests now in 2006 whilst Neuron first flight is 2010-2011. So I wouldn't dismiss EADS work that easily." Twaist and spin. again.

Sorry, the fact that you only undestand BIG figures and have absolutly no idea of the rest doesn't make EADS Barracuda as advanced as NEURON. To tell you the truth, there is still the little matter of Barrakuda demonstrating any Combat capabilities so we will shortly SEE which is the real UCAV. One thing for sure it is NOT Corax nor Raven. As for the stealth features as usual you don't know what you're about, Slow Fast was designed in 2003. http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1296/slowfastmodel1lb.jpg Since the 90 up to 2000, thing have moved on... http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/5498/etapeads8wx.gif EADS conceipt http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/1732/foas4kc.gif BAe FOAS conceipt. As for your famous IR supressor demonstrator, it seems to me that SNECMA and Dassault have the equivalent flying on Rafale years ago, appart for the fact that this is a retractable device.... http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4792/idr0105041p11eq.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/254/irsupress021by.jpg If i were you i'd stick to train spoting.

Le neuron semble etre une avancée significative dans ce sens (sens de l'organisation, car du point de vue technique on ne peut juger tant qu'il n est pas présenté). C'est vrai. Il y a quand meme des standards. Comme les formes choisie par example. Le Barracuda Allemand est rtes ressemblant des drone furtif dessines dans les annee 90. Donc a priory, technologiquement, les solutions apliquees au NEURON sont tres avancees cr similaires au deriner drones US. Quand a l'avancee des travaux, ces images me rassurent. http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9681/neuroninternals028sz.jpg http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2803/neuroninternals6sn.jpg

@glitter D'etre ecrit par des mecs qui comme toi n'y entendent rien. Aerospaciale et chien ecrases c'est un peut different.

C'est un point de vure tres bien situe. Certain oublient les contrainte financieres d'ou les surprises quand le programmes ne sont pas au rendez-vous.

"Que la force soit avec toi Fonck !" Merci Phil! J'ai Saint Jehanne a mes cotes et mere Theresa dans le dos pour me pousser. Pas de quoi paniquer.

C'est toi sur la photo? T'est plutot mimi...

@RM-Nod The WAAF low-estime TWIST and SPIN techniques are now officially imported in this forum. Granted... Excuse ME: Once you (RM Nod) complained (several time over in fact) that i was calling you names to the WAAF Mods. Reason? You are a LIAR. And keep twisting/spining subject around with NO point to make: I have had this evidence posted to you about Harrier II and Tornados F-3s fuselage cracking in two forms, not only AFM but also flight-International, all you could do is enters this famous state of denial of yours and tell the rest of us LIES. "Can you actually provide some sources for these two because I can’t find any evidence of BAE being the cause of any chronic cracking issues in either of these aircraft." Stop asking for what you had time and time AGAIN taking the whole forum for stupids it's a form of insult. First: On Tornado F-3 the whole programme is UK only expecially the central fuselage plug incriminated. Second: On Harrier II, for the UK BAe is Prime contractor. Both aircrafts are BAe sub-products from collaborative programmes with US and European partners, more to it the incriminated parts are both designed and manufactured by BAe. In french i wouldn't be able to describe your low level of honnesty politely either; Degeulasse. Is the only word i can find, you're are a very good Tony Bliar emulator though...... Citation: Now Not only we have this Senat rapport but we have a SECOND movie too. "Yeah but Fonk, the senate report says the Moyen Duc “appeared” in 2001 and the video does not say what aircraft it shows." They are the official source here again you SPIN by ignoring the fact. Press releases originate from them. No point to make = SPIN and TWIAST and SPIN and TWIAST and etc "However numerous sources say that the Moyen Duc was launched as a programme in 2001," Blah-di-Blah... Sources given these informations by whom??? No point ot make = SPIN and TWIAST and SPIN and TWIAST and etc "that first flight was planned as being for 2003" This was the mystaken for Moyen Duc Slow/Fast with a totally different configuration as proven NOW. No point to make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc. http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_04/d1_miragep14.html http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2001/02/20/126308/Dassault+builds+unmanned +vehicle+strategy+on+Petit+Duc+combat+craft.html http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2002/04/23/146531/Dassault+and+Sagem+unite +on+UAVs.html http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2003/04/29/164955/Edelstenne+'A+lot+to+lear n+from+US'.html http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2003/06/24/167785/France+budgets+%24350m +for+UCAV+demonstrator.html Ho what a reliable source of information you provide us with to try to make your po1nts here... While ignoring the top brasses of French aerospace: HYPOCRIT... "Seriously, when it comes to powers of deduction you are no Sherlock Holmes." I need no example of famous characters for knowing you as an arrogant @sshole. I can elaborate at every level, you have no education of the sort to make any of your points stick that's WHY you keep SPINING/TWISTING/LYING. No point to make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc Citation: So you have to admit that Dassault and BAe are NOT at the same level as Turner says clearly they need more UK programmes to be a viable partner in case of a collaboration with the EU or US. "No that’s not what he said, he said the UK needs its own TDP before taking a decision to join either the US or Europe," Ho really? Guess why? He needs a TDP to keep up design-wise and everyone can see this, Dassault are the most advanced in the world in this field, BAe keep fucking up designs and have a long list to prove the point. "You’re still far too obsessed with stealth, there is far more too it than that. The F117 was flying around long enough ago but that hasn’t stopped Boeing and Northrop Grumman beating LM and being picked for J-UCAS did it." Blah-di-Blah. What is this all about? Lolypop? But since you're trying to distract everyone attention: Dassault developed the Rafale UCAV flight leader (UFL) programme with a demonstrator displayed at EuroSatory 2005 by DGA. No point to make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc Citation: Nod you don't KNOW what you are talking about. Prototyping is the process building a physical vehicle (physical meaning real sized aircraft) to demonstrate its capabilities of doing what it was designed for: Flying or more, conducting a mission. When technology allows, scale models are used to reduce cost. In the case of AVE-D and FILUR this was possible. These vehicles were meant to demonstrate highly specific technologies, not complete systems. "They were not prototypes nor is there any need for them to be hence integrating everything needed for a UCAV into one vehicle is unnecessary." AVE-D was built using "rapid" prototyping in 2000. The TWO BAe ARE prototypes, as they don't have Dassault design capability (still unique in the world of aerospace) to go from design to production article in one process thus they are nothing else than prototypes. No point to make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc Citation: There are every reasons for it: Validation. "You really don’t read my posts do you. I didn’t say there was no need to test them, I said they there was no need to put them onto a UAV. You can validate them on a Hawk just as BAE did." You are WRONG. Validation on an UAV is the only way for BAe to know if tall the features will work on them and particularly together... Hence the need for this TDP you still DONT have. No point ot make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc "As for all the “I know more than you” crap I won’t rise to that so you can pack it in now." Sorry mate. You CANT rise anything: You are NOT as far as we all know gifted with ANY aerospace experience, flying experience, Air Force speacialist training and service experience with the best Air Forcfe in the EUs but are, arrogant, liar, and firmly keep yourself so. Everyone can see this by now. Seriously im not living in Disneyland and keep taking people for stupid on a permanent basis. More ot the point, i am an educated airman with credential and experience to prove it plus understanding of the subject, you're a flame with little to say. Jut to make my point stick: in 1975 i was known and duely recorded by the French Civil Aviation authority as the youngest Frenchman flying for several month, that also on thre type of aircrafts (Piper Cub, MS-880 Rallye 100, Jodel D-90. age: 15. Before a girl (well done to her, this is a very good French tradition) took over the title, i had several hours solo and DC officialy and a load more flying with friends in hig/speed sport aircraft (Andre Jurca Siroco) and even French Gendarmerie Surveilance Aircrafts (Cessna Centurion) even twin aircrafts (Cessna Seneca). I have no need to tell people bullshits all the time, there are official records to prove what i say. No point ot make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc "It’s a plain fact that the UK is known to have started on the necessary technology specifically for 4th generation + aircraft in 1994 and was producing actual hardware and has been able to develop from there while Dassault began in 1999 and only produced any hardware in 2000 after a much shorter development trimeframe." Yeah SURE: It’s a plain fact that the UK is known to have stpent £Billions in BAe inferior design skills and technical difficulities. It’s a plain fact that the UK is known to have wasted £ 182 Millions in F-35 programme without any technology transfert and a reduced %age of researches share in return. It’s a plain fact that the UK is known to have the lowest level of national independency in EUs Aerospacial industry. It’s a plain fact that the UK is known to have a majority of French designed and US weapons and when not, designed in collaboration with either one or the other. It’s a plain fact that the UK is known to have NO indigenously designed fighter in service today. It’s a plain fact that the UK is known to have NO indigenously designed fighter engine today. It’s a plain fact that the UK is known to have designed NO high performance fighter on her own since Lightening II ans only a firmly subsonic (M 0.98)Sea Harrier. It’s a plain fact that the UK is known to have launched at least half of its Tactical UAVs programmes through a FRENCH company called Thales etc. It’s a plain fact that France is known to be the second world ranking Aerospace industry. It’s a plain fact that BAe list of design problems is as following: F-22. ASTUTE. Nimrod MR4. Harrier II. Tornado F-3. EFA. Nimrod AEW. Results: £billions cost over-run, years in delay and the last F-22 crash in 2005. It’s a plain fact that BAe Mike Turner is asking for an UCAV TDP in order to "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions" and doesn't got it. No need for photo finish, we all can see what the results ARE. No point to make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc "On Neuron, again the final contract was only signed last month, it doesn’t matter whether the DGA originally mooted it in 2003 or not." When i say arrogant i forgot ignorant again... Saab marketing manager Per Borg says the Neuron team has long been debating the merits of both designs, but recently settled on the flying wing. http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/05/10/197668/Saab+lifts+the+lid+on+revised+Neuron.html Flight HomeSubscribeYou are in: Home › News Article DATE:10/05/05 SOURCE:Flight International Saab lifts the lid on revised Neuron You keep sticking SHIT in your eyes don't YOU, NEURON design was tackled by Dassault and SAAB as early as they agreed on this and it is 2004 for you, contract or not as obviously proven by the state of advancement of its design. Dassault is leading the six-nation Neuron development team of France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. The UK, meanwhile, has aligned itself with the USA's Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems programme. The Neuron team aims to produce a demonstrator to fly after 2008. 10/05/05 >>>>> BAe can't say the same can they? They have NO TDP as yet as opposed to what you tried to tell everyone on the WAAF for the whole of last year (FOAS topics). You got ZULTH and have NO point to make there appart showing yourself a total fool again. No point to make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc "On the one hand you’ve said “BAE are just producing little mock ups” but on the other you’re saying that Dassault can do anything BAE does in the real world with CAD and the same or better results" Obviously they can, once and for all they are world leader in design tools and production methods. BAe are far behind and it shows big time. No point ot make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc Citation: "BAe began trying to persuade the UK MoD of the need for a technology demonstration program (TDP) to -- in the words of one official at the time -- "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions". The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, was to be on airframe design "because of the need to master the stealth issue"." "Why are you posting this again? You’ve already said that it doesn’t make any point; if you’re going to keep posting this then why not address the fact that Dassault was requesting a manned TDP in 1997? Or are you just flooding your posts in the hope that I won’t respond?" BECAUSE mate you keep denying the reality and this is REALITY. The TDP is still NOT there for them and it is NEEDED by BAe to "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions". Is that NOT clear enough for you??? "BAe began trying to persuade the UK MoD of the need for a technology demonstration program (TDP) " What is your probelm? Is this NOT English enough for you??? As for manned TDP for Dassault they got NEURON instead another clear spin and twist bull example of you here. No point ot make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc Another Evidence of BAe design problems both structural/aerodynamic and even avionics.... Nimrod AEW.3 http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6214/nimrodaew36cp.jpg "Nine Nimrod fuselages were converted into airborne early warning versions in the mid-1980s in one of the most disatrous procurement exercise in modern UK history. The programme was eventuallu cancelled and the aircraft were scrapped." Extract from Air Force Montly edition Oct 2004. No point ot make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc Tornado F-3. Centre fuselage design. http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/462/f3midlife5mw.jpg "They may be old, but they still have plenty of life in them. However, many need to go through a Mid-Life Fatigue programme (MLFP), which would entail coomplete overhaul and replacement of the centre fuselage when aircraft reach 25 FI (25% of the originally planned, and presumably guaranteed, fatigue life). Extract from Air Force Montly edition Jan 2004, No point ot make = SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and etc On Nimrod MR4 as edited by the UK NAO: http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9914/astutenimrodnao011bs.jpg http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/962/designchallengenao8pk.jpg 2003 only cost over-run for the programme was £358. Total cost NAO 2004 figures = £1,940 million. Reasons: Design chalenge underestimated. Chalenged by a maritime surveillance aircraft (re)-design.... Astute submarine: http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/8161/astutecadnao3oc.jpg "It is now understood that neither the Departement nor BAe Systems fully understood the risks of in troducing computer aided desgin to a new class of submarine. For examp[le, between 1997 and 2002, the Departement did not explicitly monitor the integration of designs via the computer aided design tool and id not include the use of the tool as a separate item on its risk register." Cost: £886 million. http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/4861/helpnao7bq.jpg "The UK is known to have had a budget of at least €60m in addition to private funds. You have no evidence of French expenditures." We don't need to see the bill we are much happy with the results. As for BAE it is CLEAR from many high quality sources that they are greatly "chalenged" by the process of designing, producing and managing. >>>>> Conclusions: FCUK you NOD. I got plenty more amos for you and i strongly suggest you learn about it all before posting anything in this forum, and by the way don't bother posting anything to me personally i won't reply. As i said to you already there are educated people here and we don't need to lie to everyone to inflate our egos we are EU number ONE and world Number TWO and this: officialy.. All you have been doing so far is import your disgusting level of intellctual deshonnesty from the WAAF. We don't need this sh!t in here for sure. You're too mediocre to even been funny..

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7813/x45cir3rl.jpg Le NEURON a une configuration proche de celle du X-45C http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2803/neuroninternals6sn.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.jpg Le X-47C est plutot comme un AVE Duc Monoreacteur... http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3853/moyenducagain9xo.jpg

First learn your elementary basics before humiliating yourself AGAIN. First learn your elementary basics before humiliating yourself AGAIN. First learn your elementary basics before humiliating yourself AGAIN. Nod YOU haver NO ponit to make but deny the reality. Second your denials are not helping YOU. I HAVE every evidences and the only way you can expect ME to skip them is by being plain lazy. You want THEM? You'll have them. ASTUTE: Design and management. Nimrod MR4 Design. Harrier II Rear fuselage (BAe design fatigue) cracks midway thriugh their service life. Tornado F-3 Same for the BAe designed fuselage plug. Nimrod AEW total fuck-up. etc. AMRAAM and ASRAAM integration on Tornado etc... We will skip the EFA wing design issue for preserving your ramain of sanity here. Now take a hike you're only poluting the topic with nonsenses. "I don't want to get into the subject as it's a long one" This particualr SUBJECT is of a primiry importance: It shows EXACTLY what is BAE level of design and technology expertise. As for Nod remark it also shows how he choose to ignore realtiy on a dayly basis. Notre that he is trying to imply that i mislead him: Which is not the case. I was given the information on Moyen Duc by OPIT (Rapport d'Information) only AFTER i had received an incomplete anwer to my question to Dassault on it apearing on the previous movie. "Higher technologies". Now Not only we have this Senat rapport but we have a SECOND movie too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DASSAULT_ACTIVITIES_vod.zip Thats what is going to make of you a semi-educated being (ranked beginer) if you choose to learn. "I’m also sure that Dassault is fully capable of developing Neuron but that wasn’t the discussion that I’ve been reading, the discussion I’ve been reading is about BAE System’s capability in the UCAV arena relative to Dassault’s." So you have to admit that Dassault and BAe are NOT at the same level as Turner says clearly they need more UK programmes to be a viable partner in case of a collaboration with the EU or US. AND THIS IN 2004. Quoting Mike Turner BAe: DATE:20/07/04 More to the p[oint they dont have this TDP yet. SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." A FULL TWO years minimum after Dassault were fully ready. BAe is way behind not only historically, design-wise but technologically as welland this is one reason why they don't get what they want from MoD. They are incapable of doing anything at cost and in schedule and a full scale TDP is rather a costly and high risk issue. They need to do some more home work and even Turner says so.. The fact that you can't make the diffeence between a mock-up and a flying fully stealth UAV is your problem not ours and reality is as i stated not your punny interpretation of it. "As for comparing the AVE-D/C to the Raven you can claim it to be more advanced in a certain area however in others Raven is the more advanced. For example Raven is autonomous, the AVE aircraft are not." It doesn't make any difference to the real issue which is: Stealth features present on the vehicles. "But why does this matter? The answer is that it doesn’t, the point in these vehicles is to develop technologies and demonstrate them, not to build a prototype." Nod you don't KNOW what you are talking about. Prototyping is the process building a physical vehicle (physical meaning real sized aircraft) to demonstrate its capabilities of doing what it was designed for: Flying or more, conducting a mission. When technology allows, scale models are used to reduce cost. In the case of AVE-D and FILUR this was possible. Protoypes are all first aircraft to roll out designed with the full industry design points. i.e. Stealth, Aerodynamics, Structural, Industrial (tooling). http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5592/sonicwave9yu.jpg Here is a simulation of Rafale aerodynamic characteristics in transonic flight, see the sound wave??? Dassault is in no need to do prototyping anymore, in 2000 they were already doing "rapid prototyping" with AVEs BAe are well behind them. So design-wise experience-wise as well as technologically the advanyage is to Dassault with no need for photo-finish. "If you want to produce IR signature reduction materials, techniques etc there is no reason to fly them on a UAV, a Hawk will do". There are every reasons for it: Validation. http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1596/irsupress5js.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/254/irsupress021by.th.jpg M-88 IR supression measure: The Nozzle is NOT visible from this angle. The "ring" surounding it is made of IR-supressant Materials. First M-88 flight on Rafale A 20th Feb 1990. http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2088/anechoidal6ro.jpg As fopr Rafale its sealth characteristics are well known of ONERA/SNECMA and Dassault... http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9533/furtifrafalesmall9eh.jpg http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5653/raven1nozzle8zc.jpg Same here, the principle ALSO involes the use of the aerodynamic characteristics of the exhaust area for the AVE: The pressure zone at their level is mixing cool air from the boundary layer to the hot Air from the engine. This IS a well known IR supressing design measure at least for those who choosed to learn their SH!T before opening up wide and making fools of themself.. DASSAULT_ACTIVITIES_vod.zip Thats what is goimng to make of you a semi-educated being (ramked beginer) if you choose to learn. AVEs nozzles are not only recessed and shielded, they are integrated into an enssemble composed of materials and aerodynamic features: That of Raven is obviously proheminent, but also NOT protected by ANY form of fairing. POINT: You still can't validate the UAV with your IR supression features by not flying them on it and more to the point if you do, it saves you the trouble of having to test them on another aircraft... Endly once you do that you can see the end result in the real article at once and can validate your design solutions as: Stealth, Material and Structural. All you are trying to do is spining here. The goal of prototyping or demonstratimng features is to make sure they work on the final artcle. There again the advantyage is to Dassault. Tools: the digital age "Dassault Aviation uses digital modeling for calculating airframes, aerodynamics and the effects of electromagnetic radiation, for computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM), and for research into the operational use of weapon systems. The IT department also creates simulation tools and technical documentation systems used in providing support services to civil and military aircraft. However, the Company continues to use conventional physical resources for design and validation such as test banks for flight control or automatic pilot systems. The entire industrial chain (Product Life Management [PLM]), from design to production and finally support, is based on software developed by Dassault Systèmes (CATIA V4 and V5, ENOVIA VPM and DELMIA), thus ensuring consistent, continuous, secure and effective production." > http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/8305/virtualtool18fu.jpg Clearly they are doing their home work, developiong new design and production tools that put them a full decenie ahead of BAe... virtual-tool-2.jpg "Also when you’re testing materials, ground based demonstrators will do;" True, but i'm NOT the one constantly inflating my list number with the equivalent of Replica and Nightjaars mocjk-ups which are researche non flyable models. This works ALSO in case of Dasault, which is what you tried to dismiss as their work is directly linked to that of ONERA. http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9436/spacial9hb.jpg Which by the way goes far beyhond steath UCAVs, UAVs and and conventional aircrafts, civilians like military in both case... This sort of researches have been long done both by Dassault (Rafale) SNECMA (M-88) and more to the point ONERA who are in charge of them at experimental level. Down to the effect of PLASMA on materials... http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/5449/oneraplasma3bq.jpg "in fact in some ways they’re better because they can be built to full scale which gives more representative results of an actual aircraft (smaller vehicles usually can’t have the same thickness of RAM etc)" LOL like you know your subject that well as to try to spin it that way too. CG simulation in itself is enough to demonstate radar return. Material tickness, pgysical and stealt hcharacteristics are also CG-simulateable. What matters is the whole solution and there is no need for full-cale mock-ups anymore expecially at Dassault as they can do without any prototype at all: http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1274/amil3stat0ii.jpg http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9555/onerastealthgerardbobillot8zn.jpg http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9555/onerastealthgerardbobillot8zn.th.jpg http://www.onera.fr/cahierdelabo/english/amil3.htm Size doesn't matter that much, materials and shapes are first tested independently in CG then together and so there is a direct data pool for their characteristics and performances available. This is why scale models can be used for particular taskes and why SAAB/Dassault but also BAE used them. PLUS: By adding Replica to the list, you try to compare technologyes of totally different decenies and state of advance in BOTH stealth and material. PROOF? The obvious difference in shape and Materials used in Replica and Corax/Raven, the sort of details which doesn't escapes me but is way above your head. "The fact is that both companies have developed EM, IR signature reduction technologies along with advance, novel aerodynamic configurations." TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and etc... FACTS: Dassault hads designed, built and flown more FULL stealth UAVs than BAe has NOW before Raven first flight as well as getting the DGA contract for the NEURON programme. "However it is also true that BAE Systems has done more of this work along with additional development activity giving BAE more experience over a wider range of areas. You can say AVE-D did this and this in one vehicle but it doesn’t change that basic fact." How really? Sorry to couterdict YOU again. At least I READ BAe staments and work results you apparently do not. More to the point Dassault have been focusing in different areas where SAAB wasn't in front of everyone else, and this is flying UCAVs from a Rafale rear or even (single) front cockpit. DGA demonstrated a fully equiped cockpit last year at Eurosatory and Dassault disclosed details of the sofware used for the simulation. Note that i HAVE duely informed everyone in the WAAF forum but that you toons choosed to ignore the facts as usual... Why should Dassault have worked at autonomous flight controling UCAVs when they had agreed with DGA since 2003 to use SAAB best field of expertise??? This WAS Dassault first task as AGREED with DGA for the NEURON programme, find the most effiscient way to collaborating with partners as well as seting up the right tools and methods to do so. In your hurry to try to prove ME wrong in my stament of SAAB being the world FIRST to conduct a mission fully autonomouysly, you forgot one point: (WAAF). The US never did include automated take-off and landing in their demonstrations. SAAB did, so they have the world first truely autonomous UAV demonstrator in their portfolio. "On Moyen Duc, you still have no evidence that it flew, you have a single source that says it “appeared” in 2001 but there are also sources that say that the project started in 2001 and that the first flight was expected in 2003 and then 2004" LIAR = LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR. 1) There is no sources saying it started in 2001 with first flight scheduled in 2003. All the Anglo-American sources are giving it "apearing" in 2003 with first flight shceduled for the same year, most of them mystakes it with Slow/Fast too. The expected design/developement of these are about 7 month to start with, no other sources gives it date of 2001, only the "Single" source is a multiple one: 2) The "single" source is the OFFICIAL one, that where the rest of the world is geting informations from. 3) IT IS the most informed and ALSO most RECENT: 22 Feb 2006. 4) This information was NEVER disclosed to the press before as proven by the large amount of confusion which reigns in the press worldwile. >>>>> About the people involved in the making of this document: Ingenieur general de l'armement Thierry Duquesne. MM. Phillipe Coq. Directeur des programme Male. MM Patraick Oswald, Directeur des programmes de drone tactiques et avions de missions (EADS). M. Pierre Mathieu, Directeur du developement aeronautique de la societe Thales. M. Eric Trappier, Directeur general adjoint de la societe Dassault Aviation. M. Jean Francois Coutris, Directeur de la Division Optronique et Systemes aeroterrestres de la societe SAGEM Lieutenant-colonel Fabienne Chappe, Chef de la division de la reglementation a la Direction de la circulation aerienne militaire (DIRCAM). Contre-amiral Tandonnet, charge de la coherence operationelle a l'Etat major des Armees. Ingenieur general de l'Armement Berthet, sous-chef programme de l'Etat-major de l'Armee de l'Air. Contre-Amiral Laborde, charge de programme de l'Etat-major de la Marine. General Bolleli, directeur des Opreations. General Mathian, Directeur technique a la Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE). MM. Herve Guillou et Denis Verret (EADS). Ingenieur general de l'Armement Alain Picq, membre de la Delegation permanente de la France au Conseil de l'Atlantique Nord. Lieutenent-colonel Gay, de la Direction du Renseignement Militaire. >>>>> a) As you can see there is a lot more brain power and expertise here than in BAe's own fat-cats board and this by a confortable margin. b) You can't DENY that at LEAST TWO French Intelligence high ranking Officers are involved: General Mathian, Directeur technique a la Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE). Lieutenent-colonel Gay, de la Direction du Renseignement Militaire. C) You keep talking SH!T and have NO point to make at all. >>>>>>>> Looks like you will never learn. "You’re answer to this is that Dassault lied, does anyone here actually believe this do you think?" Dassault lied? Says WHO? You are saying this, what i daid is cristal clear and you are TWISTING again. Military intelligence IS involved and this i think not only everyone believes it (appart from you three cartoon characters) but also knows it for a F.A.C.T. "Dassault says a second version of its Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration. The first Petit Duc demonstrator has been flying since mid-2000. The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc." DefenceSubscribeYou are in: Home › Defence › News Article DATE:24/06/03 SOURCE:Flight International France budgets $350m for UCAV demonstrator PETER LA FRANCHI & CHRISTINA MACKENZIE / PARIS So acording to YOU: on 24/06/03 the definition of Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast as well as the dates for the programme launch and first flight, the whole thing given by Dassault WAS accurate then??? And since ity clearly isn't the case this make them LIARS? Not everyone uses lies in a dayly basis for flaming in topics and iventing capabilities your industrials and forces doesn't have. That's your lot's habit. >>>>> Citation: On the other hand, bringing up the issues of Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II without even figuring that the equivalent researches on low Observability (Anechoidal chamber testing) have been conducted with Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast, is plain stupid. "But there’s no evidence of exactly what work was carried out; we don’t know what delays were encountered, we don’t know what problems were encountered, we don’t know what funding was allocated. That’s the reason why I haven’t been saying “the MoD was planning on having a new strike plane in service by 2015 since 1994 so they must have done more work”, I’ve only been talking about the work we know was done." FIRST NOD you are a proven LIAR. For most of last YEAR you and Rob L tried to imply that there was a fully funded UCAV TDP in the UK, which obviously isn't true. Anyone curious enough to have a look at the WAAF on FOAS topics can verify this. There is every evidence that; you got NO point to make, can only use your worse spin and twist technics but it would be NICE if you were to stop been a LIAR in this forum. "It’s all well and good saying “but it’s been done, they can do, ONERA can do this and that” but without evidence of exactly what’s been done it doesn’t mean anything. Qinetiq, DSTL, ERA and a number of others do say they are carrying out the same work but without the details these statements could mean anything." W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R. Trying to apply the same framework to both companies and coutries is laughable. Citation: The fact that Dassault doesn't make noises about their work means only one thing, DGSE and military intelligence were involved in the information field. "Dassault waited a couple of months before detailing the AVE-D, BAE waited two years before detailing Raven, if anyone is making noises it’s Dassault, they just have less to talk about." Dassault are contracted to DGA, DGA in under Military intelligence orders as to WHAT they can or can't disclose to the public. FACT. Citation: As opposed to what Nod is implying with an outdated an innacurate article: Dassault have been given all help they needed by DGA as well as the technology researched for and with them them by ONERA since the pre-Rafale era. Another point they chose to ignore for obvious reasons.... "No Dassault asked for a manned demonstrator in 1997 which they didn’t get. Just as BAE asked for a manned demonstrator in 1994 which they didn’t get. Yet as everyone can clearly see BAE got Replica while Dassault wasn’t giving anything similar, at least not according to public knowledge. I’m not going to rise up to the rest of your personal attacks." Personal attack are proven FACTS and TRUTH. Dassault would have been given the same contract by DGA in 2003 for a manned stealth vehicle if it had been DGA plans, they got the NEURON contract instead. "The French defence procurement agency DGA is committing €300 million ($350 million) to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator. Dassault will be the prime contractor for the project, with the aircraft to be based on its existing company-funded Logiduc UCAV concept. First flight will occur in 2008." DATE:24/06/03 SOURCE:Flight International France budgets $350m for UCAV demonstrator PETER LA FRANCHI & CHRISTINA MACKENZIE / PARIS SIX MONTH BEFORE RAVEN first flight. You LIE, TWIST, SPIN and got zilth in terms of technical/historical facts and arguments to oppose to reality. Your usual WAAF mediocrity revisited. Reality strike: DATE:21/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International UK rethinks Tornado replacement Now the bits that really matters and that you keep bypassing for obvious reasons: -1994 BAe press release: "BAe began trying to persuade the UK MoD of the need for a technology demonstration program (TDP) to -- in the words of one official at the time -- "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions". The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, was to be on airframe design "because of the need to master the stealth issue"." Source: Jane's. >>>>> 2004 BAe press release: "Continental Europe is getting its act together on UAVs and UCAVs,” Turner said. "We are working with the Defence Procurement Agency on programs [of our own]; it’s really important as a nation we get onboard." Source: Jane's. >>>>> 2005 BAe press release: "While the report maintains the Defense Ministry has "no funded UCAV program," the ministry is supporting classified UCAV-related research, in part through low-observable (LO) platform work. It recently recast its future offensive strike needs within the Strategic UAV Experiment program." Source: Jane's. 2006 STILL NO UCAV TDP. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwile at Dassault-Aviation... http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3853/moyenducagain9xo.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3853/moyenducagain9xo.th.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.th.jpg http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1296/slowfastmodel1lb.jpg http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1296/slowfastmodel1lb.th.jpg He! What do we see here? The model of Slow/Fast on the desk.... http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.th.jpg http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8269/tvc3dh.jpg http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8269/tvc3dh.th.jpg Even TVC as it apears, decidly, there ARE a lot of things people doesn't KNOW about them, not only Dassault but the whole of the French aerospacial industry. AND since you insisted: Here is one of the evidences i was mentioning. http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6906/harrierfatigue5gl.jpg http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6906/harrierfatigue5gl.th.jpg Harrier II BAe designed rear fuselage are cracking WAY before they should show any sign of fatigue...

First learn your elementary basics before humiliating yourself AGAIN. Second your denials are not helping YOU. I HAVE every evidences and the only way you can expect ME to skip them is by being plain lazy. You want THEM? You'll have them. ASTUTE: Design and management. Nimrod MR4 Design. Harrier II Rear fuselage (BAe design fatigue) cracks midway thriugh their service life. Tornado F-3 Same for the BAe designed fuselage plug. Nimrod AEW total fuck-up. etc. AMRAAM and ASRAAM integration on Tornado etc... We will skip the EFA wing design issue for preserving your ramain of sanity here. Now take a hike you're only poluting the topic with nonsenses. "I don't want to get into the subject as it's a long one" This particualr SUBJECT is of a primiry importance: It shows EXACTLY what is BAE level of design and technology expertise. As for Nod remark it also shows how he choose to ignore realtiy on a dayly basis. Notre that he is trying to imply that i mislead him: Which is not the case. I was given the information on Moyen Duc by OPIT (Rapport d'Information) only AFTER i had received an incomplete anwer to my question to Dassault on it apearing on the previous movie. "Higher technologies". Now Not only we have this Senat rapport but we have a SECOND movie too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DASSAULT_ACTIVITIES_vod.zip Thats what is going to make of you a semi-educated being (ranked beginer) if you choose to learn. "I’m also sure that Dassault is fully capable of developing Neuron but that wasn’t the discussion that I’ve been reading, the discussion I’ve been reading is about BAE System’s capability in the UCAV arena relative to Dassault’s." So you have to admit that Dassault and BAe are NOT at the same level as Turner says clearly they need more UK programmes to be a viable partner in case of a collaboration with the EU or US. AND THIS IN 2004. Quoting Mike Turner BAe: DATE:20/07/04 More to the p[oint they dont have this TDP yet. SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." A FULL TWO years minimum after Dassault were fully ready. BAe is way behind not only historically, design-wise but technologically as welland this is one reason why they don't get what they want from MoD. They are incapable of doing anything at cost and in schedule and a full scale TDP is rather a costly and high risk issue. They need to do some more home work and even Turner says so.. The fact that you can't make the diffeence between a mock-up and a flying fully stealth UAV is your problem not ours and reality is as i stated not your punny interpretation of it. "As for comparing the AVE-D/C to the Raven you can claim it to be more advanced in a certain area however in others Raven is the more advanced. For example Raven is autonomous, the AVE aircraft are not." It doesn't make any difference to the real issue which is: Stealth features present on the vehicles. "But why does this matter? The answer is that it doesn’t, the point in these vehicles is to develop technologies and demonstrate them, not to build a prototype." Nod you don't KNOW what you are talking about. Prototyping is the process building a physical vehicle (physical meaning real sized aircraft) to demonstrate its capabilities of doing what it was designed for: Flying or more, conducting a mission. When technology allows, scale models are used to reduce cost. In the case of AVE-D and FILUR this was possible. Protoypes are all first aircraft to roll out designed with the full industry design points. i.e. Stealth, Aerodynamics, Structural, Industrial (tooling). http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5592/sonicwave9yu.jpg Here is a simulation of Rafale aerodynamic characteristics in transonic flight, see the sound wave??? Dassault is in no need to do prototyping anymore, in 2000 they were already doing "rapid prototyping" with AVEs BAe are well behind them. So design-wise experience-wise as well as technologically the advanyage is to Dassault with no need for photo-finish. "If you want to produce IR signature reduction materials, techniques etc there is no reason to fly them on a UAV, a Hawk will do". There are every reasons for it: Validation. http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1596/irsupress5js.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/254/irsupress021by.th.jpg M-88 IR supression measure: The Nozzle is NOT visible from this angle. The "ring" surounding it is made of IR-supressant Materials. First M-88 flight on Rafale A 20th Feb 1990. http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2088/anechoidal6ro.jpg As fopr Rafale its sealth characteristics are well known of ONERA/SNECMA and Dassault... http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9533/furtifrafalesmall9eh.jpg http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5653/raven1nozzle8zc.jpg Same here, the principle ALSO involes the use of the aerodynamic characteristics of the exhaust area for the AVE: The pressure zone at their level is mixing cool air from the boundary layer to the hot Air from the engine. This IS a well known IR supressing design measure at least for those who choosed to learn their SH!T before opening up wide and making fools of themself.. DASSAULT_ACTIVITIES_vod.zip Thats what is goimng to make of you a semi-educated being (ramked beginer) if you choose to learn. AVEs nozzles are not only recessed and shielded, they are integrated into an enssemble composed of materials and aerodynamic features: That of Raven is obviously proheminent, but also NOT protected by ANY form of fairing. POINT: You still can't validate the UAV with your IR supression features by not flying them on it and more to the point if you do, it saves you the trouble of having to test them on another aircraft... Endly once you do that you can see the end result in the real article at once and can validate your design solutions as: Stealth, Material and Structural. All you are trying to do is spining here. The goal of prototyping or demonstratimng features is to make sure they work on the final artcle. There again the advantyage is to Dassault. Tools: the digital age "Dassault Aviation uses digital modeling for calculating airframes, aerodynamics and the effects of electromagnetic radiation, for computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM), and for research into the operational use of weapon systems. The IT department also creates simulation tools and technical documentation systems used in providing support services to civil and military aircraft. However, the Company continues to use conventional physical resources for design and validation such as test banks for flight control or automatic pilot systems. The entire industrial chain (Product Life Management [PLM]), from design to production and finally support, is based on software developed by Dassault Systèmes (CATIA V4 and V5, ENOVIA VPM and DELMIA), thus ensuring consistent, continuous, secure and effective production." > http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/8305/virtualtool18fu.jpg Clearly they are doing their home work, developiong new design and production tools that put them a full decenie ahead of BAe... virtual-tool-2.jpg "Also when you’re testing materials, ground based demonstrators will do;" True, but i'm NOT the one constantly inflating my list number with the equivalent of Replica and Nightjaars mocjk-ups which are researche non flyable models. This works ALSO in case of Dasault, which is what you tried to dismiss as their work is directly linked to that of ONERA. http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9436/spacial9hb.jpg Which by the way goes far beyhond steath UCAVs, UAVs and and conventional aircrafts, civilians like military in both case... This sort of researches have been long done both by Dassault (Rafale) SNECMA (M-88) and more to the point ONERA who are in charge of them at experimental level. Down to the effect of PLASMA on materials... http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/5449/oneraplasma3bq.jpg "in fact in some ways they’re better because they can be built to full scale which gives more representative results of an actual aircraft (smaller vehicles usually can’t have the same thickness of RAM etc)" LOL like you know your subject that well as to try to spin it that way too. CG simulation in itself is enough to demonstate radar return. Material tickness, pgysical and stealt hcharacteristics are also CG-simulateable. What matters is the whole solution and there is no need for full-cale mock-ups anymore expecially at Dassault as they can do without any prototype at all: http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1274/amil3stat0ii.jpg http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9555/onerastealthgerardbobillot8zn.jpg http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9555/onerastealthgerardbobillot8zn.th.jpg http://www.onera.fr/cahierdelabo/english/amil3.htm Size doesn't matter that much, materials and shapes are first tested independently in CG then together and so there is a direct data pool for their characteristics and performances available. This is why scale models can be used for particular taskes and why SAAB/Dassault but also BAE used them. PLUS: By adding Replica to the list, you try to compare technologyes of totally different decenies and state of advance in BOTH stealth and material. PROOF? The obvious difference in shape and Materials used in Replica and Corax/Raven, the sort of details which doesn't escapes me but is way above your head. "The fact is that both companies have developed EM, IR signature reduction technologies along with advance, novel aerodynamic configurations." TWIST and SPIN and TWIST and SPIN and etc... FACTS: Dassault hads designed, built and flown more FULL stealth UAVs than BAe has NOW before Raven first flight as well as getting the DGA contract for the NEURON programme. "However it is also true that BAE Systems has done more of this work along with additional development activity giving BAE more experience over a wider range of areas. You can say AVE-D did this and this in one vehicle but it doesn’t change that basic fact." How really? Sorry to couterdict YOU again. At least I READ BAe staments and work results you apparently do not. More to the point Dassault have been focusing in different areas where SAAB wasn't in front of everyone else, and this is flying UCAVs from a Rafale rear or even (single) front cockpit. DGA demonstrated a fully equiped cockpit last year at Eurosatory and Dassault disclosed details of the sofware used for the simulation. Note that i HAVE duely informed everyone in the WAAF forum but that you toons choosed to ignore the facts as usual... Why should Dassault have worked at autonomous flight controling UCAVs when they had agreed with DGA since 2003 to use SAAB best field of expertise??? This WAS Dassault first task as AGREED with DGA for the NEURON programme, find the most effiscient way to collaborating with partners as well as seting up the right tools and methods to do so. In your hurry to try to prove ME wrong in my stament of SAAB being the world FIRST to conduct a mission fully autonomouysly, you forgot one point: (WAAF). The US never did include automated take-off and landing in their demonstrations. SAAB did, so they have the world first truely autonomous UAV demonstrator in their portfolio. "On Moyen Duc, you still have no evidence that it flew, you have a single source that says it “appeared” in 2001 but there are also sources that say that the project started in 2001 and that the first flight was expected in 2003 and then 2004" LIAR = LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR =LIAR. 1) There is no sources saying it started in 2001 with first flight scheduled in 2003. All the Anglo-American sources are giving it "apearing" in 2003 with first flight shceduled for the same year, most of them mystakes it with Slow/Fast too. The expected design/developement of these are about 7 month to start with, no other sources gives it date of 2001, only the "Single" source is a multiple one: 2) The "single" source is the OFFICIAL one, that where the rest of the world is geting informations from. 3) IT IS the most informed and ALSO most RECENT: 22 Feb 2006. 4) This information was NEVER disclosed to the press before as proven by the large amount of confusion which reigns in the press worldwile. >>>>> About the people involved in the making of this document: Ingenieur general de l'armement Thierry Duquesne. MM. Phillipe Coq. Directeur des programme Male. MM Patraick Oswald, Directeur des programmes de drone tactiques et avions de missions (EADS). M. Pierre Mathieu, Directeur du developement aeronautique de la societe Thales. M. Eric Trappier, Directeur general adjoint de la societe Dassault Aviation. M. Jean Francois Coutris, Directeur de la Division Optronique et Systemes aeroterrestres de la societe SAGEM Lieutenant-colonel Fabienne Chappe, Chef de la division de la reglementation a la Direction de la circulation aerienne militaire (DIRCAM). Contre-amiral Tandonnet, charge de la coherence operationelle a l'Etat major des Armees. Ingenieur general de l'Armement Berthet, sous-chef programme de l'Etat-major de l'Armee de l'Air. Contre-Amiral Laborde, charge de programme de l'Etat-major de la Marine. General Bolleli, directeur des Opreations. General Mathian, Directeur technique a la Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE). MM. Herve Guillou et Denis Verret (EADS). Ingenieur general de l'Armement Alain Picq, membre de la Delegation permanente de la France au Conseil de l'Atlantique Nord. Lieutenent-colonel Gay, de la Direction du Renseignement Militaire. >>>>> a) As you can see there is a lot more brain power and expertise here than in BAe's own fat-cats board and this by a confortable margin. b) You can't DENY that at LEAST TWO French Intelligence high ranking Officers are involved: General Mathian, Directeur technique a la Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE). Lieutenent-colonel Gay, de la Direction du Renseignement Militaire. C) You keep talking SH!T and have NO point to make at all. >>>>>>>> Looks like you will never learn. "You’re answer to this is that Dassault lied, does anyone here actually believe this do you think?" Dassault lied? Says WHO? You are saying this, what i daid is cristal clear and you are TWISTING again. Military intelligence IS involved and this i think not only everyone believes it (appart from you three cartoon characters) but also knows it for a F.A.C.T. "Dassault says a second version of its Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration. The first Petit Duc demonstrator has been flying since mid-2000. The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc." DefenceSubscribeYou are in: Home › Defence › News Article DATE:24/06/03 SOURCE:Flight International France budgets $350m for UCAV demonstrator PETER LA FRANCHI & CHRISTINA MACKENZIE / PARIS So acording to YOU: on 24/06/03 the definition of Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast as well as the dates for the programme launch and first flight, the whole thing given by Dassault WAS accurate then??? And since ity clearly isn't the case this make them LIARS? Not everyone uses lies in a dayly basis for flaming in topics and iventing capabilities your industrials and forces doesn't have. That's your lot's habit. >>>>> Citation: On the other hand, bringing up the issues of Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II without even figuring that the equivalent researches on low Observability (Anechoidal chamber testing) have been conducted with Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast, is plain stupid. "But there’s no evidence of exactly what work was carried out; we don’t know what delays were encountered, we don’t know what problems were encountered, we don’t know what funding was allocated. That’s the reason why I haven’t been saying “the MoD was planning on having a new strike plane in service by 2015 since 1994 so they must have done more work”, I’ve only been talking about the work we know was done." FIRST NOD you are a proven LIAR. For most of last YEAR you and Rob L tried to imply that there was a fully funded UCAV TDP in the UK, which obviously isn't true. Anyone curious enough to have a look at the WAAF on FOAS topics can verify this. There is every evidence that; you got NO point to make, can only use your worse spin and twist technics but it would be NICE if you were to stop been a LIAR in this forum. "It’s all well and good saying “but it’s been done, they can do, ONERA can do this and that” but without evidence of exactly what’s been done it doesn’t mean anything. Qinetiq, DSTL, ERA and a number of others do say they are carrying out the same work but without the details these statements could mean anything." W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R. Trying to apply the same framework to both companies and coutries is laughable. Citation: The fact that Dassault doesn't make noises about their work means only one thing, DGSE and military intelligence were involved in the information field. "Dassault waited a couple of months before detailing the AVE-D, BAE waited two years before detailing Raven, if anyone is making noises it’s Dassault, they just have less to talk about." Dassault are contracted to DGA, DGA in under Military intelligence orders as to WHAT they can or can't disclose to the public. FACT. Citation: As opposed to what Nod is implying with an outdated an innacurate article: Dassault have been given all help they needed by DGA as well as the technology researched for and with them them by ONERA since the pre-Rafale era. Another point they chose to ignore for obvious reasons.... "No Dassault asked for a manned demonstrator in 1997 which they didn’t get. Just as BAE asked for a manned demonstrator in 1994 which they didn’t get. Yet as everyone can clearly see BAE got Replica while Dassault wasn’t giving anything similar, at least not according to public knowledge. I’m not going to rise up to the rest of your personal attacks." Personal attack are proven FACTS and TRUTH. Dassault would have been given the same contract by DGA in 2003 for a manned stealth vehicle if it had been DGA plans, they got the NEURON contract instead. "The French defence procurement agency DGA is committing €300 million ($350 million) to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator. Dassault will be the prime contractor for the project, with the aircraft to be based on its existing company-funded Logiduc UCAV concept. First flight will occur in 2008." DATE:24/06/03 SOURCE:Flight International France budgets $350m for UCAV demonstrator PETER LA FRANCHI & CHRISTINA MACKENZIE / PARIS SIX MONTH BEFORE RAVEN first flight. You LIE, TWIST, SPIN and got zilth in terms of technical/historical facts and arguments to oppose to reality. Your usual WAAF mediocrity revisited. Reality strike: DATE:21/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International UK rethinks Tornado replacement Now the bits that really matters and that you keep bypassing for obvious reasons: -1994 BAe press release: "BAe began trying to persuade the UK MoD of the need for a technology demonstration program (TDP) to -- in the words of one official at the time -- "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions". The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, was to be on airframe design "because of the need to master the stealth issue"." Source: Jane's. >>>>> 2004 BAe press release: "Continental Europe is getting its act together on UAVs and UCAVs,” Turner said. "We are working with the Defence Procurement Agency on programs [of our own]; it’s really important as a nation we get onboard." Source: Jane's. >>>>> 2005 BAe press release: "While the report maintains the Defense Ministry has "no funded UCAV program," the ministry is supporting classified UCAV-related research, in part through low-observable (LO) platform work. It recently recast its future offensive strike needs within the Strategic UAV Experiment program." Source: Jane's. 2006 STILL NO UCAV TDP. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwile at Dassault-Aviation... http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3853/moyenducagain9xo.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3853/moyenducagain9xo.th.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.th.jpg http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1296/slowfastmodel1lb.jpg http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1296/slowfastmodel1lb.th.jpg He! What do we see here? The model of Slow/Fast on the desk.... http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.jpg http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1882/neuronfront8op.th.jpg http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8269/tvc3dh.jpg http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8269/tvc3dh.th.jpg Even TVC as it apears, decidly, there ARE a lot of things people doesn't KNOW about them, not only Dassault but the whole of the French aerospacial industry.

LOL

"And one crash ahead of Bae" you mean your brain have crashed again? Care to do some more than your usual mediocre chien ecrase rubrique. Must be constipation.... Get yourself a good diet. http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2825/ave011zq.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8176/ave025xl.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2566/ave032ng.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1975/ave049md.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4089/ave055ak.jpg http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/503/ave061zq.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8211/ave074uh.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1319/ave88zv.jpg http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2803/neuroninternals6sn.jpg http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9681/neuroninternals028sz.jpg Try these fo size.

Du nouveau chez Dassault aussi, un peut plus rassurant. http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2825/ave011zq.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8176/ave025xl.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2566/ave032ng.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1975/ave049md.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4089/ave055ak.jpg http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/503/ave061zq.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8211/ave074uh.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1319/ave88zv.jpg http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2803/neuroninternals6sn.jpg http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9681/neuroninternals028sz.jpg

Nothing to do with this. I was trying to be informative without making ANY particular point. The shift to unmanned is common to both France and the UK. BUT the possibility of manned aircraft remains in France plans and firmly in that of Dassault. http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2825/ave011zq.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8176/ave025xl.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2566/ave032ng.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1975/ave049md.jpg There is more to it. Yet ANOTHER UCAV configuration at least simulated by Dassault virtually. http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8211/ave074uh.jpg http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1319/ave88zv.jpg Combining V-shaped tail and crancked delta CANARD configuration... As for you two funnies at thw rate infos are coming from Dassault in the form of small clues, you're in for some pretty hard time... Pitty you never bother learnig by simple (total) lack of interest. Another clue: The second AVE flying in the last (Yes another one) Dassault movie seems to have a totally differentr flight patern more alike that of an heavier aircraft...... Anything between 350 and 500 kg... http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/503/ave061zq.jpg Yet another one, as i told YOU Nod, the "Crocodile" configuration of the ailerons of the second AVE is somewhat complicated for a small (50kg) UAV. Too complicated too. It is only advantageous on a large (enough) aircraft. http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4089/ave055ak.jpg Since you too are (I'm sorry to say) far from being where i am in knowledge of such things, even at BIA entrence level, you simply cannot comprehend the logic behind it. Analysis restes mainly on knowledge and the best analysts doesn't get doctorates for nothing.... I'm far from them, but i'm far ahead of you and more to tha ponit i'm interested and learn from them. You two uses this subject as flame bet no passion, no interest, no understanding. http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2803/neuroninternals6sn.jpg So here is the level of advance in NEURON design for you. Keep claiming they are late..... http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9681/neuroninternals028sz.jpg Have a nice one.

We're talking about UCAVs, the manned demonstrator is NOT needed before 2020. so you keep twisting the subject HERE. Point is: Years more experience in stealth UAV a full TDP two years before Raven first flight and the only one which is fully stealth complient. You have NO point to make.

Here try again and learn some. Without your twist-and-spin technique which fools ony yourself. I.E. gliter/Rob/Nod. If you does your own researche work you will realise that there is no arguing with my previous post for a start. For the pothers, after reading this researche work you should know a little better at least where to look for proper informations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Dassault obtained the NEURON leader role and BAe doesn't have their TDP yet? "The French defence procurement agency DGA is committing €300 million ($350 million) to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator," DATE:24/06/03 = 6 month BEFORE Raven first flight, two years after AVE-D's. Reasons? Dassault mastered the stealth issues as well as the whole design and technology attached to it BAe doesn't yet: (Le Bourget, June 16, 2003) "Thanks to its unique experience in the development and production of combat aircraft, Dassault Aviation masters all advanced technologies related to this field and considers UCAVs as complementary systems to aircraft of the Rafale class and generation." Compare to BAe own staments since 2003: Mike Turner BAe: DATE:20/07/04 SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." > Technicaly speaking (1): There is NO equivalent of Moyen/Grand Duc nor NEURON from BAE as for now, regrouping Materials/EM/IR stealth technology in ONE vehicle. About Dassault?: They were scrutinised and considered totally capable to develop NEURON by a board of high ranking specialists. Who says so? DGA doesn't award multi-million contracts just like this to start with but how about: French Senat Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/4392/logiduc9in.jpg >>>>> Ingenieur general de l'armement Thierry Duquesne. MM. Phillipe Coq. Directeur des programme Male. MM Patrick Oswald, Directeur des programmes de drone tactiques et avions de missions (EADS). M. Pierre Mathieu, Directeur du developement aeronautique de la societe Thales. M. Eric Trappier, Directeur general adjoint de la societe Dassault Aviation. M. Jean Francois Coutris, Directeur de la Division Optronique et Systemes aeroterrestres de la societe SAGEM Lieutenant-colonel Fabienne Chappe, Chef de la division de la reglementation a la Direction de la circulation aerienne militaire (DIRCAM). Contre-amiral Tandonnet, charge de la coherence operationelle a l'Etat major des Armees. Ingenieur general de l'Armement Berthet, sous-chef programme de l'Etat-major de l'Armee de l'Air. Contre-Amiral Laborde, charge de programme de l'Etat-major de la Marine. General Bolleli, directeur des Opreations. General Mathian, Directeur technique a la Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE). MM. Herve Guillou et Denis Verret (EADS). Ingenieur general de l'Armement Alain Picq, membre de la Delegation permanente de la France au Conseil de l'Atlantique Nord. Lieutenent-colonel Gay, de la Direction du Renseignement Militaire. >>>>> Note the presence of two French renseignements top brasses, (DGSE) and Renseignement Militaire. I think this can partly explain the amount off confusion which reigns in the Anglo-American press, and even the French press about the AVE programme. >>>>> So NOT only this highly qualified bunch coroborate my opinion, but also counterdicts that of the firmly pedestrian trooper (Nod) who have the guts to deny theirs on the ground that he cannot comprehend what they say: >>>>>On AVE-D and other AVEs stealth. http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2057/moyenduc5lj.jpg "Entirely made of stealth materials" "at the end of a work highlighted by the will to reduce radar and infrared signature". Technically speaking (2): AVEs exhaust PIPES (or nozzles) are recessed and shrouded in IR supressant materials, that's why you can't SEE them. AVEs have all the design characteristics of stealth (Material/IR/EM) aircrafts, up to serrated visit doors. http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9412/logiduc9rn.png http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/stea-nf.html Citation: To avoid detection by thermal imaging devices or targeting by heat-seeking missiles, stealthy aircraft must minimize heat emissions. A major source of such infrared emissions is the engine exhaust." So no question this is an important issue. Note: The proheminent exhaust pipe (nozzle) on Corax/Raven is the reason WHY BAe doesn't claim they are researching IR reduction with these two UAVs and also why their descriptif of them is not stealth but L.O or stealthy. >>>>>About Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast: http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4981/moyenduc5xg.jpg http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/7422/sagemdassault6zu.jpg This makes AVEs more advanced and stealthier than Raven and even more so than Corax, neither of which posseses IR reduction features. Corax having straight wings resulting on an increse in radar return. Raven flew more than a full 3 years after AVE-D, (Juil 2000/Dec 2003) and 3 month AFTER DGA committed to awarding Dassault with a €300 million ($350 million) contract to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator. Moyen Duc probabilly flew as early as end 2001 and Dassault had two extra years of developement in stealth UAVs before Raven flew. "Then appears, in July 2001, the "Moyen Duc", weighting 500 kg".(Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006). It was to be followed by Grand Duc as said by Dassault (The logiduc process) and the Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. "The next envisioned step was initially known as the Grand Duc. It called for the acquisition of more complex techniques such as full mission system representativity, composite pack airborne control and collaborative flight, as well as live air to ground weapon release." (Dassault the logiduc process). "The Grand Duc aimed to validate the operational demonstration of a combat mission, while developing furtivity and flight control".(Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006) Grand Duc was abandoned as DGA awarded Dassault with a €300 million ($350 million) contract to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator, on 24/06/03, NEURON which first design and configuration were that of Grand Duc. All of this occured BEFORE Raven first flight in Dec 2003, as the attention of DGA and Dassault shifted toward an even more ambitious programme made possible by European cooperation. So between Jul 2000 and June 2003, Dassault were ALSO buzy test-flying Moyen Duc and conceipt-desiging Grand Duc. http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3677/grandduc9ph.jpg Progresses were clearly made without having to fly the Grand Duc as Furtivity is not one of the main objectives of NEURON. In their Sept 2004 PDF, Dassault the UCAV purpose as:maintain skills (no new combat aircraft before 2030-40). European partnership based on: ^ skills ^competitivity. ^budget commitmments. Partners: SAAB (Sweeden), HAI (Greece), EADS,... Fisrt flight scheduled in 2009. http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3838/neurondassault5bp.jpg Published Sept 2004. >>>>>On General stealth researches: On the other hand, bringing up the issues of Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II without even figuring that the equivalent researches on low Observability (Anechoidal chamber testing) have been conducted with Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast, is plain stupid. A look at ONERA own site says it all, stealth technology is actively researched at every levels, aerodynamics, materials, shapes, M/IR, electromagnetic (EMI) emitions etc. Dassault have several REAL stealth UAVs to test in their chamber since 2000 and doesn't NEED any mock-ups for this purpose which in any casse can be replicated by ONERA own laboratories where much of the wrok is also done digitaly. Testing mockup and material is anyway one of ONERA primary roles. Dassault develops Low Observability on REAL aircrafts since the Mirage 2000, this involving materials, shapes but also AVIONICS and flight control systems. As an example, Rafale A was the FIRST European aircraft EVER to fly with Optical Flight control on 4th July 1986.... As for the actual operationl Rafales: F-15C/Su-27___+06.0db =6.0m² Typhoon_______+00.5db =1.5m² Rafale________+00.0db =1.0m² B-1B/F-18E____+00.0db =1.0m² LFI___________-20.0db =0.01m² F-35A/B/C_____-30.0db =0.001m² F-117A________-35.0db =0.0005m² F-22A/B-2A____-40.0db =0.0001m² Rafale have an estimated RCS 50% lower than that of Typhoon. >>>>>Advances: ALL Dassault AVEs are more advanced than any of the UK UAVs as they were designed using Dassault unique design tools, covering the full design points spectrum but also full stealth features: So: Stealth/Aerodynamic/Structural and industrial. This is helps making more progresses with less funding, a more pragmatic aproach, using higher level of experience and design skills. (Another obvious point conveniently denied by our British friends). The fact that Dassault doesn't make noises about their work means only one thing, DGSE and military intelligence were involved in the information field. I started to suspect that this would be the case when my own contacts with Dassault were severed at once end of 2003. >>>>>On the role of propaganda: Does France keep her programme secrets and uses propaganda??? First: They have done this previously with Rafale, never actually giving real datas on the aircraft performances and weight. France leads the field in the EUs with the possible (Still to be confirmed) exeption of Germany with her Barracuda programme(which was also kept secret). Much depends on the combat capabilities of the German drone, as there is no question that the amount of stealth features of the AVEs and NEURON designs is far higher. Barracuda is designed around the lines of an UAV as was seen in the late 80s, looking more like Slow/Fast (A tactical recce drone) than the more recent AVE developements. We will know later on if Barrakuda is a true UCAV demonstrator or a simple UAV part of a UCAV programme, depending on its future demonstrated combat capabilities. What this shows is that secrecy and propaganda plays a role here and there is no reasons why France secrets services, and military intelligence wouldn't have put a stop as to what information was made public on UCAV researches. This interesting image shows images published for a press conference in 2004, if a picture of Petit Duc is shown, the Slow/Fast configuration is according to another Dassault statment, different of that of Moyen Duc. This image says otherwise. http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9242/ducs3lf.jpg As for Grand Duc its shape also counterdicts Dassault own staments, giving the Moyen and Grand Ducs the same configuration, it i single engined but also posseses a belly-mounted air-intake which by today standards is totally laughable. Other contemporary pictures of mock-ups show a diferent configuration, consistant with Dassault stament, saying that the second Petit Duc, moyen Duc and Grand Duc were to be given the same. i.e tailless. "Dassault says a second version of its Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration. The first Petit Duc demonstrator has been flying since mid-2000. The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc." DATE:24/06/0 http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3677/grandduc9ph.jpg So no doubt about the great level of confusion which have been reigning in the press since 2001, as apparently Moyen Duc "apeared" following AVE-D and AVE-C in 2001, according to the French Senat Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. Some time ago i have sugested that the latest Dassault video was showing Moyen Duc, not a Petit Duc. One of my reasons for doing so was the fact that AVE-D was too small to be equiped with experimental equipements, the drone shortly shown in the movie possesing an aerodynamic probe, suggest a somewhat larger aircraft. More to the point, it is never shown on the ground, which would have given a better idea of its actual size. Another clue: We know AVE-D was designed by Dassault, not built by them. There is no such evidence for AVE-C nor Moyen Duc (obviously). So chances are: AVE-C IS Moyen Duc, a 500 kg aircraft, large enough to posses its own FCS and experimental equipement as the probe suggest, apeared as early as 2001 and was flight tested "discretly" ever since..... >>>>>So, how about the UK and BAe then??? Something is for sure: There is NO UCAV TDP in the UK and none of the actual flying researche demonstrators are UCAVs. BAe "Skunkwork" was kept secret for a long time and i believe Dassault played the press the same way while disclosing some of their work. MoD and BAe chaiman agrees on something though: There is a need for a UCAV TDP for the UK to develop stealth technology further: SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." clearly asking for more even before they can consider being viable partners in a programme like NEURON. The researches conducted since about 1994 were just that, researches. Not the fully funded Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) that Rob L and RM Nod tried to sell us for the whole of 2005. Nice as a flame bet but far from the truth, and this, after it became obvious that France was launching NEURON and Dassault main contractor and design lead for the programme. They don't have it, they have to invent it as most of the rest.... >>>>>About French investments in stealth technology: As opposed to what Nod is implying with an outdated an innacurate article: Dassault have been given all help they needed by DGA as well as the technology researched for and with them them by ONERA since the pre-Rafale era. Another point they chose to ignore for obvious reasons.... http://www.onera.fr/actualites/onera-rapport-annuel-2004-2005-fr.pdf ONERA budget for 2004>>> 188 million Eus on European programmes only. >>>>>On the design issue: Denying any experience acquiered from the Falcon serie is a total nonsense and only goes to show some pretty obvious ignorance of aerospacial matters and refusal to aknowledge industrial realities: For god sake, these guys don't even KNOW what te word design implies, try to take credit for BAE on _JAS-39 Gripen wing (when in fact the prototype flew long before BAe was involved in Gripen International) And "part of" F-35. Designs point are alien to them, just flame point. Conceiptual being no diferent from aerodynamic, no different from structural, no different from industrial for production tooling etc. Reality is: BAe are WAY behind in terms of design skills and technology as shows their many design and managemental fuck-ups. Managing is the first part of the design process, one have to know how and what to delegate to engineers withing a design team or simply not being able to take the process through. (Nimrod MR4/ASTUTE). This is where Dassault have a world-leadership no one in the industry would dare denying them, smaller, slimer but load more effiscient. Dassault-31. BAe ------6. No need for photo-finish. Most of the recent Falcon designed by Dassault are FAR more complex and uses more advanced technologies and design techniques than Corax and Raven. The only difference is the use of stealth specific material and shapes (NO evidences the same materials are not in used in Falcon designs either but he, we can't know it) as well as aerodynamic laws. All design issues are traited the same way with CATIA and the virtual tools. Most Falcons have higher performances than Corax and Raven too if not all of them. "The Falcon 7X is the world's first fly-by-wire business jet and the first aircraft ever to be designed entirely in a virtual environment" "From the performance point of view, the most significant advantage of FBW was that it enabled Dassault to take full advantage of the three-dimensional Catia design technology applied to the wing, which is totally new and is thinner and longer than any of its forebears. This introduced significant issues with wing flexing and its coupling with the structure during flight – aeroelasticity – so the full performance could be realised only with FBW. The result in the 7X is that Dassault has been able to combine high- and low-speed performance as never before.".... "Fly-by-wire also confers homogenous aircraft handling throughout the flight envelope, regardless of speed, altitude, weight or centre of gravity, and brings pilots the added benefit of sidestick control, which means they enjoy a clear field of view to the instrument panel and – again in common with Airbuses – free space in front of them for a pull-out table. Dassault's FBW experience dates back to the original Mirage 2000, although in 1963 the company installed a prototype system on a vertical take-off version of the Mirage III, the Balzac, which transitioned to horizontal flight using FBW control of its engine nozzle. The Mirage 2000 is fully FBW-controlled, but uses four analogue computers, while the new Rafale has three digital computers and an analogue back-up." "Things have moved on. The Falcon 7X features three dual-channel main flight computers (MFC) and three single-channel secondary flight computers (SFC), all of which are fully digital." http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/13/199184/Falcon+7X's+Belle+epoch.html So here again, a clear advance in technology and design, applyable to all aircraft including UAV/UCAVs i.e AVEs and NEURON. >>>>>A bit further down the line. France Aerospacial Industry is firmly involved into developing her own and European UAVs, UCAV and stealth technology through established and DGA led and funded programmes. The UK have only being developing stealth technology through researches programmes, up to Dassault AVEs point of 2000 Material/EM/IR aerodynamics and flight control. The much awaited UCAV TDP should have been launched as early as Jan 2006. Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) was awarded to Dassault by DGA on 24/06/03 but goes a step further in that its MAIN design goal is Networked combat capabilities NOT UCAV stealth technology. DGA is also involved in developement of new technologies both nationally and through collaborative programmes. Dassault didn't STOP their own researches on stealth and UCAVs since they got the contract, claiming that would be ignoring their own programmes (Slow/Fast and Moyen Duc) as well as saying that they didn't test the AVEs in their Anechoidal chamber since 2001 and 2003 respectively...... Developement of Slow/Fast is continuing even so the French Army have cancelled the programme in 2004 after failing to define the full requirement for its sensor suite, it didn't involved the aircraft itself. There is no need nor for France nor Dassault for using for using "nugget technologies" as a way of "leverage" in any collaborative environment as is the case for BAe. (OUT OF THE SHADOWS) Quiet the opposite, the other EU company to fly a stealth UAV, SAAB, insisted they wanted IN the NEURON programme with a minimum of 25% workshare; not for the stake of it. They went on to fight their own politicians and were rewarded with the acceptance of the Sweedish gouvernement in funding Sweeden share of the programme. This is an issue constantly brought forward by the British press, but also constantly denied by RN Nod and Rob L in their long term atempt to diludes us into thinking that the UK is not only "more advanced" but also had for most of last year, the equivalent of the NEURON programme going on. (WAAF FOAS topics). To do so they also denied the fact that the UKs were involved with the US J-UCAS programme, claiming that the UK programme was a fully indigenous one... "The import of the British Defense Ministry's clearance for BAE to begin to discuss the Raven also plays into the far wider issue of U.K. collaboration in developing an operational UCAV. Britain had signed up for Washington's now defunct Joint-Unmanned Combat Air System, with a transatlantic acquisition program likely to follow. Continuing--and, some British sources suggest, worsening--problems with British access on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program also play into this arena." (OUT OF THE SHADOWS) Quote RM Nod on the WAAF: "How? The only way I could have been wrong is if the UK is actively developing one of the X-UCAVs which it isn’t." He is wrong all the way, the UK have signed-up to J-UCAS and US-based UK companies WERE involved in this NOW cancelled programme with the loss of money involved in top of the F-35 cost-over-run ones. FACTS: BAe Chairman Mike Turner have been crying out for this TDP for more than ten years for a very good reason, they NEED to keep up both technologically but also and even more so design-wise. As Dassault is not only EU number ONE but also, in design and production procedures World leader as proven by Falcon 7X. FACTS: While BAe had partly state-funded researches programmes going on with Mock-ups, and diverse researches vehicles (Corax/Raven/Chameleon), NONE have ever achieved the same goal than AVE-D on its own nor did they allow the company to reach the point where Dassault were in 2003. Most of this type of researches with material and stealth are conducted by ONERA and then Dassault when it comes to the applyable part of it. FACTS: AVEs might at least be three in number, as well as their Slow/Fast derivative. That's THREE Stealth, THREE aerodynamic configurations, THREE different scales/weights into four different vehicles and we talk about existing UAVs not NEURON. From 50 to 500 kg. ALL of which posseses the full stealth features, materiaLs, EM and IR. Corax and Raven shares the same body but ALSO the same flight control systems. AVEs doesn't share more than the same body shape and engines for the Petit Ducs. So saying that BAe acquiered MORE experience from their work in both stealth, technology and design is also false. The opposite is very obvious. Quoting Mike Turner BAe: DATE:20/07/04 SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." >>>>>About what is coming next: Since 2003, Dassault have been working at puting together an industrial solution for the programme NEURON. This aspect is the most important of all when it comes to design solutions as used in the Falcon 7X programme. This was aimed to allow for the collaboration in the programme by european countries in the same fashion as have been done Nationaly on the Falcon 7X. "All that has changed with the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) system used for the Falcon 7X. The entire aircraft is now described as a three-dimensional virtual entity, using Dassault's new Virtual Reality Centre at its St Cloud, Paris headquarters. Engineers visiting the centre use stereoscopic spectacles to view all aspects of the 7X design in as much detail as necessary and can seemingly enter the structure to view pipes, electrical wiring or complete systems to check how they interact with the aircraft. The power of the PLM system is that it enables everyone involved in designing and building the 7X to share exactly the same information. The entire design and manufacture process is now linked so that for the first time the digital model of the aircraft contains enough information to manufacture it. As a result, Dassault has been able to vastly refine its relationship with its suppliers by linking them all with the Falcon 7X database. For the preliminary design phase all of the suppliers, initially numbering 400 people from 27 companies and seven countries, gathered at St Cloud. Once preliminary design was completed, they returned to their companies to work together on Dassault's unique, shared database, connected through a France Telecom-supplied permanent high-speed datalink." http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198909/Virtual+system+produces+digital+dream+.html So; cut the bull you funnies (Rob/Nod/Gliter), Dassault is at least two full decenies in advance both technologically and design-wise over BAe and this is partly WHY France Aerospace Industry is Number TWO worldwhile.... It's too easy to take the mickey expecting people to be as uneducated as yourself. Another example: "Dassault is leading a team of 37 partners in the European Commission-funded High Speed Aircraft (HISAC) study programme." http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198917/On+their++Machs.html >>>>> http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2004/07/20/184476/BAE+pushes+UK+on+UCAV+initiative.html DefenceSubscribeYou are in: Home › Defence › News Article DATE:20/07/04 SOURCE:Flight International BAE pushes UK on UCAV initiative Manufacturer stresses importance of launching national programme before making decision on collaboration BAE Systems is pushing the UK government to launch a national unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) programme ahead of any decision on whether to sign up to projects already under way in Europe and the USA. The USA and the French-led Neuron group are forging ahead with UCAV work, but the UK Ministry of Defence is yet to reach a decision on initial gate approval for the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS) programme, which will almost certainly include a UCAV component (Flight International, 6-12 April). "We have to see [the UCAV discussions] come to fruition in the next few months," says BAE chief executive Mike Turner. Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." The MoD's Defence Procurement Agency says an initial gate decision on FOAS is still expected this year. It adds: "We are still at quite an early stage. We are looking at all the options and no decisions have been taken." Initial gate approval has been repeatedly delayed, with the most recent target date having passed last May. Intended to replace the Royal Air Force's Panavia Tornado GR4 strike aircraft from around 2018, FOAS will provide the capability to conduct long-range attacks against time-critical targets and is likely to comprise manned and unmanned combat aircraft, cruise missiles and air-launched unmanned air vehicles. The MoD has requested information on the USA's Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) programme from the US Department of Defense, and the possibility of a Joint Strike Fighter-style international collaborative programme has been discussed. The J-UCAS prime contractors are Boeing, developing the X-45C UCAV, and Northrop Grumman with the X-47B. The USAir Force plans to use UCAVs for suppression of enemy air defences, while the US Navy envisages an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance role. Europe's Neuron UCAV demonstrator project has Dassault Aviation as its prime contractor. The system is seen as a potential replacement for current-generation fighters including the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab/BAE Systems Gripen. Greece, Spain and Sweden have also joined the project. ANDREW DOYLE / LONDON >>>>>Conclusion: It's so easy for some Brits to take the mickey and start "soft" flame topics: Not knowing what they are talking about is what characterise them. There is a difference between trying to inform or simply being a Jack-ass emulator, implying "superiority" where reality show otherwise, most of the time the opposite. French forum readers have NO need to invent programmes and capabilities, even the Anglo-American specialised press reconise France as a clear leader in the Aerospacial industry, as does the real figure: What a pitty that Thunder/Fonck/Gegene is an educated enthusiast with access to the same information sources (and a lot more) than the Anglo-Americans... We are the best in Europe and second ONLY to the US. French drone, or collaborative programmes: http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/774/dronessdtifrance15pj.jpg http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4109/sperwer2hq.jpg http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4223/322966478oq.jpg http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1448/dronesmaleeagle1kirunaeadsiai1.jpg http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/8564/droneminiatureprojetensmm12vi.jpg http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3503/droneminiatureprojetensma14hd.jpg http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9154/droneminiatureauryon12fi.jpg http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4585/dronessdtifrance14fq.jpg Et j'en passe...

"No Dassault asked for a manned demonstrator in 1997 which they didn’t get." LIAR they havd a full 300 million two YEARS before BAe Raven first flight.

All you can do is keep yourself in this state of ignorance and denial of yours. Yourpoint doesn't stick. Period. Dassault got all they needed and more, a full programme YEARS before Raven first flight and had YEARS of more complete experience of full stealth features in MORE flying vehicle than BAe.. As for the part played by DGA in the funding of researches in France, see ONERA on their own site, MAYBE you'll get yourself out of this ignorance of yours...

"Le F 16 a quasiment tué l'industrie aeronautique européenne et mis sous dépendance de nombreux pays en proposant un appareil polyvalent pas cher. " Ca me parait bien plus qu'exagere. L'europe aeronautique etait deja moribonde dues a l'ocupation. Seul le royaume Uni a souffert au point de perdre une tres grande partie de son independence depuis 1945. A moins que tu n'oublies Dassault/thales/SAFRAN/ONERA etc....

De plus, y'a du neuf chez les Cow-boys... http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/2463/jucas2os.jpg DefenceSubscribeYou are in: Home › Defence › News Article DATE:07/03/06 SOURCE:Flight International X-45C cancellation prevents Boeing rolling out J-UCAS demonstrator The cancellation of the US Air Force / Navy Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) programme prevented Boeing from rolling out the X-45C demonstrator last week. The company’s contract to build three X-45Cs has been cancelled and work on the aircraft has stopped pending a competition for the US Navy’s carrier-based unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) demonstration. The US Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defence Review decided to restructure the joint-service J-UCAS into a navy-only UCAV carrier suitability demonstration, and funding for the joint programme was removed from the Pentagon’s fiscal year 2007 budget request. In its place $239 million is requested to begin a US Navy carrier-based long-endurance UCAV demonstration programme. Roll-out of the first X-45C on 2 March was called off after the J-UCAS contract was cancelled. The General Electric F404-powered X-45C is a larger development of Boeing’s X-45A, which last year completed a UCAV technology demonstration led by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. In August the two.X-45As demonstrated autonomous reactive suppression of enemy air defences, including dropping a bomb. The X-45C is now expected to compete against the rival Northrop Grumman X-47B for the navy programme to demonstrate the carrier suitability of an unmanned long-endurance aircraft. “The technology Boeing demonstrated in the X-45 programme and the advances we have made in unmanned systems have given us a competitive advantage that can be applied to a carrier-based unmanned aircraft designed to meet the navy’s future intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance requirements,” the company http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/03/07/Navigation/190/205351/X-45C+cancellation+prevents+Boeing+rolling+out+J-UCAS.html

@tumke J'asimerais beaucoup t'aider a decortiquer le sujet auquel tu t'interesse. Malheureusement, cette configuration aerodynamique s'eloigne queque peu de celle dont j'ai etudie les grande lignews le plus, le delta canard. Tout de meme elle sont proches: Il me semble qu'il y a des difference fondamentales entre les vehicules que tu a mis sur ta liste: http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/index.htm Dans l'enssemble ils sont pour la plupart des derives des ailes delta. Leur characteristiques aerodynamique sont donc connues plus ou moins. Mais Dassault a explore la configuration "double" delta avec ses AVEs a partir du second vehicule. Il a ete avance par SAAB, au moment ou ils ont rejoint le programme NEURON que les lois aerodynamique des delta simple etaient plus connues. Donc a priori le X-47 est la formule la plus exploitable aerodynamiquement. La formule utilisee par Dassault et il me semble le X-47B est par contre aparament prferable pour le "turn around" des equipes sol (Armurier/mecca etc). C'est du moins apparament l'opinion de SAAB: "The more adventurous design showed promise because it more easily supported the loading and off-loading of modular payloads, he adds." http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/05/10/197668/Saab+lifts+the+lid+on+revised+Neuron.html Flight HomeSubscribeYou are in: Home › News Article DATE:10/05/05 SOURCE:Flight International Saab lifts the lid on revised Neuron Flying-wing design for stealthy UCAV indicates less ambitious airframe strategy by Dassault-led development team The Dassault-led Neuron team will unveil a more conventional flying-wing design for its stealthy unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) at June's Paris air show. The radically altered configuration, which closely resembles the shape of Boeing's X-45C UCAV, made its public debut in a photo exhibited by Neuron partner Saab during last month's Latin American Aero & Defense Show. A Dassault executive says the Saab photo is "very close" to the new design to be unveiled in Paris. The flying-wing shape, which features a mid-fuselage-mounted engine inlet, indicates a less ambitious airframe design strategy by the Neuron team. Previous public images of the Neuron showed a stealthy airframe with sharply swept wings attached to the aft-fuselage and a front section extending well beyond the wing-attach points. Saab marketing manager Per Borg says the Neuron team has long been debating the merits of both designs, but recently settled on the flying wing. The more adventurous design showed promise because it more easily supported the loading and off-loading of modular payloads, he adds. By contrast, the flying-wing design relies on better-known flight control laws, and is deemed the more practical option for the already ambitious demonstrator project. Dassault is leading the six-nation Neuron development team of France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. The UK, meanwhile, has aligned itself with the USA's Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems programme. The Neuron team aims to produce a demonstrator to fly after 2008. STEPHEN TRIMBLE/RIO DE JANEIRO >>>>> Je crois que Dassault ont teste leur configuration depuis 2001 avec AVE-C (control) qui est ou bien un second Petit Duc ou Moyen Duc lui-meme. En tout cas la configuration de cet UAV etait celle de NEURON en 2003. http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3677/grandduc9ph.jpg 2003 http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3838/neurondassault5bp.jpg 2004 http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2057/moyenduc5lj.jpg Extrait d'un des films le plus recent de Dassault: Higher Technology. http://www.dassault-aviation.com/gb/technologie/ Pour le reste il me faudrait savoir exactement ce que tu cherches pout te donner une opinion, ma specialitee etant l'aero tu comprends que j'aurqis pas mal a raconter sur le sujet mais il te faut etre olus specifique dans tes questions. OPIT qui est actif AdA spoecialiste te serait veraimet d'un tres bon conseil pour les parties techniques, comme l'armement et les sensors...

Fenrir Le F-16 etait un coup de genie aerodynamique et technologique. F-35 est une arnaque politico-industrielle.

Remarque tres judicieuse, surtout apres 3 crashes. (ou deux mais a ce prix la la difference devient minime).

I'm not going to debate pointlessly with guys as ignorant as that. I.E. gliter/Rob/Nod. If you does your own researche work you will realise that there is no arguing with my previous post for a start. For the pothers, after reading this researche work you should know a little better at least where to look for proper informations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Dassault obtained the NEURON leader role and BAe doesn't have their TDP yet? "The French defence procurement agency DGA is committing €300 million ($350 million) to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator," DATE:24/06/03 = 6 month BEFORE Raven first flight, two years after AVE-D's. Reasons? Dassault mastered the stealth issues as well as the whole design and technology attached to it BAe doesn't yet: (Le Bourget, June 16, 2003) "Thanks to its unique experience in the development and production of combat aircraft, Dassault Aviation masters all advanced technologies related to this field and considers UCAVs as complementary systems to aircraft of the Rafale class and generation." Compare to BAe own staments since 2003: Mike Turner BAe: DATE:20/07/04 SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." > Technicaly speaking (1): There is NO equivalent of Moyen/Grand Duc nor NEURON from BAE as for now, regrouping Materials/EM/IR stealth technology in ONE vehicle. About Dassault?: They were scrutinised and considered totally capable to develop NEURON by a board of high ranking specialists. Who says so? DGA doesn't award multi-million contracts just like this to start with but how about: French Senat Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/4392/logiduc9in.jpg >>>>> Ingenieur general de l'armement Thierry Duquesne. MM. Phillipe Coq. Directeur des programme Male. MM Patrick Oswald, Directeur des programmes de drone tactiques et avions de missions (EADS). M. Pierre Mathieu, Directeur du developement aeronautique de la societe Thales. M. Eric Trappier, Directeur general adjoint de la societe Dassault Aviation. M. Jean Francois Coutris, Directeur de la Division Optronique et Systemes aeroterrestres de la societe SAGEM Lieutenant-colonel Fabienne Chappe, Chef de la division de la reglementation a la Direction de la circulation aerienne militaire (DIRCAM). Contre-amiral Tandonnet, charge de la coherence operationelle a l'Etat major des Armees. Ingenieur general de l'Armement Berthet, sous-chef programme de l'Etat-major de l'Armee de l'Air. Contre-Amiral Laborde, charge de programme de l'Etat-major de la Marine. General Bolleli, directeur des Opreations. General Mathian, Directeur technique a la Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE). MM. Herve Guillou et Denis Verret (EADS). Ingenieur general de l'Armement Alain Picq, membre de la Delegation permanente de la France au Conseil de l'Atlantique Nord. Lieutenent-colonel Gay, de la Direction du Renseignement Militaire. >>>>> Note the presence of two French renseignements top brasses, (DGSE) and Renseignement Militaire. I think this can partly explain the amount off confusion which reigns in the Anglo-American press, and even the French press about the AVE programme. >>>>> So NOT only this highly qualified bunch coroborate my opinion, but also counterdicts that of the firmly pedestrian trooper (Nod) who have the guts to deny theirs on the ground that he cannot comprehend what they say: >>>>>On AVE-D and other AVEs stealth. http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2057/moyenduc5lj.jpg "Entirely made of stealth materials" "at the end of a work highlighted by the will to reduce radar and infrared signature". Technically speaking (2): AVEs exhaust PIPES (or nozzles) are recessed and shrouded in IR supressant materials, that's why you can't SEE them. AVEs have all the design characteristics of stealth (Material/IR/EM) aircrafts, up to serrated visit doors. http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9412/logiduc9rn.png http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/stea-nf.html Citation: To avoid detection by thermal imaging devices or targeting by heat-seeking missiles, stealthy aircraft must minimize heat emissions. A major source of such infrared emissions is the engine exhaust." So no question this is an important issue. Note: The proheminent exhaust pipe (nozzle) on Corax/Raven is the reason WHY BAe doesn't claim they are researching IR reduction with these two UAVs and also why their descriptif of them is not stealth but L.O or stealthy. >>>>>About Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast: http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4981/moyenduc5xg.jpg http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/7422/sagemdassault6zu.jpg This makes AVEs more advanced and stealthier than Raven and even more so than Corax, neither of which posseses IR reduction features. Corax having straight wings resulting on an increse in radar return. Raven flew more than a full 3 years after AVE-D, (Juil 2000/Dec 2003) and 3 month AFTER DGA committed to awarding Dassault with a €300 million ($350 million) contract to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator. Moyen Duc probabilly flew as early as end 2001 and Dassault had two extra years of developement in stealth UAVs before Raven flew. "Then appears, in July 2001, the "Moyen Duc", weighting 500 kg".(Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006). It was to be followed by Grand Duc as said by Dassault (The logiduc process) and the Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. "The next envisioned step was initially known as the Grand Duc. It called for the acquisition of more complex techniques such as full mission system representativity, composite pack airborne control and collaborative flight, as well as live air to ground weapon release." (Dassault the logiduc process). "The Grand Duc aimed to validate the operational demonstration of a combat mission, while developing furtivity and flight control".(Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006) Grand Duc was abandoned as DGA awarded Dassault with a €300 million ($350 million) contract to develop a full-scale UCAV demonstrator, on 24/06/03, NEURON which first design and configuration were that of Grand Duc. All of this occured BEFORE Raven first flight in Dec 2003, as the attention of DGA and Dassault shifted toward an even more ambitious programme made possible by European cooperation. So between Jul 2000 and June 2003, Dassault were ALSO buzy test-flying Moyen Duc and conceipt-desiging Grand Duc. http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3677/grandduc9ph.jpg Progresses were clearly made without having to fly the Grand Duc as Furtivity is not one of the main objectives of NEURON. In their Sept 2004 PDF, Dassault the UCAV purpose as:maintain skills (no new combat aircraft before 2030-40). European partnership based on: ^ skills ^competitivity. ^budget commitmments. Partners: SAAB (Sweeden), HAI (Greece), EADS,... Fisrt flight scheduled in 2009. http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3838/neurondassault5bp.jpg Published Sept 2004. >>>>>On General stealth researches: On the other hand, bringing up the issues of Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II without even figuring that the equivalent researches on low Observability (Anechoidal chamber testing) have been conducted with Moyen Duc and Slow/Fast, is plain stupid. A look at ONERA own site says it all, stealth technology is actively researched at every levels, aerodynamics, materials, shapes, M/IR, electromagnetic (EMI) emitions etc. Dassault have several REAL stealth UAVs to test in their chamber since 2000 and doesn't NEED any mock-ups for this purpose which in any casse can be replicated by ONERA own laboratories where much of the wrok is also done digitaly. Testing mockup and material is anyway one of ONERA primary roles. Dassault develops Low Observability on REAL aircrafts since the Mirage 2000, this involving materials, shapes but also AVIONICS and flight control systems. As an example, Rafale A was the FIRST European aircraft EVER to fly with Optical Flight control on 4th July 1986.... As for the actual operationl Rafales: F-15C/Su-27___+06.0db =6.0m² Typhoon_______+00.5db =1.5m² Rafale________+00.0db =1.0m² B-1B/F-18E____+00.0db =1.0m² LFI___________-20.0db =0.01m² F-35A/B/C_____-30.0db =0.001m² F-117A________-35.0db =0.0005m² F-22A/B-2A____-40.0db =0.0001m² Rafale have an estimated RCS 50% lower than that of Typhoon. >>>>>Advances: ALL Dassault AVEs are more advanced than any of the UK UAVs as they were designed using Dassault unique design tools, covering the full design points spectrum but also full stealth features: So: Stealth/Aerodynamic/Structural and industrial. This is helps making more progresses with less funding, a more pragmatic aproach, using higher level of experience and design skills. (Another obvious point conveniently denied by our British friends). The fact that Dassault doesn't make noises about their work means only one thing, DGSE and military intelligence were involved in the information field. I started to suspect that this would be the case when my own contacts with Dassault were severed at once end of 2003. >>>>>On the role of propaganda: Does France keep her programme secrets and uses propaganda??? First: They have done this previously with Rafale, never actually giving real datas on the aircraft performances and weight. France leads the field in the EUs with the possible (Still to be confirmed) exeption of Germany with her Barracuda programme(which was also kept secret). Much depends on the combat capabilities of the German drone, as there is no question that the amount of stealth features of the AVEs and NEURON designs is far higher. Barracuda is designed around the lines of an UAV as was seen in the late 80s, looking more like Slow/Fast (A tactical recce drone) than the more recent AVE developements. We will know later on if Barrakuda is a true UCAV demonstrator or a simple UAV part of a UCAV programme, depending on its future demonstrated combat capabilities. What this shows is that secrecy and propaganda plays a role here and there is no reasons why France secrets services, and military intelligence wouldn't have put a stop as to what information was made public on UCAV researches. This interesting image shows images published for a press conference in 2004, if a picture of Petit Duc is shown, the Slow/Fast configuration is according to another Dassault statment, different of that of Moyen Duc. This image says otherwise. http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9242/ducs3lf.jpg As for Grand Duc its shape also counterdicts Dassault own staments, giving the Moyen and Grand Ducs the same configuration, it i single engined but also posseses a belly-mounted air-intake which by today standards is totally laughable. Other contemporary pictures of mock-ups show a diferent configuration, consistant with Dassault stament, saying that the second Petit Duc, moyen Duc and Grand Duc were to be given the same. i.e tailless. "Dassault says a second version of its Petit Duc one-third scale UCAV demonstrator made its first flight at the beginning of June under the DGA's AVE UCAV demonstration. The first Petit Duc demonstrator has been flying since mid-2000. The second Petit Duc shares the tailless configuration that will be applied on the Moyen Duc and Grand Duc." DATE:24/06/0 http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3677/grandduc9ph.jpg So no doubt about the great level of confusion which have been reigning in the press since 2001, as apparently Moyen Duc "apeared" following AVE-D and AVE-C in 2001, according to the French Senat Rapport d'Information 22 Fev 2006. Some time ago i have sugested that the latest Dassault video was showing Moyen Duc, not a Petit Duc. One of my reasons for doing so was the fact that AVE-D was too small to be equiped with experimental equipements, the drone shortly shown in the movie possesing an aerodynamic probe, suggest a somewhat larger aircraft. More to the point, it is never shown on the ground, which would have given a better idea of its actual size. Another clue: We know AVE-D was designed by Dassault, not built by them. There is no such evidence for AVE-C nor Moyen Duc (obviously). So chances are: AVE-C IS Moyen Duc, a 500 kg aircraft, large enough to posses its own FCS and experimental equipement as the probe suggest, apeared as early as 2001 and was flight tested "discretly" ever since..... >>>>>So, how about the UK and BAe then??? Something is for sure: There is NO UCAV TDP in the UK and none of the actual flying researche demonstrators are UCAVs. BAe "Skunkwork" was kept secret for a long time and i believe Dassault played the press the same way while disclosing some of their work. MoD and BAe chaiman agrees on something though: There is a need for a UCAV TDP for the UK to develop stealth technology further: SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." clearly asking for more even before they can consider being viable partners in a programme like NEURON. The researches conducted since about 1994 were just that, researches. Not the fully funded Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) that Rob L and RM Nod tried to sell us for the whole of 2005. Nice as a flame bet but far from the truth, and this, after it became obvious that France was launching NEURON and Dassault main contractor and design lead for the programme. They don't have it, they have to invent it as most of the rest.... >>>>>About French investments in stealth technology: As opposed to what Nod is implying with an outdated an innacurate article: Dassault have been given all help they needed by DGA as well as the technology researched for and with them them by ONERA since the pre-Rafale era. Another point they chose to ignore for obvious reasons.... http://www.onera.fr/actualites/onera-rapport-annuel-2004-2005-fr.pdf ONERA budget for 2004>>> 188 million Eus on European programmes only. >>>>>On the design issue: Denying any experience acquiered from the Falcon serie is a total nonsense and only goes to show some pretty obvious ignorance of aerospacial matters and refusal to aknowledge industrial realities: For god sake, these guys don't even KNOW what te word design implies, try to take credit for BAE on _JAS-39 Gripen wing (when in fact the prototype flew long before BAe was involved in Gripen International) And "part of" F-35. Designs point are alien to them, just flame point. Conceiptual being no diferent from aerodynamic, no different from structural, no different from industrial for production tooling etc. Reality is: BAe are WAY behind in terms of design skills and technology as shows their many design and managemental fuck-ups. Managing is the first part of the design process, one have to know how and what to delegate to engineers withing a design team or simply not being able to take the process through. (Nimrod MR4/ASTUTE). This is where Dassault have a world-leadership no one in the industry would dare denying them, smaller, slimer but load more effiscient. Dassault-31. BAe ------6. No need for photo-finish. Most of the recent Falcon designed by Dassault are FAR more complex and uses more advanced technologies and design techniques than Corax and Raven. The only difference is the use of stealth specific material and shapes (NO evidences the same materials are not in used in Falcon designs either but he, we can't know it) as well as aerodynamic laws. All design issues are traited the same way with CATIA and the virtual tools. Most Falcons have higher performances than Corax and Raven too if not all of them. "The Falcon 7X is the world's first fly-by-wire business jet and the first aircraft ever to be designed entirely in a virtual environment" "From the performance point of view, the most significant advantage of FBW was that it enabled Dassault to take full advantage of the three-dimensional Catia design technology applied to the wing, which is totally new and is thinner and longer than any of its forebears. This introduced significant issues with wing flexing and its coupling with the structure during flight – aeroelasticity – so the full performance could be realised only with FBW. The result in the 7X is that Dassault has been able to combine high- and low-speed performance as never before.".... "Fly-by-wire also confers homogenous aircraft handling throughout the flight envelope, regardless of speed, altitude, weight or centre of gravity, and brings pilots the added benefit of sidestick control, which means they enjoy a clear field of view to the instrument panel and – again in common with Airbuses – free space in front of them for a pull-out table. Dassault's FBW experience dates back to the original Mirage 2000, although in 1963 the company installed a prototype system on a vertical take-off version of the Mirage III, the Balzac, which transitioned to horizontal flight using FBW control of its engine nozzle. The Mirage 2000 is fully FBW-controlled, but uses four analogue computers, while the new Rafale has three digital computers and an analogue back-up." "Things have moved on. The Falcon 7X features three dual-channel main flight computers (MFC) and three single-channel secondary flight computers (SFC), all of which are fully digital." http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/13/199184/Falcon+7X's+Belle+epoch.html So here again, a clear advance in technology and design, applyable to all aircraft including UAV/UCAVs i.e AVEs and NEURON. >>>>>A bit further down the line. France Aerospacial Industry is firmly involved into developing her own and European UAVs, UCAV and stealth technology through established and DGA led and funded programmes. The UK have only being developing stealth technology through researches programmes, up to Dassault AVEs point of 2000 Material/EM/IR aerodynamics and flight control. The much awaited UCAV TDP should have been launched as early as Jan 2006. Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) was awarded to Dassault by DGA on 24/06/03 but goes a step further in that its MAIN design goal is Networked combat capabilities NOT UCAV stealth technology. DGA is also involved in developement of new technologies both nationally and through collaborative programmes. Dassault didn't STOP their own researches on stealth and UCAVs since they got the contract, claiming that would be ignoring their own programmes (Slow/Fast and Moyen Duc) as well as saying that they didn't test the AVEs in their Anechoidal chamber since 2001 and 2003 respectively...... Developement of Slow/Fast is continuing even so the French Army have cancelled the programme in 2004 after failing to define the full requirement for its sensor suite, it didn't involved the aircraft itself. There is no need nor for France nor Dassault for using for using "nugget technologies" as a way of "leverage" in any collaborative environment as is the case for BAe. (OUT OF THE SHADOWS) Quiet the opposite, the other EU company to fly a stealth UAV, SAAB, insisted they wanted IN the NEURON programme with a minimum of 25% workshare; not for the stake of it. They went on to fight their own politicians and were rewarded with the acceptance of the Sweedish gouvernement in funding Sweeden share of the programme. This is an issue constantly brought forward by the British press, but also constantly denied by RN Nod and Rob L in their long term atempt to diludes us into thinking that the UK is not only "more advanced" but also had for most of last year, the equivalent of the NEURON programme going on. (WAAF FOAS topics). To do so they also denied the fact that the UKs were involved with the US J-UCAS programme, claiming that the UK programme was a fully indigenous one... "The import of the British Defense Ministry's clearance for BAE to begin to discuss the Raven also plays into the far wider issue of U.K. collaboration in developing an operational UCAV. Britain had signed up for Washington's now defunct Joint-Unmanned Combat Air System, with a transatlantic acquisition program likely to follow. Continuing--and, some British sources suggest, worsening--problems with British access on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program also play into this arena." (OUT OF THE SHADOWS) Quote RM Nod on the WAAF: "How? The only way I could have been wrong is if the UK is actively developing one of the X-UCAVs which it isn’t." He is wrong all the way, the UK have signed-up to J-UCAS and US-based UK companies WERE involved in this NOW cancelled programme with the loss of money involved in top of the F-35 cost-over-run ones. FACTS: BAe Chairman Mike Turner have been crying out for this TDP for more than ten years for a very good reason, they NEED to keep up both technologically but also and even more so design-wise. As Dassault is not only EU number ONE but also, in design and production procedures World leader as proven by Falcon 7X. FACTS: While BAe had partly state-funded researches programmes going on with Mock-ups, and diverse researches vehicles (Corax/Raven/Chameleon), NONE have ever achieved the same goal than AVE-D on its own nor did they allow the company to reach the point where Dassault were in 2003. Most of this type of researches with material and stealth are conducted by ONERA and then Dassault when it comes to the applyable part of it. FACTS: AVEs might at least be three in number, as well as their Slow/Fast derivative. That's THREE Stealth, THREE aerodynamic configurations, THREE different scales/weights into four different vehicles and we talk about existing UAVs not NEURON. From 50 to 500 kg. ALL of which posseses the full stealth features, materiaLs, EM and IR. Corax and Raven shares the same body but ALSO the same flight control systems. AVEs doesn't share more than the same body shape and engines for the Petit Ducs. So saying that BAe acquiered MORE experience from their work in both stealth, technology and design is also false. The opposite is very obvious. Quoting Mike Turner BAe: DATE:20/07/04 SOURCE:Flight International Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." >>>>>About what is coming next: Since 2003, Dassault have been working at puting together an industrial solution for the programme NEURON. This aspect is the most important of all when it comes to design solutions as used in the Falcon 7X programme. This was aimed to allow for the collaboration in the programme by european countries in the same fashion as have been done Nationaly on the Falcon 7X. "All that has changed with the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) system used for the Falcon 7X. The entire aircraft is now described as a three-dimensional virtual entity, using Dassault's new Virtual Reality Centre at its St Cloud, Paris headquarters. Engineers visiting the centre use stereoscopic spectacles to view all aspects of the 7X design in as much detail as necessary and can seemingly enter the structure to view pipes, electrical wiring or complete systems to check how they interact with the aircraft. The power of the PLM system is that it enables everyone involved in designing and building the 7X to share exactly the same information. The entire design and manufacture process is now linked so that for the first time the digital model of the aircraft contains enough information to manufacture it. As a result, Dassault has been able to vastly refine its relationship with its suppliers by linking them all with the Falcon 7X database. For the preliminary design phase all of the suppliers, initially numbering 400 people from 27 companies and seven countries, gathered at St Cloud. Once preliminary design was completed, they returned to their companies to work together on Dassault's unique, shared database, connected through a France Telecom-supplied permanent high-speed datalink." http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198909/Virtual+system+produces+digital+dream+.html So; cut the bull you funnies (Rob/Nod/Gliter), Dassault is at least two full decenies in advance both technologically and design-wise over BAe and this is partly WHY France Aerospace Industry is Number TWO worldwhile.... It's too easy to take the mickey expecting people to be as uneducated as yourself. Another example: "Dassault is leading a team of 37 partners in the European Commission-funded High Speed Aircraft (HISAC) study programme." http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/06/07/198917/On+their++Machs.html >>>>> http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2004/07/20/184476/BAE+pushes+UK+on+UCAV+initiative.html DefenceSubscribeYou are in: Home › Defence › News Article DATE:20/07/04 SOURCE:Flight International BAE pushes UK on UCAV initiative Manufacturer stresses importance of launching national programme before making decision on collaboration BAE Systems is pushing the UK government to launch a national unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) programme ahead of any decision on whether to sign up to projects already under way in Europe and the USA. The USA and the French-led Neuron group are forging ahead with UCAV work, but the UK Ministry of Defence is yet to reach a decision on initial gate approval for the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS) programme, which will almost certainly include a UCAV component (Flight International, 6-12 April). "We have to see [the UCAV discussions] come to fruition in the next few months," says BAE chief executive Mike Turner. Regarding potential collaboration on UCAVs with European or US partners, he says: "Before you can do that you need a programme in the UK. It's very important that we have such a programme." The MoD's Defence Procurement Agency says an initial gate decision on FOAS is still expected this year. It adds: "We are still at quite an early stage. We are looking at all the options and no decisions have been taken." Initial gate approval has been repeatedly delayed, with the most recent target date having passed last May. Intended to replace the Royal Air Force's Panavia Tornado GR4 strike aircraft from around 2018, FOAS will provide the capability to conduct long-range attacks against time-critical targets and is likely to comprise manned and unmanned combat aircraft, cruise missiles and air-launched unmanned air vehicles. The MoD has requested information on the USA's Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) programme from the US Department of Defense, and the possibility of a Joint Strike Fighter-style international collaborative programme has been discussed. The J-UCAS prime contractors are Boeing, developing the X-45C UCAV, and Northrop Grumman with the X-47B. The USAir Force plans to use UCAVs for suppression of enemy air defences, while the US Navy envisages an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance role. Europe's Neuron UCAV demonstrator project has Dassault Aviation as its prime contractor. The system is seen as a potential replacement for current-generation fighters including the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab/BAE Systems Gripen. Greece, Spain and Sweden have also joined the project. ANDREW DOYLE / LONDON >>>>>Conclusion: It's so easy for some Brits to take the mickey and start "soft" flame topics: Not knowing what they are talking about is what characterise them. There is a difference between trying to inform or simply being a Jack-ass emulator, implying "superiority" where reality show otherwise, most of the time the opposite. French forum readers have NO need to invent programmes and capabilities, even the Anglo-American specialised press reconise France as a clear leader in the Aerospacial industry, as does the real figure: What a pitty that Thunder/Fonck/Gegene is an educated enthusiast with access to the same information sources (and a lot more) than the Anglo-Americans... We are the best in Europe and second ONLY to the US. French drone, or collaborative programmes: http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/774/dronessdtifrance15pj.jpg http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4109/sperwer2hq.jpg http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4223/322966478oq.jpg http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4223/322966478oq.th.jpg http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1448/dronesmaleeagle1kirunaeadsiai1.jpg http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/8564/droneminiatureprojetensmm12vi.jpg http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3503/droneminiatureprojetensma14hd.jpg http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9154/droneminiatureauryon12fi.jpg http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4585/dronessdtifrance14fq.jpg http://img1.imageshack.us/thumbnail.png Et j'en passe...