Fonck Posté(e) le 1 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 1 mars 2006 "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 Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Invité Rob Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Fonky, why so aggressive. :?: Look here. Why don't you come up with the detailed information on the UAVs Dassault has already built?Then we can comepare. I like the video I must say, though someone sometime ago said it might be a fake. Anyhow if corax was in that video it would have a similar wingspan to the Rafale. 8) You really have to stop thinking just because MoD don't say anything about Raven that you can interprete whatever you want. BAe briefed the press on February 16th, after that all press magazines [Janes, AW&ST, Flight etc...] came up with stories about stealth U©AVs BTW what BAe said about Corax is that it is a highly survivable strategic UAV. Now how does a UAV survive? With stealth? Yes hit the nail on the head. :D NEURON have always been intended to be remote controled not autonomous. WRONG! "It will also be completely autonomous" Source: http://www.saabgroup.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2006/important_player_in_neuron.htm 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. lol, BAe has flown several fully autonomous UAVs, they are, to use a word you like, lightyears ahead of Dassault in this regard, or why is Saab having to do the autonomy on Neuron? X-45 demonstrated the opposite and is NOT and UAV but an UCAV Of course you can have both in one UAV, like X45 or BAe Raven. saab for example has autonomy in Sharc and then stealth and autonomy in Filur. 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). So what is Dassault doing in regard to visual stealth? You're posting what BAe is doing but really I haven't heard of Dassault trying to make aircraft as large as a Hawk invisible for the naked eye. (BAe Project Chameleon) "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," Yes it will enhance the UK's capabilities in building UCAVs. Neuron has exactly the same task for the participants. "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." Yes, Raven etc... were company funded. Instead of trying to make BAe look bad, why don't you show us all of the great stealth projects Dassault has made? Where are their visual stealth projects, their IR stealth projects, their RCS reduction projects? Your opinion that Dassault is more advanced than BAe must surely be based on the knowledge of all these huge multi-million Euro programmes? Because BAe has these projects, they had several RCS reduction projects (Replica, Nightjar I and Nightjar II) and IR/Visual (Chameleon). Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Invité Rob Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 I'll post what BAe has done over the years, for purposes of comparison I'd like someone French to post what Dassault has done: 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 2) BAe Chameleon Project Cost of programme: at least 9 Million Pounds [13 Million Euros] Description: 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 3) Nightjar I and Nightjar II Cost of programme: Not known Description: Other key technology demonstration efforts related to the UK’s possible future operation of UCAVs include the MoD’s until recently classified project Nightjar. Source: Flight International 4) SUAV (E) Cost of programme: Apparently 70 Million Pounds from 2005-2009 Description: SUAVE, however, will add the final dimension to the 'force-mix' - placing a UAV and unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) capability at the centre of a gap that cannot be filled by manned combat aircraft and cruise missiles. Source:http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw050615_1_n.shtml 5) Herti 1A Cost of programme: Not known Description: Herti 1A is a company-funded fully autonomous tactical UAV with an endurance of 30h and a likely range of 3000kms. It is driven by a BMW engine or newer versions are driven by a Rotax engine for increased performance. Four Herti 1As have been built so far with another six to be built in 2006. BAe wants to market these UAVs to potential customers this year already. Weight: 450kgs with a 150kg payload. Wingspan: 12.6 metres 6) Herti 1D Cost of programme: Not known Description: Herti 1D is a jet powered fully autonomous tactical UAV. BAe has decided not to go further with this UAV as they think Herti 1A is better suited for the market. Weight: 350kg Wingspan: 8 Metres Source: Flight International 7) Kestrel Cost of programme: Not known Description: Kestrel is an unstable design powered by two jet engines. It 's design is a blended wing body. First flight was in 2003. Weight: 140 kgs Wingspan: 5.5 Metres Source: flight International 8] Raven Cost: Not known Description: Raven is a finless stealth UAV, being representative of a sixth generation aircraft according to BAe's Andy Wilson. In the media it has been often called a stealth UCAV, a description which can't be proven right nor wrong at the moment. What is know is that two of these UAVs have been built and the first flight was in December 2003. Asecond Raven had it's first flight in November 2004. Both were flight tested in secrecy in Australia's Woomera range. Weight: Not known Wingspan: Not known Source: Flight International 9) Corax Cost: Not known Description: Based on the composite fuselage of the Raven design it has very large wings and is described by BAe as a "highly survivable strategic UAV". Publications such as Janes and Flight International also say that it is a stealth UAV. Weight: Not known Wingspan: More than 10 Metres Source: Flight International; AW&ST [the links/articles are all posted here on this forum in this thread] 10) Eclipse Cost: Not known Description: According to BAe it was the first flapless aircraft ever to fly. It was developed in the Flaviir programme [funding of 6.2 Million Pounds - 9.3 Million Euros] which is a joint research effort between BAe and 10 UK Universities. Weight: Not known Wingspan: about 2.5 Metres Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Fonck Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 "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. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Invité Rob Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 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. 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. To MASTER stealth technology they need a TDP which haven't been launched YET.Please show me the quote where BAe says the new TDP will be for stealth research. 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.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.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]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.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. 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. 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.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... You mean those with the FINS? lol"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"."Just shortly afterwards they got Replica, a project which developed their stealth technology."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".You are lying to everyone on this forum, you intentionally mix a statement from 1994 [the second one] with one from 2005 [the first].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. Eurofighter also uses composites. You don't really want to tell me that Dassault built airframes using laser technology [to have accurate fits, laser tech was used in Replica construction and in JSF construction] in the 70s? If France built stealth airframes before 1994 and you're so sure of it then post the projects. You can't? Now why am I not surprised? Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Fonck Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 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 Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Fonck Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 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. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
TMor Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 On a retrouvé Fonck et NungesserC !!! :lol: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006100195,00.html EXCLUSIVE Eurofighter 'terror target' Target ... Eurofighter Typhoon By GUY PATRICK and TOM REILLY COPS have launched a major inquiry amid fears that Britain’s new £50million Eurofighter has become a target for terrorists. Special Branch officers swooped after book pages in ARABIC and a pair of BOLT CUTTERS were found close to the plant where the warplane is built. The Eurofighter can fly “swing role” missions, switching between air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks. Single-seater jet flies at up to 1,225mph. It carries 14,330lb of armaments, including short and medium-range missiles, plus a cannon, bombs and rockets. A member of the public raised the alarm when an empty boat was seen floating on a river adjacent to the BAE Systems factory. It contained the bolt cutters. A makeshift campsite was then discovered on the river bank. Police were drafted in and a search uncovered the Arabic pages. Anti-terror officers were alerted and searched for more clues on marshland around the aerospace site. Locals said two tents had been put up on land alongside the Eurofighter Typhoon factory in Warton, Lancs — an area where camping is forbidden. But the tents had been removed before the anti-terror police arrived. Last night a source at the factory, which employs 10,000 people, said: “It sounds like something straight out of a thriller. It’s very bizarre and pretty worrying.” A Lancashire Police spokesman said: “Inquiries are ongoing to establish the circumstances surrounding the incident.” SAS hero and Sun security adviser Andy McNab said last night: “For terrorists who want to cause as much embarrassment to our armed forces as possible the Typhoon is a cream target. “The PR value of bringing down one of these would be huge. It would be a massive coup.” Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Invité Rob Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 The quote you are repeating over and over again is from 1994 since then they have done extensive stealth work [Replica]. The new TDP will be a full scale UCAV. It will develop the UK's capabilities in this area [uCAV area]. Stop lying to the whole forum. Rafale have a much lower RCS than Typhoon because when designe as well as M-88 Stealth technology was applied/implkementesd to the desired extend. A lot MORE so than into Eurofighter/EJ-200 design. Can Rafale become invisible? This is what Chameleon has apparently done with a BAe Hawk. So not olny are ONERA/SNECMA/THALES/Dassault mastering stealth they also applied it to Rafale too. If that is your definition of stealth then I pity you. If everything France has done in stealth has been incorporated in Rafale as you say then I see the need for Saab doing a lot of the design. 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 svcan, mailny a study of materrial and construction merthods. And it looks like it. Oh what a witty reply. where does it SAYS Autonomous operation developement??? I posted the link from Saabs website. "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 hilarious. One quote is from 1994 and one from 2005. The one quote is about stealth and the other actually talks about UCAV capability, not stealth. You're a lyer and a spin doctor. Also I note that you can't come up with any Dassault programs except the ill fated and not too advanced Ducs. Furthermore you have been absolutely inable to show any stealth work done by Dassault. Though that makes sense because I was wondering why they really desperately need Saab on Neuron. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Fonck Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 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". Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Invité Rob Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 That quote is from 1994. Since then they had numerous programmes. What did Dassault do in the meantime? Relying on Saab for autonomy and much of the Neuron design I assume. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Invité Rob Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 "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 What do you think visible stealth means? BAe is trying to make aircraft invisible utilizing LEDs. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Invité Rob Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 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. I note that you were inable to prove that Dassault had done anything important except the Ducs. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Fonck Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 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... Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Invité Rob Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 "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). My last post: YES IT INDICATES THAT AT THE MOMENT BAe DON'T HAVE UCAV TECHNOLOGY; HOWEVER THEY DO HAVE STEALTH; YOUR READING COMPREHENSION IS AT THE LEVEL OF A 5 YEAR OLD. You cannot however mix a statement from 1994 with one from 2005, that is insane. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Fonck Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 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. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Can you stop please? You are 2 great children who fight to know who has the great dick. Ras le bol de vos interminables débat en anglais sans fin avec un manque total de respect. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Sidelfi Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Laissseezzz-mooii tout vous expliquer: mon chien est stealth la nuit, comme tout les chiens. Une croquette dans chaque narine, et hop, plus de dégagement thermique. Pssssiiiitt! Il est Stealllthhh. :mrgreen: Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Fonck Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Ras le bol de ce mec qui pretend mieux savoir qhe le Chaiman de BAe et son propre ministere de la defense.. Merci. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Invité Rob Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Sure whatever Fonky............. :rolleyes: Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Fonck Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 2 mars 2006 Whatever THEY say i post the days they say otherwise than this is will for instance and the time being: Citation: "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). Copy? Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
TMor Posté(e) le 3 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 3 mars 2006 Youp désolé Rob, si mon anglais est un peu approximatif. En FR : http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5416/ovnidansleciel2jx.png Allez, vite, je sors. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Invité Rob Posté(e) le 3 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 3 mars 2006 Now that is good humour! Thanks for sharing!!! :D :lol: 8) Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
TMor Posté(e) le 3 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 3 mars 2006 Mes talents s'exporte alors !!! :lol: Merci Rob -thank you Rob- ;) Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
cvs Posté(e) le 3 mars 2006 Share Posté(e) le 3 mars 2006 Excellent TMor. Un peu d'humour ça fait du bien le matin. Citer Lien vers le commentaire Partager sur d’autres sites More sharing options...
Messages recommandés
Rejoindre la conversation
Vous pouvez publier maintenant et vous inscrire plus tard. Si vous avez un compte, connectez-vous maintenant pour publier avec votre compte.