Fonck

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Rob "I'll stop here, with you reposting this shit time and time again you have clearly broken the barrier to your usual hate/mega nationalistic flame posts. " Poor little Rob L, I posted MoD and BAe stament saying the needed this TDP still not launched to keep up with te rest of Europe because they still need to develop stealth design and technology. I realy must hate Britain. Escusez le language mais ce mec est vraiment un CON.

Looksa like another one of your major BRAIN failure to me... 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. >>>>> DATE:21/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International UK rethinks Tornado replacemen “The government could decide against US or national programmes, so there could be potential for European collaboration,” says Turner. “There is a huge lobby now within the MoD to go more European [and] I think we would be welcomed.” "A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System. "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," This clearly indicate they don't have them right NOW: (U.K. capabilities in this area," or the UCAV TDP). The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". Wnat MORE? They ask for the same TDP SINCE and STILL don't get it, the very one you kept INVENTING last year remember? It IS STILL NOT lauinched YET so they still NEED it to: Developr the UK capabilities in this area. What? Stealth...

Rob No NEED to try to prove ANYTHING. Dassault and SAAB Masters teachonlogies that MoD and BAE says they DONT. You copy thick boy??? "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". Want more? does this looks like not enough English to you??? STFU. "Can Rafale become invisible? This is what Chameleon has apparently done with a BAe Hawk. " Yeah sure a Klingon clocking device now...., it's YOUR BRAIN that's gone missing LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue".

where does it SAYS Autonomous operation developement??? These are the terms of the contract and this make you a cretin de premiere flaming for abvsolutly no other reasons than stupid anti-French pride and bigotry. TIT!!! La répartition industrielle est la suivante : - Dassault Aviation exerce la maîtrise d’œuvre d’ensemble du programme avec notamment la conception générale, l’assemblage final et certains essais en vol. Thales est chargé de la liaison de données entre l’opérateur et le Neuron. - Le suédois SAAB a pris la responsabilité du fuselage, de l’avionique et d’une partie des essais en vol. - A Alenia, l’industriel italien, revient notamment la responsabilité du système de désignation et de tir. - En Espagne, EADS/CASA est chargé des voilures et de la station de contrôle au sol. - HAI, avionneur grec, est, quant à lui, chargé de la réalisation d’une partie du fuselage. - Le suisse RUAG intervient dans les essais en soufflerie et la fourniture de dispositifs d’emport de l’armement.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Wrong, it is just plain wrong. The Swedes have been tasked to create the autonomy for Neuron because Dassault can't do that. Stop pretending that autonomy is not important just because Dassault sucks big time in this area. " Mate you know ZILTH about what they CAN and CANT do you just try the flame bet as you have little to prove but that you were PLAIN WRONG about it as being autonomously used in NOT a French AdA or DGA requierement. Question: How long have you been sniffing glue? Because you're writing like you are really loosing it big time mate LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL... "Please show me the quote where BAe says the new TDP will be for stealth research. " "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". Want more? does this looks like not enough English to you??? I have already been doing this a hundred of TIME but you seem to develop BRAIN failures every time OFFICIAL MoD and BAE staments are made in this sense. "ROFL!!! So Rafale can become invisible? So Rafale is a stealth plane in the league of JSF or F22? You're mental if you really believe what you're saying. " Rafale have a much lower RCS and IR signature than Typhoon because when designed, as well as M-88, Stealth technology was applied/implementesd to the desired extend. A lot MORE so than into Eurofighter/EJ-200 design. So not olny are ONERA/SNECMA/THALES/Dassault mastering stealth they also applied it to Rafale too. AND Where BAe is now is a stage where both Dassault and SAAB were in 2003 just previous to the NEURON agreement with a difference. "Then come up with the evidence! You don't get know-how by doing nothing, what has Dassault done to acquire stealth? [and don't say Rafale or I'll haver to laugh]" Citation: Keep LOLing it's all ou can DO. MoD and BAe staments are CLEAR for all intelligent reders, i wouldn't expect YOU to even start comprehension as a process as all your motivation is FLAME and pride. THUD you're T.H.I.C.K Rob L. BAe need to do their home work on stealth NEURON partners (at least SAAB and Dassault) already have done theirs and NEURON IS designed top demonstrate networking combat capabilities within a short time frame. "Again, how did they develop stealth? How has Dassault acquired the tech? Come up with programmes." Researches by ONERA go to their site and learn about WHAT you don't KNOW. I'm not going to brest feed you little boy. Citation: Raven is NO MORE advanced than a Petit duc and flew a full year later, more to the point: The Ducs were of two different designs one of which was also fully instable. "lol, this is funny. Raven is a fully instable design and unlike the Petit Duc on Dassault's website does not have a fin. Furthermore it is fully autonomous, something the Ducs lack." Sorry mate you don't GET it, yet there were TWO Petit ducs one of which was fully instable and also demonstrating lateral (Tail-less) instability As usual you talk about what you DONT know.. Citation: Note: it is simply STUPID to assume that they wouldn't have done it even Mirages are tested in anechoidal chambers doesn't make them stealth. The GOAL of Replica was: New Materials and construction methods. "And shape. Besides materials and construction mehtods are responsible for a large part of RCS reduction." Hahem my sister could have came up with a stealthier design than what Replica was and don't try to interpret what Replica WAS it's clearly indicated on the Jane's scan, mailny a study of materrial and construction merthods. And it looks like it. Citation: Most of there are low cost researches vehicles due to the low level of stealth involed. "So where is Dassault's multi-million stealth projects? When have they flown? Fact is that the Neuron design now adopted is hugely influenced by Saab. " Now but it is where the were in 2002. Thrue so what they didn't want it for no other reason the ease of laod not stealth and it is still Dassault main architect and design lead mate. As for Corax and Raven they ressemble the two Ducs like hell don't THEY? Citation: If anyone have a look at the design goal of these vehicles one can clearly SEE that they all have a different researche purpose but tnat NONE is actually a fully stealth technology demonstartor, the equivalent of the Logiduc process from Dassault regardless of their size... http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4981/moyenduc5xg.jpg What were you SAYING? I skip the rest of your bullshits just to repost this for YOU: "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "because of the need to master the stealth issue". MoDS and BAe Mike Turner own staments. You copy??? Or do YOU want me to post them AGAIN for all your brain power defisciency? You're suck a sick guy mate i really pity you. But you're good fun at the rate you're posting hilariously stupid stuff.. LOL

T Mor "3D vectoring." A l'Ouest rien de nouveau. Compare le X-31 et l'EFA tu te fera une idee de ce que les Allemands de MBB auraient aime faire du Typhoon. D'ailleur ca m'a marque, Jackonico ne connaissiat pas les details des intentions des inges de MBB quand ils ont dessine l'avion avec 35% d'instabilite et le canard "long"... Raison; C'etait un conceipt issue des etudes commune qu'ils avaient faite avec Rockwell sur HIMAT et poursuivaient sur le dessin de X-31. "Vector as in if the engines thrust is angled downwards by x degrees it will push the rear upwards with y force." C'est vrai, deja experimente as "No flare landing technique" sur X-31 mais je n'ai jamais lu que X-31 etait aussi instable que Typhoon... Question: Que se passe-t-il en cas de panne de l'une ou des deux TVCs? X-31 est monomoteur. "To counter the downward pitching of the nose the canards deflect the airdown forcing the nose upwards (providing lift in other words)." CA veut aussi dire redefinir les lois aerodynamique et le FCS et ses programmes. Ils sont deja dans la merde rien qu'avec la version simple. Je ne m'explique toujours pas pourquoi ils n'ont pas fait voler le EJ-200 et son TVC sur X-31 en 2002 comme prevu... "Thus forward speed is reduced but lift is retained." Ca ca reste a voir justement, comme ils ont donne 35% d'instabilite a l'avion les TVC doivent compenser pour beausoup plus que ca. Avec 35% de compensation, les cannards seraient seulement neutre... >>>>> DEFFA "Est-ce qu'une aérodynamique plus efficace (portance) ne permet pas d'obtenir un compromis similaire en autorisant une incidence faible tout en conservant la poussée maximale ?" D'ou le choix du canard couple de pres comme les Rafale et SAAB Gripen qui lui aussi devait avoir de performances basse vitesse et aterrissage/decolage court pour deployement sur les troncons d'autoroute Suedois... "Ensuite, le gain en manoeuvrabilité à basse vitesse n'a un intérêt véritable qu'en combat rapproché, puisque c'est le seul mode de combat où la vitesse chute du fait des nombreuses manoeuvres sous forts facteurs de charge." EEEEK! Tu serais heureux de pouvoir manoeuvrer aussi a l'aise lors des phases de decolage et d'aterrissage crois moi. Surtout sur un PA de 40.000t dont la manoeuvre d'apontage se traduis en F/A18 USN WinCo language comme etant equivalent a ramasser un timbre poste avec la langue.... Non serieux, la je ne suis pas d'accord, la manoeuvrabilite a toute les vitesses est toujours apreciee par les pilotes qui ont plus confiance dans leur avion dans un domaine de vol plus large. Le probleme du TVC c'est son mariage avec les lois aerodynamique de l'avion, Il cree de tels angle de vol "decouples" que d'une part tous le pilotes ne sont pas en mesure d'utiliser proprement et d'autre par il ne compense pas pour le manque de portee. Prenez en example les plantages tres spectaculaire du Su au Bourget et en Ukraine, si l'avion s'enfonce les TVC ne peuvent rien y faire, tout ce qu'ils permetent de faire c'est diminuer sensiblement l'angle d'attaque d'un avion specialement dessine pour ca comme le X-31 ou augmenter le control en tanguage des camions volant comme le F-22 et Su 37. De plus quand on tire 9 G au dessus de 450/500kts c'est deja du GRAND manege en ce qui concerne le rayon de virage et 9 G c'est 9 G pour tout le monde a basse vitesse la difference se fait plus facilement. Ce qui compte c'est la capacitee de se sortir de situations dangereuse ou accidentelle comme l'ont demontree les presque-crepe du Typhoon et du Rafale M car on n'est pas toujours en mesure de voler a 450/500 kt surtout pendant les missions A2G a basse altitude. Je maintiens toujour qu'avec un bidon ventral de 1.250l le pilote du Typhoon aurait fait un tres beau barbeque en publique. Pour le mariage heureux du Typhoon et TVC j'ai mes doutes a cause de son %age d'instabilitee...

Le premier dessin est le P-110 de BAe tout crache... http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4053/Tri-NationalACA.jpg

"WRONG! "It will also be completely autonomous" " STFU Autonomous is the Sweedish requieremnts Dassault is tasked with developing the capability to fly it remotly from aircrats so you're actually making a fuss about nothing. As usual twisting and spining; to remind YOU NEURON is a French programme totally open to Europeran collaboration is the Sweedish decide to use it autonomously it's their problem. http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3051/neuronpdf3mq.jpg http://www.defense.gouv.fr/portal_repository/113830641__0003/fichier/getData Here Extract of the NEURON PDF as edited on the French MoD website. Once AGAIN STFU. And about your collection of little gadgets here: What MATTER Rob L is WHAT Bae and MoD are saying about it NOT your Disneylandish interpretation of it. To MASTER stealth technology they need a TDP which haven't been launched YET. "Because BAe has these projects, they had several RCS reduction projects (Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II) and IR/Visual (Chameleon)." And if you weren't so THICK you would have notice that since Rafale all these have been alredy inplemented to both Engine and aircraft. SFTU. http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/7205/doc2dwig3zr.jpg Not everyone is stupid to the point to keep reving about what they don't understand and know too little about to even make for a good conversation and more to the point: LIE about it repeatedly or keep igonring FACTS and REALITY conveniently. L.O and IR reduction measures and technologires were not only developed in France previous to Rafale design but ALSO applied to it to the extend that its RCS ended up being whooping 50% lower than that of Typhoon. Not to mention M-88 IR signature here, which concerns NOT Dasault but SNECMA just in case you had the brain power to comprehend a tenth of it. AND Where BAe is now is a stage where both Dassault and SAAB were in 2003 just previous to the NEURON agreement with a difference. BAe need to do their home work on stealth NEURON partners (at least SAAB and Dassault) already have done theirs and NEURON IS designed top demonstrate networking combat capabilities within a short time frame. If you keep posting propagandist interpretations it's simply because you feel the need for it NOT because reality shows anyone in Britain to be as advanced as Dassault and SAAB. Raven is NO MORE advanced than a Petit duc and flew a full year later, more to the point: The Ducs were of two different designs one of which was also fully instable. >>>>> 1) BAe Replica Project Cost of programme: 20 Million Pounds [30 Million Euros] Description: "The craft pictured is full-scale model and was completed in 1999, after five years of work. Few details have been released, but BAE Systems says Replica was subjected to a "rigorous test programme", which assessed its cross section on radar." Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3590 Note: it is simply STUPID to assume that they wouldn't have done it even Mirages are tested in anechoidal chambers doesn't make them stealth. The GOAL of Replica was: New Materials and construction methods. http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1306/BAeAASMock-up.jpg Here is a scan from Jane's all the world's aircraft Therefore it was NOT a priory a pure research on stealth and it doesn't take sa rocket scientist to understand that, only a brain. Most of there are low cost researches vehicles due to the low level of stealth involed. NOT the real full blown stealth technology demonstrator both BAe and MoD are saying IS NEEDED to develop the technology. And the fact that they don't show it doesn't MEAN Dassault doesn't Master the technology and by the way most of it was studied by ONERA... If anyone have a look at the design goal of these vehicles one can clearly SEE that they all have a different researche purpose but that NONE is actually a fully stealth technology demonstartor, the equivalent of the Logiduc process from Dassault regardless of their size and years late... NONE of them are UCAV either and simply for this reason MoD and BAE qualify them of stealthy UAVs or L.O not Stealth, stealth involving both shape, structural design IR reduction as well by the way and material. None of these vehicles posseses the full amount needed to be fully stealth or is combat capable so are onle UAVs as the official staments says. Both SAAB and Dassault masters the stealth technology since 2003. >>>>> 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. >>>>> DATE:21/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International UK rethinks Tornado replacemen “The government could decide against US or national programmes, so there could be potential for European collaboration,” says Turner. “There is a huge lobby now within the MoD to go more European [and] I think we would be welcomed.” "A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System. "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," This clearly indicate they don't have them right NOW: (U.K. capabilities in this area," or the UCAV TDP). The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". This IS what reality is, the number of FILUR/DUC equivalent doesn't make any difference nor does their size. And this is NOT my staments but MoD/BAe themslef. Size doesn't matters only the content of technology does and it IS quiet clear that stuff like replica were already well underway in France when launched in Britain. Use of composite, design as well as construction methods were well developed previous to Mirage 2000. The fact that you don't know about it just shows how little interest you have on the subject but it's not all, i have doubts about the size of some parts of your anathomy as you seems to be only capable of understanding BIG size numbers etc. What matters is what is inside and how it is made not the size, this is calles expertise and an instable stealth UAV flying at Dassaut is just that not half way developed. (Have a good look at the Raven exhaust pipe clearly coming out of the fuselage, so much for IR reduction measures)... As for the technology demonstrator BAe are asking from MoD since 12 years, guess WHY they need it??? "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". Nice pictures. Now go and learn you shit fat boy.

Au sujet des ecoulements autour des entree d'air sur Rafale. Jakonico repete toujours les meme "paterns"; apres s'etre fait moucher il recupere la face en racontant n'importe quoi sur le meme sujet un peu plus tard: Example. Le sujet des entree d'air du Typhoon (representant un danger pour le fonctionement des moteurs) est le dernier que j'ai attaque (Literalement avant de me faire jeter du Forum) apres avoir poste les preuve indeniables qu'ils racontaient des conneries (Il y avait pas moins de trois journos Anglais present sur ce topic a un moment). Eux pretendaient que le raport officiel disait que les moteurs s'etaient eteint a cause du FADEC, alors qu'en fait la faute atribuee au FADEC n'a fait qu'empecher les pilotes de les ralumer. La coupure est intervenue apres que l'un des moteurs ai ete mis au ralenti tandis que l'autre tournais normalement et n'a jamais recu d'explication officielle. Dassault avaient rejete la formule des entree d'air cote a cote sur la base du risque de polution aerodynamique par echange de pression dans les entree d'air dans le cas de la coupure d'un des moteurs. Les entree d'air du Rafale sont une evolution de celles des Mirages 2000 et 4000, au niveau dessin, elle ont tourne vers l'interieur a <> 45*, et etaient deja plus inclinee sur le 4000 que sur le 2000 ou elle etaient verticales comme sur la serie III/50. Durant les essais du 4000, a l'aproche de M 1.6 les pressions enregistree etaient plutot surpenenante. Les souris etaient sensee tenir leur role dans tout le domaine de vol mais perdaient de leur efficacitee a cette vitesse jusqu'a <> m 1.8; l'avion continuait tout de meme a accelerer et les moteurs a fonctioner normalement??? Le resulats des recherches sur ces phenomenes ont montre que le cone du radar du 4000, etant tres proheminant, creait une zone dedepression juste devant les entree d'air, phenomene qui par ailleur s'apparentait a la loi des aires (taille de guepe ou bouteille de coke). Ce qui revient a dire que l'avion pouvait voler a M 2.0 sans souris puisqu'elle ne servaient plus a rien jusqu'a cette vitesse. C'est donc ce qui a conduit au dessin "un choc" des entree d'air du Rafale et m'a mis sur la voie de ses capacitees a voler a M 2.0. A titre de comparaison: Le f-16 ne possede plus que 25% de la poussee totale de son moteur a M 1.8 a cause de son entree d'air fixe (Un choc). En sur-regime il peut ateindre M 2.0 mais on se retrouve avec une sculture moderne a la place du moulin avant d'ateindre la base. Le dessin du nez du Rafale et de la zone de recession lui succedant permet de retader cette surpression des aubes de turbine et de permetre a l'avion de voler a M 2.0 avec une entree d'air fixe. Au sujet de Jackonico: c seven a parfaitement raison. Le probleme de ce journo, c'est qu'ils est completement incompetent et ne comprends souvent que la moitie de ce qu'il ecrit quand aux autres ils entrtetiennent leur harems de groupies en les alimentant de leur propre complexe de supoeriorite. Au sujet des bidons sur le Rafale M: Comme le fait remarquer DEFFA il y a un probleme et de garde au sol limite (Le M s'enfonce plus sur ses trains et ca peut jouer sur les charges et leur garde au sol) mais aussi d'encombrement a cause du train avant. Ca n'a pas grand chose a voir avec le MTOW car ils peuvent decoler avec des bidons vide etre ravitailles plus tard et toujours emporter des charges lourdes... La Marine Nationale semble avoir une preference pour une configuration plus legere composee de 2 ou 3 X 1.250l qui etaient jusqu'a recement les seuls a etre valides pour M 1.6. C'est plus pour des raisons de commoditee qu'autre chose car en fait en configuration Nounou le M vole avec 2 X 2000 L et lew biberon en position ventrale. J'ai personellement jamais vu un M avec un 2000 L sous le ventre. Les 2000 l 'ont ete valides pour voler a M 1.6 l'an dernier ce qui veut dire que toute ces conneries au sujet des ecoulement laminaires sont juste ca, des conneries. Moi ca me gonfle de lire des trucs comme ca, le Typhoon a plein de probleme, le Gripen en a eu aussi, le F-22 n'arrete pas de se crasher et de tous, le Rafale est le seul a ne pas avoir souffert de crash du a des fautes technique. Ca vous dis quoi tout ca??? Meme les avions les plus simples sont sujet a des lois compliquees et incontournables, quand on essaie de les ignorer ca donne 2 EuroCrepe tres chere et des fois c'est meme tragique, ca tue. Que ce soit au sujet Rafale ou typhoon Jacko est un cretin complet, qui ne connait meme pas l'histoire politico-indutrielle du Typhoon et ne peut en decrire l'aerodynamique que par copy/paste du genre qu'on voit sur le WAAF. Quand ses pote de Pprune lui disent qu'ils volent sur Typhoon en demo de salon, tout en validant mes remarques sur le sujet (en particulier les FCS et l'instabilite) il ne peut toujours pas en tenir compte vu qu'ils n'en comprends meme pas l'importance. Si ils s'etaient loupes chez Dassault, Rafale ne pourait meme pas ateindre M 1.8 quand a ses pilotes ils le qualifient d'avion exeptionel ni plus ni moins. Ca veut dire que Jackonico continue a denigrer Rafale sans en comprendre les grande lignes ni aerodynamique ni au niveau de l'instabilitee et des problemes que le melange des deux pose au Typhoon et ce fesant, attribue tous ces problemes au Rafale de facon chronique. Il faut quand meme tirer notre chapeau a Dassault pour avoir reussi ce tour de bras qui consiste a un sans faute competitif face aux Yanks et a l'Europe aerospaciale... Maintenent T Mor tu peut lui mordre le nez avec des arguements de poid, le jour ou il dira la verite les rues de Londres seront pavees d'or au lieu de merde de chien. >>>>> Pour dceux qui nous bassinent avec les ingredient de l'Eurofoufoune, comparez les R/P/P des deux et meditez sur l'etat de developement de la version plus puissante de l'EJ-200. (??? des infos vous en avez souvent???). M 88 Length 3m.538 EJ200 Length 4m.000 M 88 Diameter 696mm EJ200 Diameter 850mm M 88 weight 897 Kg EJ200 weight 990 Kg M 88 Dry Thrust 45kN EJ200 Dry Thrust 60kN M 88 with Reheat 75kN EJ200 with Reheat 90kN M 88 By-Pass Ratio 0.3:1 EJ200 By-Pass Ratio 0.4:1 M 88 Total Pressure ratio 24.5:1 EJ200 Total Pressure ratio 25:1 M 88 Air mass flow, 65 kg/s EJ200 Air mass flow, 77 kg/s En gros: EJ-200 est plus de 46 CM plus LONG. EJ-200 est plus de 15 CM plus LARGE (diametre). EJ-200 est plus de 93 K plus LOURD.

Le systeme a deja ete develope mais Typhoon semble soufrir d'un manque chronique de developement. De plus les avantages du TVC ne sont pas evident et les inconvenient plutot remarqables: Augmentation du cout, des heures d'entretiens, des risque de pannes, de la vulnarabilite au feu adverse, du poid et de la complexite de l'essemble etc. Ho j'alais oublier le principal: Presque impossibilite de limiter la signature IR... C'est deja notable entre le M-88 et le EJ-200 d'origine... Que j'aime ta verdu-reu.. (Sur l'air de mon beau sapin)...

"Also I agree you don't have to have stealth and autonomy in the same UAV but seeing that Saab is responsible for autonomy on Neuron I wonder if Dassault is doing anything in this regard." Sorry say AGAIN? The proof is there that you start by writing WHATEVER and think last (if ever). NEURON have always been intended to be remote controled not autonomous. "I wonder if Dassault is doing anything in this regard" Do that mean that you actualy can engage into the process of thinking? Must be painful. They are (for the thoudand time) developing remote controling of UCAVs from Rafale back seats. No fuss simply a lot more expertise needed than whatever BAe can throw at it. "Also I agree you don't have to have stealth and autonomy in the same UAV" And AGAIN a good demonstration of total ignorance of the subject. X-45 demonstrated the opposite and is NOT and UAV but an UCAV. TITS Putain, c'est Eurodysney ici ou quoi? http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/627/neuronworkshare6ol.jpg

Rob "No. I'm talking of Raven. Corax does not have as much stealth as Raven because Corax is designed for an other mission. [also note that BAe hasn't said a lot about any of these UAVs yet and they didn't say: "Corax is not stealth" they just didn't mention the word stealth in the one sentence they said about Corax). " No i'm talking about YOU saying what Mod Doesn't SAY for obvious reasons ; you know zero on aerospacial matters and can't even comprehend what stealth mean: Shape material and AND structural you dig? What you show us my friend have flown as early as 2002 in France the second DUC was ALSOan instable platform and this is obviously exactly WHAT i was saying. The UK is YEARS late in stealth UAV/UCAVs developement. Note that for the technical reasons i have given above neither MoD nor AE are claiming ANY of these to be stealth. http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4981/moyenduc5xg.jpg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Where the money did GO: "Some 100 companies have been working on FOAS feasability by mid-1999. A third-phase study was launched that year; comceipt phase was then due to end in Marsh 2001 with 'initial' gate 1 decision to proceed to assesment phase. Force mix between different systems (if more than one solution chosen, as appeared likely in 1999) will be decided for selection of a solution in about 2010. By late 1999, French companies were working on joint studies with UK, while Germany was showing interest in joining. IOC, originally due in 2015, and since moved to 2020 following the decision not to include Harrier GR. Mk7 replacement in FOAS, If only a crewed aircraft is selected. The RAF requierement would be for approximatimately 200." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>WHAT BAE SAID about a TDP: 1994 "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"." 2004 "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." Last year at Farborough Airshow, BAe were still trying to get the procurement agency onboard their own programmes, after TEN years of trying HARD. They're still waiting, but we didn't have to wait too long for MoD to step on the US J-UCAV programme. >>>>> "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions".>>>>> "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions".>>>>> "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions".>>>>> "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions".>>>>> "safeguard [bAe] design expertise in the run-up to decisions"... Looks like even the nEURON partners agreed with this statment from BAe. >>>>> 2004 "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." The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". Since WHEN did they say they didn't NEED a flying aircraft NOD? Since when did they say they didn't need to master the stealth issue"??? The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 >>>>> (Le Bourget, June 16, 2003) - Following the French authorities decision about future combat drones, Mr. Charles Edelstenne, Chairman and CEO of Dassault Aviation, said: ' We have acknowledged with satisfaction the French authorities decision to designate Dassault Aviation as prime contractor of a UCAV demonstrator prototype. The know-how gained by our company during the last 50 years allow us to fulfill this central role in this new field of world aerospace. ' UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles) are designed to perform combat missions over hostile zones, a role in which automatic systems allow to reduce aircrew casualty risks. 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. The Chairmand CEO of Dassault Aviation also underlined that ' within the frame of this programme, Dassault Aviation will associate all its French and European partners, thereby contributing with them to the future building of defence aerospace in Europe '. >>>>> This (below) is what BAe is tasked with on the F-35 programme. NOT airframe/stealth/design atg all... The company is responsible for the F-35 JSF’s Electronic Warfare (EW) systems suite and provides advanced, affordable, low observable apertures and countermeasure systems. It also supplies the vehicle management computer, the communication, navigation and identification (CNI) modules, active stick and throttle and the EOTS laser subsystem. The system design & development (SDD) phase is estimated to be worth $2.4 billion to BAE Systems in the UK and a further $750 million to BAE Systems North America. Production could be worth $16.5 billion to BAE Systems UK, and a further $4.5 billion in the U.S. These figures do not include export sales, support or other opportunities such as upgrade programs. Did any "projects" go through all these steps so far in the UK? Answer: NO. Air density, airspeed, Mach, dynamic pressure, structural loads. Did BAe design any part of F-35 according to these design criterias (Jane's aerospace industry dictionary)? NO. Requiers: Wing tunnel testing and validation by test-flight full scale (Or scaled-downed like the actual flying European UCAV are) real article. "together these cover every combination of air density, airspeed, Mach, dynamic pressure, structural loads (including free or accelerated take-off and normal, or arrested landing) and systems demands aircraft can encounter." >>>>> "MoD officials are clearly indicating the prefered TWO (2) ways, the collaboration with the US or the collaboration with the EUs. So no UK only venture there simply because the UK with a <> £18 billion budget hole cannot afford it, also, the researches in question were done over two years ago for the EUs and twice this long at least for the US.. If this is not enough.... "With UK calls for increased access to sensitive technology on the JSF having been repeatedly knocked back by the USA, BAE Systems chief executive Mike Turner says the MoD has within the last six months begun to review its attitude to bilateral co-operation on future activities in areas such as unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) development. The government could decide against US or national programmes, so there could be potential for European collaboration,” says Turner. “There is a huge lobby now within the MoD to go more European [and] I think we would be welcomed.” >>>>> Other Aerospace Developments In December 2004 Aviation Week & Space Technology it was revealed that the UK had been developing stealth technologies for manned and unmanned aircraft, this work primarily focused on visual and IR signatures. It is known that the project was/is jointly funded by both BAE Systems and the MoD for at least £9m/ $17m/ €13m (24). Aircraft Research Association Ltd has also been known to be involved in developing UCAV configurations (25). >>>>> More dramatically, BAE also recently conducted its first fully autonomous mission using a jet-powered UCAV-type demonstrator dubbed Corax (pictured below). Flown for the first time during 2004, the high-speed design uses a shrouded, above-fuselage engine and has an extended wing with moving control surfaces. BAE refers to the experimental design as “a highly survivable, strategic UAV system” employing “flexible and modular advanced flight-control systems." CRAIG HOYLE/LONDON Flight International >>>>> http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2004/07/20/184476/BAE+pushes+UK+on+UCAV+initiative.html 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 >>>>> "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." >>>>> a) My point were: There was NO such thing but: Studies and researches as was done by SAAB and Dassault before they commited to the nEURON programme. NO Stealth/UCAV TDP programmes. "The document flushes out previously classified unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) research, committing the ministry to launch a full-scale technology demonstrator next year. The UCAV effort is a key element of the approach to air systems enshrined in the policy paper (see www.mod.uk). " >>>>> -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"." This is BAe own statments not their little fantasist interpretation of reality. 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. >>>>> DATE:21/06/05 SOURCE:Flight International UK rethinks Tornado replacemen “The government could decide against US or national programmes, so there could be potential for European collaboration,” says Turner. “There is a huge lobby now within the MoD to go more European [and] I think we would be welcomed.” "A UCAV technology demonstrator was also a key recommendation of the government and industry Aerospace Innovation Growth Team. Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area, it will also provide potential leverage on the U.S. The U.K. is participating in the U.S. Joint Unmanned Combat Air System. "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," This clearly indicate they don't have them right NOW: (U.K. capabilities in this area," or the UCAV TDP). >>>>> AIR SECTOR BAE Systems and the MoD intend to work together to explore how a long-term partnership arrangement for the through-life availability of a significant proportion of the fixed-wing fleet might be delivered. It was acknowledged that Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs) and Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) will play a significant role in the future force mix and BAE Systems will work to secure an agreement in January with the UK MoD. The MoD intends to invest in a new technology demonstration programme in this key area and the company already has significant skills and experience in this domain. It successfully achieved the first fully autonomous mission of an unmanned aircraft in UK airspace, on 18 August 2005. http://www.baesystems.com/dis/index.htm BAe Official version. Where does it says stelth? As fo the way themself and MoD classified it it IS: Stealthy. Not stealth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> French aerospace moves up into second place France confirmed its position as the world's second-largest manufacturer of aerospace equipment behind the US in 2004 by achieving record sales of EUR28.4 billion ($36.3 billion), despite a dip in revenue from military goods. [Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com – 8 April 2005] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now here we can SEE clearly your complexion glowing RED hot. Dassault are Number ONE in the Eus SAAB Number TWO BAe ... Well a little bit behind. "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". question Rob L: WAS this TDP lauched during the past two month??? "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue". "Not only will it serve to develop U.K. capabilities in this area," The emphasis for this TDP, at the core of which would be a manned flying test-bed, "because of the need to master the stealth issue".

Ahem, si j'en crois un des pilotes de routine d'air show sur Typhoon, l'avion est tellement instable que la plupart du temps les canards sont orientes en pique pour contrer son niveau d'instabilite. Alors on peut peut etre assister a une premiere mondiale: La capacitee porteur des canards sur un avion instable. J'ai pas encore cogite ca mais c'est interessant comme theorie... Ce dont tu parles en fait c'est le concept aplique sur le X-31 et il etait d'ailleur prevu d'equiper typhoon de TVC des le depart. Le demonstrateur EJ-200 equipe de TVC aurait du voler des 2002... De toute facon le probleme de la navalisation du Typhoon est le dessin de base. Aerodynamique comme structurel.

faltenin a écrit: !Les journalistes spécialisé devraient être encore davantage en mesure de le faire puisqu'ils sont issus du milieu et ont une vraie culture opérationnelle et accès à des sources que nous n'avons pas.! Dans le genre assumption; de quel journos parles tu? Depuis que je suis arrive au royaume uni en 1991 je n'ai pas lu beaucoup d'articles signes d'auteurs Anglo-americains qui savent de quoi ils parlent quand il s'agit de materiel et doctrine d'utilisation Francaise. Resultat: Au kosovo, les Mirage 2000Ds et le SEM se sont payes la part du lion dans les score de precision LGB. Devancant TOUS les autre participant y compris les US; je crois qu'en France meme si il y a des trucs qui vont moins bien que d'autre, les militaires savent aprendre leur lecons surtout dans l'AdA....

No i'm not i'm replying to an intelligent being, trying this with you is like feeding pigs with Russian Caviar, unapreciated anyway. I let you veting your pants over BAe superiority over Dassault . Poor boy. Keep at it you're a good laugh. Bye. http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8016/baeexpertise011sv.jpg http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6539/200506janesf35design7fl.jpg http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3133/ukshareless1ss.jpg des liens interessant pour ceux qui ont envie de s'instruire.

Mo il me prend la tete a raconter le contraire de ce que les haut responsable de British Aerospace disent. Remarque c'est la preuve qu'il en a bein besoin si cetait vrai il n'aurait pas besoin de le rabacher ca se saurrait. Jusqu'a present il s'en tennait au WAAF mais la ca ressemble de plus en plus a de la provo... Tu y crois toi a une aile droite stealth? Meme les Ricains ont pas ose... Enfin de toute facon je crois que les Francais sont pas aussi cons qu'il ne le pense...

no my friend STEALTH is STILL a SKILL BAe and MOD agree they need to ACQUIER through the UK's UCAV TDP. Still to be launced and it is NOW very clear what your problem IS. Let's see: Which company actually managed to down a US F-22 by designing some hardware for it? BAe. Which one can't get Nimropd wings properly together BAe Which one Have designed the Harrier II rear fuselage cracking mid- life BAe Which one have done the same for the Tornado F-3 Central pluig same problems? BAe Ex[pertise by Rob L. You're really believe everyone this side of the pound is as drunk-borned as you guys don't you? Try this on someone else my friend.

Janes compiled books are actually quiet different from articles in case you didn't know (and you didn't actually as you probabilly NEVER saw a book did you?) Stealth needs proper design both in shape and structure, Corax or Raven didn'y make the grade, the next TDP is designed to do just that. But since you can't stand the idea of Dassault being main architect and lead design on the first European UCAV programme you're ready to invent/distort/interpret at will to make it look as it actually happen. Too bad i'm more informed than you are. As Mod and BAE says themself the UK UCAV TDP is designed to give BAe the design skills for designing a stealth UCAV, as for now they simply can't do it without it. But i suppose you won't stop pretending, tell me can you win a marathon but JUST doing your usual pub runs?

Mare WE know what UCAV means. Unhmaned Combat Vehicle. If the combat bit is not there you can call Jean-Pasul the pope himself it won't make any difference now get yourtself a carot diet pronto you'r loosing it. "LOL, so when was Dassault's first UAV with full autonomy? And regarding stealth it has produced more stealth UAVs than Dassault." they are working at something else no need for full authonomie here control from a Rafale back seat will suffice but it makes YOUR problem more obvious. Jealousy is a bitch ain't shee???

So if it is NOT combat capable... IT IS NOT an UCAV but an UAV, sowhy don't you ever bother to LEARN. Does it hurt so much when you think???? "Anyhow BAe has at least six U©AV demonstrators [that is of different designs] flying, I think one can say they are leading Europe at the moment. Don't you think?" No they don'y they are behing is stealth design as well as flight control. YOU see whn MoD says they need to develp stealth technology that both SAAB and Dassautl masetreed around 2002 this means 4 years behind...

Sorry my friend NOT UCAV But UAV. Now piss off. NOR MOD nor BAE doesn't classify them of Combat capable aircraft so it's simply UAV for you mate lie the Ducs. You see there is something VERY British i have to cope with every bloody day and which appears to affect even the press these days. Exageration. You know that i mean... You're the first at literally NOTHING so you have to pretend and this culture is quiet apperent to ALL foreigners living in the UK What these guys says i don't give a toss. The UCAV TDP is STILL to be launced period now try this one one someone your size (Brain that is...). AND this is NOT what i SAY but WHAT BAE Chaiman and MoD SAYS.... LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Truth is a word ABSENT from your vocabulary. First of all the UK BAE or else didn't design an UCAV yet, this TDP is STILL to be launced with for goal to develop the stealth design capabilities they don't posses YET. This is WHAT BAE and MOD are saying and if i have to dig the article where they make it clear, i will but you still are a LIAR and a total Mythomaniac. Not surprisingly after trying to "Britishise" Thales, invent this TDP programme for the whole of last year etc. Proven LIAR Rob L keep at it we're all laughing. Poor boy!!. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!! As for my post on Moyen Duc i like to give back some of your own medecine. Taking the piss mate. I had some fun...

"Changing the subject I see, well I pity you. You know very well that with the recent BAe UCAV demonstrators you've been proven wrong on everything you've said in this regard. It is simple: BAe has more, larger and it seems also more advanced UAVs flying at the moment." Sorry mate. NOT what i have SAID WHAT BAe and MoD said not your pitty interpretation of it. As for proving me wrong, you developed this psychose long ago we all can see this. Still inventing capabilities even as your officials say they don't have them yet???. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep your pitty for the like of yours you'll need it. AND WHAT UCAV??? You don't HAVE a UCAV my friend but a "stealthy" UAV as disribed by MoD and its makers. Poor boy.

Tu prefer la rubrique chien ecrases du style Jackonico? Tu dois vraiment te faire chier en ce moment....

Bob you can taqke anyone for a fool but you forget just one little THING: There are more REAL Air Force specialist in this forum than you even been across in all you liar's life. As for puting all you got including the kitchen sink into the stealth category it doesn't make it a reality. http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3133/ukshareless1ss.jpg Here is YOURS. The UK have NOW less developement and researches work in the JSF contract/programme as well as less capabilities in the aircraft than originally planned all for a very higher price. Source NAO. Get to grip with your sad reality.