RM-Nod

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. Yeah but Fonk, the senate report says the Moyen Duc “appeared” in 2001 and the video does not say what aircraft it shows. However numerous sources say that the Moyen Duc was launched as a programme in 2001, that first flight was planned as being for 2003 and then 2004 and that the Moyen Duc was to be a catapult launched vehicle with no landing which the aircraft in the video (both of them) is not. So which is more likely, the Senate report using the word appeared to mean that the project was launched in 2001 or that every source that has ever mentioned the MD is wrong? 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 Seriously, when it comes to powers of deduction you are no Sherlock Holmes. 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, I think he’s right and that is what is happening. That doesn’t mean the UK is in a worse position than Dassault, it means that they want to remain competitive which is entirely sensible. 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. 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. 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. As for all the “I know more than you” crap I won’t rise to that so you can pack it in now. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? Oh and it’s interesting to see that you’re starting to delete entire posts now. It’s pathetic if you ask me, why can’t you just debate it like a normal person without the ego or childish “twist and spin” whinging or editing your posts after people have replied? You’re nearly 50 years old! Edit - Since you've decided to spam WAFF I'm stepping down from this one rather than spoil two forums. I don't think anyone is going to be convinced to change there minds anyway. I hope you'll end your tedious campaign and perhaps learn to accept when people disagree with you.

lol I just put it through a French to English translator, it isn't brilliant is it :D I guess you’ll just have to make do with my promise to stay in this thread only. Sorry :) Fonk, it's relevant if you can prove it to be so. You only brought up three recent cases in which there were actual design problems and made up at least one. Of those three one was to do with BAE's Submarine Systems which are totally separate to there air systems. At the same time you're refusing to recognise the facts that there are hundreds of other projects that are underway or complete that have gone very well, BAE is successfully getting contracts from everywhere in the world despite there supposed incompetence and that there Military Autonomous Systems (Air) sector is a separate entity to those you’ve brought up. If you can prove that that everything they touch goes to pot then fine but such a limited list of examples spanning over 20 years does not do that. I’m sure I could to dig around and find a few problems that Dassault has encountered but to be honest I can’t be bothered.

Sorry TMor, like I said I can't speak much French but I can stick it through a translator if you'd like but you'd end up with stuff like this... Je ne suis pas sûr que vous signifiez, les problèmes que vous avez amené affectent chaque compagnie et il n'y a pas vraiment de la preuve qu'ils a affectée diplôme niversitaire dans telle une façon défavorable comme vous suggérez, au moins pas à mon avis. LES diplôme niversitaire que lui-même fait généralement bien, dans quelques-uns reconnaît il y a eu des problèmes qui d'habitude en bas aux mauvaises décisions faites pendant que concourant pour le contrat (citant trop bas un prix par exemple) ou par l'intervention du MoD, pas à tout moment mais dans beaucoup de cas. Que j'essaie-t-il de dire est qu'ils ne sont pas indicatifs d'un problème large de diffusion dans les Systèmes de diplôme niversitaire. Is that any good?

I’m not sure what you mean, the problems you brought affect every company and there’s not really any evidence that they have affected BAE in such an adverse way as you suggest, at least not in my opinion. BAE itself generally does well, in some cases there have been problems which usually down to bad decisions made while competing for the contract (quoting too low a price for example) or through interference from the MoD, not all the time but in many cases. What I’m trying to say is that they’re not indicative of a wide spread problem within BAE Systems. But in the context of this debate these past problems like the MRA4 are of little relevance to BAE’s Military Autonomous Systems (Air) which are separate entities and that’s the point I’ve been trying to make. On where there work comes from, the MoD doesn’t use BAE as much as would be thought, last year only 5% of MoD contracts went to BAE and these were worth £573m. Though it is the UK’s biggest defence company by far it is not relied upon for everything. BAE has a lot of activities abroad. It should also be said that the MoD is one of the most pro-competition customers in the world when it comes to defence (hopefully that is changing).

Don't worry I didn't take it as a flame, as long as its kept civil I don't mind. I wouldn't say BAE has never had internal problems but I think it's an exaggeration to say that they don't have the management skills to perform there job. Significant strides have been made in the past couple of years to improve the companies performance and it's doing very well now, not least thanks to there improved relationship with the MoD. As for successful projects, off the top of my head there's been the M777, Terrier, HALO, Hawk, GR9, T45, and LSDA. But these are the major public ones, there's a lot more that I don't even know about, they've got hundreds of contracts and if they were that bad they wouldn't be getting the contracts or making the money they do. The problems encountered are greatly and unfairly played up in my opinion.

I don't want to get into the subject as it's a long one and I'd prefer to keep things concise. But a lot of problems have been caused by mismanagement within the MoD, not just BAE and not all are relevant (Astute for example has nothing to do BAE's air sector) and not all brought up by Fonk are even real. It should also be noted that BAE is over five times bigger than Dassault with the number of projects reflecting that, it's only natural that there'd be more problems and for the few that have occurred there are many more that are doing well.

I agree but no one has gone that step further and integrated it all together yet. My point is that some specific technical capabilities can be demonstrated in isolation, it's not necessary to test a particular flight control system with an RCS reduced airframe for example. Integration is a necessary step but it can't be done without first developing the basics which is what the various companies have been doing over the past 10 years or so. Some bits and pieces have been stuck in the same demonstrators but no one has done everything in one vehicle and it isn’t very significant that they have. Neuron is taking the first steps towards integration but that's only just started. That's why I said Dassault has had the better long term plans. However it’s been confirmed that the MoD and BAE will be funding an integrated demonstrator as well. BAE has also been working in steps; Raven was first preceded by Kestrel for example. They’re not just building bits and pieces for the sake of it; there work has becoming increasingly more sophisticated as time has gone by.

So you mean you were purposefully posting irrelevant things? Why? On the video, the control methods and internal systems required for a tailless design like that are not too complicated or bulky to be implemented in an aircraft of around 2.5m wingspan and 60kg weight; you’re making that up. There are plenty of similar aircraft that are around the same size that either have the same control problems, the same internal space or both. Aircraft that come to mind include the X-36, SHARC, FILUR. Also will you explain why, if that aircraft is the Moyen Duc, why it has landing gear later in the video when the Moyen Duc was never to have landing gear at all? I don't see your point in posting all the pictures, they don't show anything that hasn't already been discussed beyond a couple of concepts which every company produces. As for whether you’re knowledgeable than I am, I prefer to let other people judge that. Edit - By the way, since you're into the habbit of posting things that have nothing to do with the topic "just to be informative" then can I ask how much of the rest of your posts are just there to be informative without making a point?

So why did you post a quote about BAE wanting a manned demonstrator in 1994? Twist and spin eh? ;) :rolleyes:

So Dassault had a manned demonstrator did it or was Jane's lying? If it's the first then please provide the evidence and if its the latter do you accept that your quote about BAE wanting a demonstrator is meaningless? Since we've come down to some fundamental disagreements and you're now just repeating yourself instead of actually discussing the issues perhaps its time to agree to disagree.

Work on Neuron didn’t start until last month though, money may have been committed in 2003 but the only work done was initial concept definition which BAE began in 1997 studying 30 + concepts under FOAS. 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. 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. 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. 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. Also when you’re testing materials, ground based demonstrators will do; 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). The fact is that both companies have developed EM, IR signature reduction technologies along with advance, novel aerodynamic configurations. 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. 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. You’re answer to this is that Dassault lied, does anyone here actually believe this do you think? 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. 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. 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. 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.

No it isn’t, the quote “because of the need to master the stealth issue” comes from the article “Future fighters battle industry” by Nick Cook which appeared in Jane’s International Defence Review on 6 July 2001 while the actual quote was from an unnamed source in 1994. Here’s is the full quote and a link to the source; http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/idr/idr010706_2_n.shtml No that quote was and is not from 2004/2005 nor is it from Mike Turner. Either it’s you who is lying or you just not paying attention to even your own posts. Which is it? On the IR issue since you posted the Senate report then I’ll accept that the AVE-D did demonstrate some IR reduction technologies, however I do still think that this is minimal and not necessarily any more significant than on Raven. For the sake of this discussion however I’ll leave that. As for the Rafale, yes it uses LO techniques and technologies but so does the Typhoon (yes I know you say that the Rafale has a 50% smaller RCS but you can’t back that up), neither aircraft take signature management to any great lengths like those seen to be required for UCAVs. Your knowledge on British and French projects dedicated to the area is incorrect, SUAV(E) is not comparable to Logiduc. SUAV(E) is a government initiative meant to develop the DPA’s knowledge in strategic UAVs so that they can make informed procurement decisions, as part of this they fund/jointly fund technology and CONOP work with UK industry (primarily BAE Systems), Logiduc was a three stage Dassault funded programme meant to develop the technologies required to produce a UCAV. The project that is directly related to Logiduc is an unnamed demonstration effort run by BAE Systems from 2001 to the present day which has so far produced the Kestrel, Raven and Corax. However these cannot be taken in isolation and SUAV(E) (and predecessors), Logiduc, Neuron and BAE’s spiral development programme need all to be taken into account. The quoted aim of SUAV(E) is also incorrect, the basic stated aim is “to establish the potential of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) in a variety of roles in the deep.” This includes the technologies related to UCAVs. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DPA/OurTeams/StrategicUnmannedAirVehiclesexperimentsuave.htm What you have quoted is just the examples of so called nugget technologies funded by the MoD stated by Douglass Barrie in the article “Tornado GR4 Will Fly With Active E-SCAN Radar” from AW&ST. http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/022006p2.xml On Moyen Duc, the report says appeared, it does not say flew. There are however sources that say the programme was launched in 2001 and others that say it was to fly in 2003, then 2004 as it was delayed. Given that no sources says it flew in 2001 and that a number of sources say it wasn’t to fly until 2004 the logical conclusion is that it did not fly in 2001. No it doesn’t, it clearly uses a mixture of faceting and blending just as the F22 and F35 do. That’s not strictly true, Raven did demonstrate both EM shaping and materials. However why is it necessary to demonstrate them all in a single platform? If you’re developing a prototype then it certainly is necessary but developing the base technologies does not require this. For example there is no evidence that the AVE-C used the same materials as the AVE-D in order to achieve a reduced RCS, why should it? The materials had already been qualified on the AVE-D. Similarly neither is known to have taken into account the integration of targeting sensors, or space for internal weapons carriage etc. Nor did they include autonomous operation. However there’s no need for everything to be integrated into a single platform for the purposes of technology development. You also seem to be making a big deal out of the fact that BAE did ground based work, why? Why is a technological capability developed using ground based demonstrators any less relevant than flying demonstrators? Actually the Nightjar aircraft are meant to develop airframe features, this includes developing stealth shapes but also takes into account aerodynamics et al. Huh? Raven and AVE-C share the same flight controls? I think you’ve muddled yourself up there. Or you could put it another way and just say BAE has more experience in the field which it does. How is it twisted? I gave you the link which comes from the same source as you have used with your “not only will it develop” quote. When you look at the areas of technology that are relevant and look at the two companies’ efforts to build up there experience in these areas you can clearly see that BAE has done more. BAE Systems - EM signature reduction – Replica, Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Raven IR signature reduction – Chameleon Visual signature reduction – Chameleon Novel aerodynamic configurations – Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Kestrel, Raven Autonomation – Raven Dassault - EM signature reduction – AVE-D IR signature reduction – AVE-D Visual signature reduction – Novel aerodynamic configurations – AVE-D, AVE-C Autonomation – BAE just has more experience in more areas which for some reason you are trying to make out to mean it isn’t as capable. That’s rubbish and I think any reasonable person, here, on WAFF or anywhere else would see that. You are getting far too bogged down in the word stealth which is only one area that these companies need to be proficient in.

I do not in any way imply that more than one flying UAV is a stealth platform; my position is that Raven is an RCS reduced aircraft, nothing more than that. BAE Systems designs aircraft using a paperless CAD process supplemented by SE testing. That’s the same way Dassault designs its aircraft. Also the only problems resulting from CAD software were to do with Astute and last time I checked that was a different unit in BAE Systems and the Astute isn’t much good in a dog fight. You’re also going over ground that’s already been covered. If you believe that BAE producing six UAV designs means that Dassault is ahead because they only produced two then surely you must concede that Alenia Aeronautica, EADS and Korean Aerospace are all ahead of Dassault. On that issue you also completely ignore the fact that only two of the UAVs produced were designed to develop specific UCAV related technology while the others were designed to develop HALE and MALE ISTAR UAV technology. So in actual fact BAE Systems has produced two UAVs that are directly comparable to the AVE vehicles but an additional 3/4 ISTAR UAVs (the number depending on whether you make the distinction between the BMW and Rotax powered HERTI-1As). On the issue of IR signature reduction methods I am not “bubling”; the pictures do not show how far the engines on Raven and AVE’s are recessed into the body. There is an exhaust pipe visible on the Raven but there is no way of telling whether that is the actual rear portion of the engine itself or just a metal shielding with which to safely direct the exhaust gasses without damaging the composite structure (you can’t have an engine inside an aircraft that just expulses gas into the body). There is also no evidence that any measures are taken to seriously reduce the infrared signatures of either aircraft. Fine if you can produce the document but the measures are minimal at best. It’s also a minor matter in the context of the wider discussion as BAE Systems has also demonstrated IR reduction technologies since the mid 1990s with Chameleon. Well if you remember the topic on WAFF (which you clearly don’t) the reason I mentioned the serrated edges in that picture was because you made a big thing about stealth aircraft having to have serrated edges, my picture was pointing out that the AVE-D is a stealth aircraft but didn’t have any serrated edges, my overall point was that they are not strictly necessary. Here’s the link; http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1137505512/ So in the future, if you’re going to try and make me look stupid, please at least try and do so using something that you didn’t come up with. Aside from the link I posted that clearly said “The tactical Moyen Duc … was launched in July 2001” or the more up to date one that “Moyen Duc is due to fly in late 2003”? Here’s the links, again; 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 Or perhaps this even more recent one from FI dated 2004 that says “The larger stealth tactical Moyen Duc is due to make its first flight later this year” http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2004/07/20/184979/Soaraway+snecma.html Or then again there’s this one from Boeing that says “The company is working on at least two unmanned concepts for the military: a stealth UCAV based on its Gran Duc design, and a reconnaissance unmanned air vehicle from its Moyen Duc project. Dassault expects the UCAV prototype to fly within the decade, while it has slated the UAV's first flight for 2004.” http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/october/i_iw3.html So yes there is evidence that Moyen Duc did not fly, let alone in 2001. So Dassault, BAE etc all lied to the media, for what purpose and what evidence is there to contradict the information these (well respected) sources relate? I never said they were but there is a lot more to unmanned combat aircraft than stealth. By your logic here you have totally contradicted your argument that Dassault’s passed work on the Rafale, Mirage and Falcon means anything, they weren’t steath so they don’t count. Fair enough if that’s your position. As for Raven every source states that the vehicle demonstrates signature management technology (not every technology but the Petit Duc doesn’t do that, the fact that its an RPV rather than an autonomous system proves that). Here are some quotes; http://air-defense.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=66780#66780 http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/BAE02166.xml Here’s another quote from one of the above articles that outlines BAE’s LO work, it’s mostly what I’ve already said but I get the feeling you don’t hold my opinion in very high regard. http://air-defense.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=66780#66780 So given that the respected sources say it demonstrates stealth technology, that it clearly shows features of an LO design and that no sources say it isn’t an LO design then what reason is there to believe that it isn’t an LO design? The process is not dramatically different but the thing they’re trying to design is. That is the point. Where did I say they were? I said that they were used to develop and demonstrate advanced novel configurations. Please don’t put words in my mouth. The quote I gave said that the second Petit Duc flew “at the beginning of June”, it was from an article dated 2003, why would they say “the beginning of June” and mean 2001? Yes there is, first of all the aircraft in the video from which you took that picture shows an aircraft with landing gear which Moyen Duc was never to have, second of all you told me that you emailed Dassault and they said that it was the Petit Duc C. So are you saying that Jane’s and BAE Systems are both lying when they say that Replica was designed to develop and prove low observable technologies and produce a stealth strike aircraft concept? Were one of the most respected sources on the subject and the manufacturers themselves lying? If so where is your evidence of this? By the way I’m not saying that materials and manufacturing techniques were not a subject of the project just that they were part of a greater design aim. So is the Typhoon but not to the degree of fully developed LO aircraft. What does it matter if they were conducted with ONERA or not? Also where did I say that any of the aircraft other than Raven could or should be considered stealthy? Dassault produced one, maybe two LO aircraft but other areas critical to UCAVs are neglected. In addition to flight demonstrations of RCS, visual and IR reduction technologies (not all on the UAVs by the way) BAE have also produced a number of ground based demonstrators, the oldest of which began five years before Dassault began work on any equivalent development campaign. These are already directly related to the technologies required for the design of unmanned combat air vehicles. Of course both companies have produced previous generation aircraft but these provide limited experience in the specific skills required. The rest of your post is a copy of an early one which I have already addressed. Also, you don’t have to reply to me if you don’t want to. Philippe, my apologies for posting in English, I wasn’t going to post but since a lot of the thread was already in English I thought I’d chip in. If of course the mods/admin doesn’t like me posting entirely in English then I’ll either stick it through a translator or I just won’t post. Don’t worry though I don’t intend to pollute any other threads!

The photos available of the Raven and AVE-C/D do not show to what degree both vehicles’ engines are recessed into the body of the aircraft. This, however, does make any difference to the fact that the hot gasses are being ejected without being cooled (at least not according to public information). On both aircraft the exhaust area is clearly visible from both above and below the aircraft, there is no evidence that the exhaust gases are mixed with ambient air, there is no evidence that they are dispersed after being ejected. It doesn’t matter whether you can see a pipe sticking out the back or not. The picture I posted included my own observations but it was not a con, it is an actual picture of the exhaust area of the AVE-D. There are a few mistakes in your post, the major being your suggestion that the Moyen Duc flew in 2001; the project’s development was started in 2001 but it never flew. http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_04/d1_miragep14.html Another related link from FI - http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2001/02/20/126308/Dassault+builds +unmanned+vehicle+strategy+on+Petit+Duc+combat+craft.html On the issue of when these aircraft flew, here’s a list with links to reputable sources; AVE-D – 18 July 2000 Kestrel – 2002 AVE-C – June 2003 Raven – 17 December 2003 http://www.dassault-aviation.com/defense/gb/uav/logiduc.cfm http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/022006p2.xml http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2003/06/24/Navigation/190/167785/France+ budgets+%24350m+for+UCAV+demonstrator.html http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/022006p2.xml I don’t think I’m going to dissuade you from your view that BAE doesn’t have any design skills at all as you are capable of listing the aircraft produced by both Dassault and BAE however I will point out that if this was the case then how did they produce HERTI-D, HERTI-1A, Corax, Raven and Kestrel? I will also repeat the fact that unmanned combat air vehicles are very different from previous generation aircraft and business jets. Designing an aircraft like the Mirage does not mean you are capable of designing a UCAV with which it has very little in common. Whether or not BAE has designed, wholly or partly, a supersonic aircraft makes no difference especially as all UCAV concepts are subsonic. BAE does have more experience in regard to RCS reduction (Replica, Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Raven), IR signature reduction (Chameleon), visual signature (Chameleon), advanced novel configurations (Nightjar I, Nightjar II, Kestrel, Raven, Corax) and autonomy (Raven, Corax, HERTI-D, HERTI-1A). BAE has experience in the last few years of every area of UCAV design, Dassault does not; there is also no source that states the AVE-C included signature reduction measures btw. As for those quotes, I’m not going over them again please look back at my previous posts.

Please show me the methods used by the AVE aircraft to reduce its IR signature. If you can’t then you haven’t a leg to stand on. Can you show how the AVE-D reduced its IR signature, there’s no evidence that it did. The second Petit Duc (AVE-C) flew in 2003, which was the same year as Raven flew; it was not a year before. Can you also prove that the picture I posted is a con; if you’re going to stoop that low then please have the evidence to back it up. Obviously but both companies have kept there design skills up, what matters though is developing them further and in that regard BAE Systems has done more and began doing so earlier than the available evidence suggests Dassault did. Edit - You know I've already addressed that quote, it was from 1994 and BAE got the TDP talked about in the form of Replica. Dassault also made a similar request to the French government but got nothing.

There’s a huge picture of Raven and AVE-D in my last post which shows that neither use any IR shielding. You can clearly see the exhaust on both of the pictures I posted and you can clearly see that neither aircraft take any major measures to reduce there IR signatures, please if you believe otherwise point out these measures on the pictures. As anyone can see you are incorrect to say that either use any great IR signature reduction measures. Yes it did Fonk; From the Jane’s Defence Industry article “UK stealth fighter project revealed” dated 2003; From the Jane’s article “BAE SYSTEMS AIR SYSTEMS - One-stop shopping” by Nick Cook dated 2004; From the April 2003 BAE Systems press release on the subject; Here is a picture of the aircraft mock-up (Inverted); It’s obvious that Replica/Testbed did exactly what I said; it was not just limited to materials and manufacturing. But how does designing a business jet or a fourth generation aircraft translate into a greater ability to design and build and LO, autonomous, tailless strike aircraft. UCAVs are a leap in terms of technology. Though that’s not to say that having a team that’s competent in terms of last/current generation technology won’t help but it’s not evidence that Dassault is ahead of anyone in regards to UCAV technology. Sorry but that makes no sense. Of it makes my case, you said that having supersonic aircraft in there portfolio is an advantage but it’s a fact that all current UCAV designs are subsonic so what has your statement got to do with anything? You’ve missed the point entirely; what I am saying is that designing the Falcon does not mean you can design a UCAV just like that. You need to build up the relevant skills base which is exactly why Dassault started the Logiduc project and why it is producing Neuron. In terms of experience in the relevant technologies, BAE Systems is ahead of Dassault, that is a clear fact. Also I don’t see what your onera link is meant to prove, there’s less than 100 words on stealth technology.

In terms of RCS reduction Raven demonstrates this adequately; while the exhaust shows no sign of an attempted IR signature reduction neither does the exhaust on the AVE aircraft. Both have simply vent the exhaust gases straight out the back with no evidence of any attempt to mix the gases with ambient air although both have some shielding from the side due to the sweep of the wings/control surfaces. ***Note that the AVE-D and C were powered by two AMT engines hence the two exhausts*** Clearly both do not take IR reduction to any great lengths. However BAE Systems has the Nightjar, Testbed and Chameleon projects that all developed and demonstrated next generation IR, visual and RCS signature reductions. There is no evidence that Dassault has done this. That is untrue in a number of ways; first of all in 1994 the MoD and BAE were not looking at UCAVs, they were looking towards manned aircraft. Second BAE was requesting a demonstrator to develop there signature management capabilities in 1994, this was given in the form of Replica/Testbed which did exactly that. A similar situation faced Dassault in 1997; at this time the company was trying to persuade the French government to fund a manned technology demonstrator programme intended to develop the company’s capability to supply a new strike aircraft (just as BAE was doing). It wanted to do this in partnership with BAE Systems; the TDP did not happen. This can be confirmed by the article “Dassault Needs BAE in on Stealthy Aircraft Project” by Nick Cook in Jane’s Defence Weekly in 1997. The following is a direct quote; Both companies requested manned technology demonstration programmes which they did not get and both went on to develop the skills in house. The difference is however that BAE at least got a ground based demonstrator while Dassautl got nothing, at least according to public information. You’re also bringing up the fact that BAE hasn’t, independently, produced a supersonic combat aircraft. I ask why that’s relevant. For a start every UCAV design concept ever produced has looked at subsonic aircraft. Similarly you have to explain why past design experience such as that which you bring up is relevant to this issue, obviously stuff like Petit Duc is but UCAVs are hugely different to past aircraft like the Rafale or Mirage. They require very different aerodynamic designs, very different flight control laws, different weapons/aircraft interaction, different FCS’, different materials, different manufacturing techniques etc etc. Now I have no doubt that past design experience on any aircraft will bode well but to say that Dassault is clearly better because it’s built supersonic aircraft or a business jet does not make much sense as the technology involved in those is not all that relevant to UCAVs. It’s akin to saying Embraer can build a fighter because it can build passenger aircraft and trainers, they’re just not the same thing. This quote keeps coming up but the meaning is being distorted; the term “to develop” in this context clearly means that a substantial TDP would increase the UK’s knowledge and skills base in the area. It does not mean that it will create them from scratch. I know that you won’t believe this so I’ve got a second quote from the same publication (Aviation Week) that says the exact same thing about Dassault and Neuron, ie it’s meant to develop there capability; http://www.aviationnow.com/shownews/05paris/aircraft17.htm By your definition this would mean that Europe (and by extension Dassault) has no capability in this area. That is not the case; your interpretation of that quote is incorrect.

Hi Fonk, thought I'd post here since you’re talking about WAFF and you didn't reply to me on there. I don't understand your argument that Dassault is clearly ahead of BAE because BAE “had to” produce six UAVs (there’s a slight problem with that figure IMHO btw) while Dassault only had to produce two. Surely if this argument could stand then you would also have to concede that there is evidence to suggest that Alenia Aeronautica or EADS is clearly ahead of Dassault since they only had to produce one vehicle while Dassault had to produce two or at an extreme Korean Aerospace is way ahead of them all because they haven’t had to produce anything but is still pursuing UCAVs. It just doesn’t work. On the issue of this six figure I think something must be cleared up; BAE has produced four different types of jet powered UAV plus two versions of a piston powered UAV. These break down into – • 1 x Kestrel gas turbine UAV • 2 x Raven gas turbine UAV • 1 x Corax gas turbine UAV • ? x HERTI-D gas turbine UAV • 2 x HERTI-1A piston UAV (w/ BMW engine) • 1-8 x HERTI-1A piston UAV (w/ Rotax engine) Kestrel and Raven are both related to UCAV technology with Raven being directly representative of a BAE UCAV concept, to please Fonk I will also say that all of these are NOT UCAVs but UAVs, they’re not combat capable aircraft. Corax is representative of a low observable, strategic HALE ISTAR URAV. All versions of HERTI are representative of, and the latter HERTI-1A is a prototype of, a strategic MALE ISTAR URAV. If we’re talking strictly of UCAV related systems then Kestrel and Raven are the only ones applicable while if we’re talking about UCAV related technologies (such as signature management techniques, technologies etc) then Corax could also be included. The HERTI air vehicles have little to do with UCAV technology though it could be argued that the ICE sensor package that they were tested with does as it allows the automatic recognition of targets and areas of interest, but that’s probably stretching it a bit for the purposes of this discussion. In terms of experience in the area of UCAV technology I think it’s a good idea to outline exactly what relevant experience each party has. BAE began work that was directly related to UCAVs in 1997 when the government formally began looking at the technology as a replacement for the Tornado (FOAS). Dassault began work in 1999 with Logiduc. The level of investment put into the area by the UK government amounts to around €60m between 1997 and 2005 (one third total investment in FOAS which considered three main areas, manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft and air launched cruise missiles). However this figure does not include investment made by industry. The level of investment made by the French government or Dassault is unknown, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more than the above €60m +. Both companies have produced demonstration hardware however; BAE Systems is known to have developed the ground based Nightjar I and Nightjar II which were designed to develop and demonstrate airframe features of future combat aircraft; this includes RCS testing, the programmes ran from 2000 to 2006. In 2001 BAE began its own UAV technology demonstration programme which resulted in the Kestrel and Raven vehicles (in addition to Corax, HERTI is a separate programme). Kestrel demonstrated advanced aerodynamics and materials; Raven was by far the most advanced and demonstrated signature management technologies, high degrees of manoeuvrability, the control of an advanced and highly unstable tailless design and complete mission autonomy. Dassault is known to have produced the AVE-D aircraft which was designed to demonstrate RCS reduction, and the AVE-C which was designed to demonstrate unstable yaw control. Long term Dassault has the better plan with a clear mandate to develop there current capability and produce Neuron, this is where Dassault currently has the edge over BAE however actual work on the UCAV has only just started last month while the UK MoD has committed itself to jointly funding a similar UCAV demonstrator with BAE Systems with an agreement to be signed and work to start sometime early this year (if it hasn’t already) meaning a real time Dassault lead of just a couple of months at most but of course some would say BAE already has a lead over Dassault in pure relevant technological terms so the advantage to Dassault would seem minimal, if not non-existent. While the above deals with just the technology that relates directly to unmanned combat systems there are of course cross over technologies. In this area BAE Systems also has quite a portfolio, previous to FOAS the MoD had instigated the FOA project aimed at developing a fifth generation strike aircraft to replace the Tornado. The major achievement of this work was Replica/Testbed which was a full scale mock up of a strike aircraft. The demonstrator was started in 1994 and was designed to develop and demonstrate a low observable aircraft with features of a real aircraft (provision for sensors, engines, cockpit, radar etc), advanced materials and advanced manufacturing. The project came to a successful conclusion in 1999 and achieved all goals in regard to RCS reduction, the design was also tested extensively in a synthetic environment. An unmanned version of the design was also studied. In addition to this the MoD or BAE also instigated the Chameleon project which resulted in the flight demonstration of advanced IR and visual signature reduction techniques/technologies in a surrogate Hawk aircraft; RCS and acoustic management systems may also have been tested. Though not publicly confirmed a similar test campaign may also have been conducted using a Tornado GR4. Corax is also another example of BAE demonstrating related technology. Other than work on the AVE-C and D there is no evidence of Dassault conducting a similar development and demonstration campaign. Of course both companies have worked on LO technologies for the Typhoon and Rafale projects. In addition BAE Systems Samlesbury is also manufacturing the aft fuselage and empennage of the F35 which includes LO materials. BAE also has recent experience in other pertinent technologies like internal carriage and release systems on the MRA4. Also of note is the BAE Systems FLAVIIR project aimed at developing novel aircraft control systems eliminating the need for conventional, moving aerodynamic control surfaces. Hardware has already been flight tested on three demonstrators, the latest being design and built wholly by the FLAVIIR team with the other two being based on COTS model aircraft. The advantage of the system being worked on is increased stealth, simplicity, ease of maintenance and as a result lower operational costs. I see that some are making the argument that BAE is just a rubbish company in general but of course one has to ask why it has such a large order book and you’d also have to show how problems faced by the MRA4 and Astute could directly lead to the conclusion that the BAE Systems Military Autonomous Systems (Air) unit is incompetent when the areas of BAE that are responsible for each programme are separate bodies. I also know that Dassault has said it has mastered stealth but there a few things that I think should be said about this; first of all what reason is there to believe that this statement means BAE has not done the same? Second why should this statement, that only really appears in Dassault public relations documents, be taken seriously? The major US primes like Lockheed Martin who have been developing actual real LO systems for much longer than Dassault do not claim that they have “mastered stealth” and continue to produce new demonstrators designed to develop there capability in this area. As an example Boeing revealed just four years ago that they had produced the Bird of Prey for this very reason. This area of technology, along with any other I can think of, is constantly evolving along with the threat so no one can have just simply “mastered” stealth especially not with a single 2m wingspan demonstrator that only managed to reduce its RCS by around 90% which sounds great but when you consider the RCS of aircraft like the F22 is publicly compared to a golf ball I believe. Personally I think this claim is nothing more than company propaganda, there’s no evidence of it having any real meaning. Over all I can’t see any reason to believe that Dassault is ahead of BAE Systems in UCAV technology. By the way sorry for the long English post, my French is literally non-existent so if I’ve missed some points brought up in French or if you reply to me in French please don’t be offended if I don’t reply, I just don’t have a clue what’s being said and Babel Fish ain’t much help! Cheers Mike