It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Eurofighter, Saudi Arabia to buy

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:52 AM
Just to illustrate the point you have made longbow I looked up the following figures;

Endurance figures are as follows;

Tornado F.3 = 2hr CAP at up to 400nm from base inc. time for interception and 10 min for combat.

= 4hrs total flying time with 2x1500litre drop tanks and more than 5% internal fuel remaining.

Typhoon = Air defence with 3 hr CAP, 100nm. Air defence with 10 min loiter - 750nm

Rafale = operational loiter - up to 3hrs. A2A long range with 4 1500ltr tanks = 12,200nm.

It seems to me that the manufacturers have deliberately made it as difficult as possible to do a meaningful comparison as the sole figure that we can glean for more than one type is that both the Rafale and Typhoon can loiter for a max of 3hrs, possibly right over the airfieldin the case of Rafale as no distance figure is given.

The 12,000mile figure given is utterly meaningless as it says nothing about loiter time or even returning to base (ie see Tornado figures)

Likewise the Typhoon figures do not mention internal or external fuel so I don't really think much can be made of them as far as comparison goes.

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:07 AM
HAHAHA ... check this out >>

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:17 AM

Originally posted by waynos
"Dassault has grown out of slotted array pants years ago "
.. Dassault doesn't build radars anyway, ..

Dassualt dont build radars, but use them on their planes(i.e they wear pants), and they've grown out of slotted array radars (3 year old's small pants that the EF still uses

Next you simply list a load of equipment that the Rafale carries. ... Typhoon needs to be spread over four pages to contain all the information, long lists don't prove anything.

Did you even bother to check out the advancement of the Rafale's sensor suite and electronics ... the SPECTRA
is simply amazing to say the least.

And dont remind me of the EF's snazzy acronymed suite with nothing special compared to the Rafale ... PIRATE, DASS, AIS, CAPTOR, etc etc ....that make up the 4 pages.

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:37 AM
You haven't bothered to learn anything about these 'nothing special' features then have you so you can hardly accuse.

Like I said before that other sourse is rubbish because no professional source would ever use 'pants' anyway, it is far too childish.

No answers to the other points then? Keep swallowing the Rafale hype while dismissing the Typhoon hype as you always have my freind.

Nice video though, Typhoon meets Matrix

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:51 AM
Not that I want to bash the French too much, but SPECTRA seems as their another marketing trick for public... There here have been some plans for use radar to cancell enemy radar waves, but it's awfully complicated to exactly compute the intensity and direction of deflected radar waves (especially under changing weather conditions), not to mention that you must do it quickly enough to "cancel" the wave. And what if enemy keeps changing frequency like F-22 LPI Aesa? One mistake and you give enemy beautifull echo with your position. So I really don't believe SPECTRA can do the claimed things and customers (and they have much more info than I and You) surely don't believe it too, otherwise Rafale would be much more sucessfull.

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:39 AM
I'm still waiting to hear how it can be that when two aircraft are compared to each other it is the one with the higher number of sales that gets the term 'white elephant' applied to it and the one with the smaller fraction of the sales does not.

(......oh and using a comparison with the Rafale and it's upgraded with engines which are at least 2 years away and ignoring the imminent upgrades to the Typhoon is just plain dishonest, surely?)

[edit on 23-12-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
It is also interesting that these eurofighters to be sold to the Saudis will be taken out of the RAF's Eurofighter quota ...

Just FYI, there is nothing sinister in this, it is normal for the RAF to defer delivery of its aircraft to allow earlier delivery for exports, this same facility was offered to Singapore and was widely but wrongly reported as the RAF offering to sell its own aircraft or cut its order, both wrong. The RAF would simply take delivery at a later date, further spreading the cost.

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:52 PM
Do you think that this might explain the 'national' aspect to the Typhoons export sales Waynos?

Whilst I can see that the entire program and everybody will benefit in more general terms perhaps the individual nation getting another to put pen to paper is the one that stands to take up the option to get the bulk of any cost savings such deferment might produce?

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 05:48 PM
I have been told, and read elsewhere, that the partners divided the world up into 'spheres of influence' and the Middle East is BAE's zone, maybe the same arrangement would apply for whichever partner took the Order? ie delayed Luftwaffe deliveries to accomodate Austria perhaps?

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 06:41 PM
I didn't see any post on this thread with the definite numbers of Typhoons being sold - just approximations - so I thought I would provide you guys with that info.

The UK/Saudi Typhoon deal is worth an estimated 8 billion pounds which translates to about 13.9 billion US dollars.
The agreement is for 48 Eurofighter Typhoon jets, with an option for a further 24 for a total of 72.
This purchase is to replace their aging Tornadoes that BAE sold them as far back as 1985.

(various sources)

[edit on 12-23-2005 by intelgurl]

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 12:40 AM

Originally posted by waynos
You haven't bothered to learn anything about these 'nothing special' features then have you so you can hardly accuse.
Keep swallowing the Rafale hype while dismissing the Typhoon hype as you always have my freind.

Now, lets take a look at the sensors and countermeasures in the Eurofighter :

> IRST , FLIR (PIRATE) : The Rafale has it as well it (OSF)
> Identify Friend or Foe system : Rafale has it was well
> Radar Warning Receiver (or RWR) : Rafale has it was well
> Laser Warning Receiver (or LWR) : Rafale has it was well
> Missile Approach Warner : Rafale has it was well
> Chaff/Flares dispensers : Rafale has it was well
> ECM pod : Rafale has it was well
> Sensor fused managment (AIS) : Rafale has it as well

But the Eurofighter has no equivalent to the Rafale's Détection et Brouillage Electromagnétique (DBEM) system and active jamming.

Check this out :

The Rafale carries, for the first time in aviation history, an integrated electronic survival system named SPECTRA which features a software-based virtual stealth technology.

The DBEM can detect transmitters over the frequency range of 2-18 GHz, but this was increased to 2-40 GHz on the F2 standard. The system has a very high accuracy of up to one degree in azimuth. The DBEM automatically detects, classifies, and identifies emitters and inputs information about them into the computer.

The Spectra's active jamming subsystem uses phased-array antennas located at the roots of the canards. The antennas can produce a pencil beam compatible with the accuracy of the receiver system, concentrating power on the threat while minimizing the chances of detection. It also uses other low-probability-of-detection techniques, so the Rafale's electronic-countermeasures (ECM) capability is also compatible with its stealth requirements.

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:50 AM
but do you know this for a fact? I doubt it since the exact nature of the RAF sensor suite (the most sophisticated among the partners) is classified and all the published fits apply to general export availability, however the Saudi's have long had a 'special relationship' with BAE and the UK Govt so its possible (no more than that) that they have been briefed on, and selected, the full RAF spec, they did this with the Tornado, but I admit its just a guess that it may have happened here too.

But lets say you are right and only France has this particulart piece of kit, once again you are picking out something that Rafale has which Typhoon (maybe) hasn't, but all the things Typhoon has which Rafale hasn't you choose to ignore.

The Rafale is a fine aircraft, I've said myself on a number of threads where I feel the Rafale is a more logical choice than the Typhoon for certain air arms (even the Royal Navy don't forget!) so I have no axe to grind against it. You however repeatedly bash the Typhoon and do it by making irrelevant comparisons (ie new M.88 versus old EJ.200) or by selecting the odd bit of equipment here and there to try and prove your point. You come across as having an agenda, like maybe you are terrified of India buying it and scrapping the MCA or something, I don't understand how you can quote Dassault or French Govt press releases as gospel but dismiss Eurofighter partner information as being 'propaganda'. Can't you see that this is being selective and makes your comparisons hopelessly biased?

For instance one area I read that the Typhoon is better is its FBW system which allows carefree handling, whereas a slightly more basic system fitted to the Rafale does not.

There will always be odd areas that one plane excels over another but in the overall scheme of things Typhoon is a bit more advanced and a bit more capable than the Rafale, and is a bit more expensive too. Politics aside (which never happens in real life) the choice is simply whether you think you really need the extra capabilitythat tha Typhoon will bring with its higher price. Not everyone does and for them the Rafale would be better.

Why is it the Rafale has no export orders yet? I really don't know but to say that Saudi has chosen a less capable white elephant in the Typhoon is biased nonsense.

France certainly has the customer network to make sales, look how many countries bought various models of Mirage down the years, so what do you think the reason is? Because air forces want to buy expensive rubbish? Yeah, ok

[edit on 24-12-2005 by waynos]

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 05:23 AM

Originally posted by waynos
you are picking out something that Rafale has which Typhoon (maybe) hasn't, but all the things Typhoon has which Rafale hasn't you choose to ignore.

Other than a towed radar decoy of the RAF's EF (which Thales is still developing for the Rafale), please tell about what the Typhoon's got that the Rafale has not, Mr.Miller

For instance one area I read that the Typhoon is better is its FBW system which allows carefree handling, whereas a slightly more basic system fitted to the Rafale does not.

Yes that is correct. Eurofighter (like the LCA Tejas is i may add
)has a fully digital quadruplex fly by wire systems that gives them care free handleing. However your claim that the Rafale does not have care free handling is incorrect.

The Rafale has 3 out of its 4 FBW modules as digital. Only the backup module is analog (unlike the Gripen where one of the main modules is analog).

In short, although its FCS is less advanced - care free handling is not compromised.

Twelve countries have
been visited so far, with local air force pilots and officials performing
familiarization sorties, thanks to the quick-to-learn pilot interface,
carefree handling and inherent safety features. In all, the Rafale has
been put through its paces to date by 75 air force evaluator pilots
from outside France.


Typhoon is a bit more advanced and a bit more capable than the Rafale, and is a bit more expensive too.

Please elaborate ...

P.S : Even with the M88-2 the Rafale's T/W ratio is same as the Eurofighter's i.e 1.1 . When the M88-3 comes by surely the Rafale's will be better.

The internal fuel capacity and wing loading of the Rafale are greater than the Eurofighter.

[edit on 24-12-2005 by Stealth Spy]

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 05:39 AM
Mr Miller? Where did that come from? Unless you know I'm a Millers fan, but how would you

Anyway, I'm not the one slating the Rafale am I, it is a fine plane as I have often said. I clearly cannot argue against you when you are using false data , and again you mention the uprated M.88 but not the uprated EJ.200, so what is the point?

regarding the T/W ratio, according to the data supplied to Jan'es by the manufacturers themselves it is not the same, however keep believing the wikipedia (written by an anonymous contributor) data if you wish.

Therefore (from Jane's)

Typhoons max speed is M=2.0 compared to Rafales M=1.8
Typhoons normal ext load is 14,300lb compared to Rafale's 13,000lb.
Typhoon takes off in 985ft compared with Rafales 1,315ft.

I could go on but there are other comparisons I would like to make but cannot where manufacturers data is missing, for instance Dassault fails to include a 'time to height' figure in its data while the Typhoon is missing a 'max turn rate' in its own figures here, there are other examples.

However using this data (not projected future data for ONE of them as you like to do) the thrust to weight ratio is nowhere near the same.

The weights for the Rafale vary by variant but the middle figure is for the Rafale B at 23,038lb with a normal take off load of 13,000lb this gives it a weight of 36,038lb with a thrust of 21,900lb dry and 32,800lb reheat.

Typhoon weighs 24,500lb, plus a normal load of 14,300lb (more than Rafale notice!) giving a total of 38,800lb with a thrust of 26,890lb dry and 40,500lb reheat. Thus at the highest figures the Typhoon has a thrust excess over the Rafale of almost 8,000lb whilst weighing just 2,600lb more (including a greater payload!)

These are actual figures, not projections. You will of course refer to Rafale upgrades but do you imagine the Typhoon will not be also?
One other interesting aside, and this is taken yet again straight from Jane's, is that it gives the Rafale an AoA of 30 degrees, but also comments that the Typhoon "has demonstrated a 40 degree AoA as acheived by the Grumman X-29". So thats another plus then, but of course you know better than Jane's don't you.

Like I said, whats the point as we clearly dispute each others data so this argument will just go round in (even more) cirles forever.

Merry Christmas.

[edit on 24-12-2005 by waynos]

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 09:20 AM
hey stealth spy - if rafle is so good , why are India still building the LCA???

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Harlequin
if rafle is so good , why are India still building the LCA???

What is this nonsense again....i tried to ignore it the last time but why are you repeatedly posting this ?

Even the madrassa educated dont ask questions like this. Coming from a country with one of the best education system, and still asking stuff like this is scandalous !!

Anyway jokes apart, it appears to me you dont have a proper idea about the LCA and the class of airplanes that it fits into.

The LCA is a 8 tonne class multirole airplane that does not have the range and payload capacity as the Rafale/Eurofighter/F-15 class airplanes.

Now compare the Tejas' stats to that of the Rafale :

Span = 8.2 m
Length = 13.2 m
Height = 4.4 m
Empty Weight = 5500 kg
Max take off weight = 12,500+ kg

Here is the Tejas in a nutshell :

Type > Single-seat light weight all-weather multi-role air superiority Fighter

Aerodynamics > Tail-less Compound delta planform with relaxed static stability

Powerplant >One Kaveri turbofan engine of 81kN thrust with FADEC (TVC planned and in development)
Prototypes and LSP's use F-404's

Airframe > Materials include Aluminium - Lithium alloys , Titanium alloy and Carbon compositites. Composities for wing (skin , spars and ribs ) fuselage (doors and skins), elevons, fin, rudder, airbrakes and landing gear doors. More than 45% of the total materials used are composites (arguably the highest for any airplane till date)

Sensors > Multimode pulse Doppler with multitarget search, track-while-scan and ground mapping. Also included are Radar Warning Receiver, Laser Warning Receiver, Missile Approach Warner, new generation IRST, Lightening Laser Designation Pod, Friend/Foe identification system, Tarang HADF/SIVA pod.

Cockpit > Glass cockpit with two Multi Function Displays, Head-Up Display , Multi Function Keyboard and Get-You-Home Panel , Hands on Throttle and Stick (HOTAS)

Avionics > Configured around three MIL-STD-1553B digital data buses, 32 - bit mission computer with software written using ADA language, 32-bit Mission Computer (MC) (which performs mission oriented computations, flight management, reconfiguration / redundancy management and in-flight system self-tests). Accurate navigation and guidance is realised through RLG based Inertial Navigation System (INS) with provision for INS / Global Positioning System (GPS) integration, Jam resistant radio commumication system with advanced Electronic Warfare (EW) environment. In the EW suite, Electromagnetic and Electroptic receivers and jammers provide the necessary "soft-kill" capability, Integrated Digital Avionics Suite (characterised by its interface with all other aircraft systems such as Utility Systems Management System (USMS), Proplsion System, Electrical System and Flight control System) 8kb/second datalink, Full Glass cockpit

Flight Controls > Quadruplex Digital Fly-by-wire flight control system that provides carefree handling.
The digital FBW system of the LCA is built around a quadruplex redundant architecture to give it a fail op-fail op-fail safe capability. It employs a powerful Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) comprising four computing channels, each powered by an independent power supply and all housed in a single line replaceable unit (LRU). The system is designed to meet a probability of loss of control of better than 1x10-7 per flight hour. The DFCC channels are built around 32-bit microprocessors and use a safe subset of Ada language for the implementation of software. The DFCC receives signals from quad rate, acceleration sensors, pilot control stick, rudder pedal, triplex air data system, dual air flow angle sensors, etc. The DFCC channels excite and control the elevon, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like multifunction displays through MIL-STD-1553B avionics bus and RS 422 serial link.

External Stores > Seven stations for a wide range of air-to-air missiles,anti-ship missiles, unguided rockets, conventional / retarded bombs. Provision for Drop tanks , Recce Pods, EW and other sensor pods.

Stealth Features > More than 90% of the LCA's wings and an even greater percent of its tailplane, etc is made of composites which are inherently stealthier than metal. Y-shaped air inlet ducts hide the engine blades. Its very small size and simple tail-less delta winged configuration ensure a very low RCS. Further Radar absorbent maiertials will be coated on the exterior. Infact the DRDO has publically stated that its RCS (when untreated with RAM) less than 1/3rd that of Mirage-2000's.

Unit Cost > 21 million $

[edit on 24-12-2005 by Stealth Spy]

posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 09:26 AM
Some things to keep in mind.

1 battery SAM Site: 20-60 million each.

1 airframe: 30-80 million each (note that 'flyaway' does NOT include the initial spares layup or weapons package which themselves constitute only a fraction of 'COO' or 'TLCC' Cost Of Ownership, Total Life Cycle Costs).

As long as you can trade 1:1 or at most 2:1 (because the guidance mode on the SAM only supports single airframe targeting with a pair of missiles) your SEAD effort can usually saturate the defenses simply by having every raid on a primary target become and instant Iron Hand operation when the threat is encountered.

This is typical for instance of the Wild Weasel concept of Vietnam wherein you had 4 million dollar F-4's going up against RFCG SA-2 and 3.

BUT the simplest way to counter this is with numbers and the use of alternate emitter schemes based around divisional radars and gap fillers which track the inbound raid from a considerable distance behind the defensve barrier and then CUE IT INTO OPERATION as or even after the inbounds have passed by.

In this you create a so-called '7-11 effect'. i.e. 1 threat at 7 'o'clock behind you. 1 at 11 o'clock in front. So that no matter which way you break you are actually helping the lead-collision variables of one missile trajectory out.

To which I would add that the SA-2 had and still has an effective minimum ceiling of around 1,500ft. But again, as long ago as 1968, the Viets were both lobbing them ballistically based on terrain chokes and a Ding Hao (human observer) network system with doppler cued proximity fuzes. And using _EOCG_ to track the target optically while the missile beacon was easy to see on own-radar. At altitudes typical for avoiding the trashfire, these methods alone will defeat any non-stealh system 'frontal ALO' capabilities with shots on the order of 25-30km (15-17nm) in clear weather.

I would add that the only reason the Euros went with the canard layout was because they were expecting U.S. to do so in the ATF. This thanks to a clever combination of wording inherent to "Evolutionary, not Revolutionary" (F-15 level performance in an F/A-18 package) and concept artwork which showed an F-22 body, absent the empennage, with fixed (ala Kfir C2) canardlets at a ridiculous position on the forebody.

For /any/ LO intended mission, and quite a few supersonic ones (wherein the foreplanes usually lock down) forward aerocontrols are a disaster in sinature engineering 'best reserved for someone else's airplane'. You could hear the collective THUD of jaw-drop carpet impacts from the last public ATF briefing when Lockheed announced that in 1986. Followed by a second impact of butts sliding off chairs when the Northrop official stood up and similarly followed up with "Hear! Hear!".

The only thing worse that variable incidence aero surfaces flapping in the breeze on a 'PLO' (Partial Low Observables) jet are external loads. Because both in direct Mie speculars (pylon, rail and munition create /multiple/ corner reflector 'spikes') and in the sneakier Surface and Creeping wave 'fuzz' elements, you are just plain screwed for modeling useful return return suppression off anything external.


To which I would add that the modern medium/longrange S2A missiles now are either TVM/Timeshare SARH or in fact ARH which means that whether you are dealing with telephone pole class systems like the S-300 or the ground launch AMRAAM and Adder and MICA, you not only risk being hit from any aspect in truly /effectively/ networked IADS. But also in multiples.

What this means is that whether you are trying to dazzle individual emitters with a funky-a$$ flashlight (the Italian 'Crosseye' jammer fitment to the Eurofighter uses exactly the same polarizing phase jam signal as the Rafale Spectra claimes to btw.). Or drawing a tail in the hopes that the sharks will leap at the Turd instead of the Target, you will most likely DIE, badly, when it's no longer 1-2 missiles per single target. But as many as 24 vs. 4.

Which also puts the kaibosh on the Rafale 'cellular' (yes, we did that too with tacair in Vietnam and it made formation responses /terribly/ unwieldy when MiG-17/19 came flashing through, cannons ablaze) fourship EW amplification effect.

It is additionally worth stating that ground emitters were among the first to go AESA thanks to ease of scaling difficulties btw. so /far/ from being some kinf of parabollic rotating anachronism they are just as likely to be flat-panel electronic scanners themeselves,

What this means is that, using in-array scan bias' (multiple pencil beams) you can fool or saturate a threat EW system with left:right/up:down polarization and dwell bias'. As well as some nifty counter-synch phasing properties which _looks through the ghost_ like a pinhole card allowing you to see the moon past the corona of the sun in an eclipse as a function of popping the jammer spacing cardinals out from the edges of the target (RCS centroid.

This can largely defeat crosseye and crosspol jamming, even when the jammers are 'nose-on' pointed right at the correct radar, at least with any reasonable fighter-sized array.

It should also be noted that the technique simply _does not work_ on high-power, low band, (UHF) radars. Because they 'beconate' the entire airframe as a resonant dipole. And again, the size of the apertures does not allow for them to match even the wavelength, let alone ERPs of the ground unit.

Which leaves the Euros at the same place we were in the late 60's and early 70's. Standoff and Hardkill.

Standoff is great accept the question instantly becomes "Why put a 180nm weapon which itself costs 2 million each (Storm Shadow at the time the Germans backed out) on a 60 million dollar fighter, when you can put a 400-700nm range missile on a C-17 and roll it off the back ramp?!

Part of the answer is inherent to the MTCR and INF/CFE treaty conditions. But part is just plain stupidity. Because you can launch the cruise weapons below the horizon of ANY detection system (short of SATWACS or GWR) for about a 1/4 of the cost that it takes to launch and fuel a fighter sortie. Carrying 10 times as many shots per aircraft.

The hardkill option is simply one which France doesn't have a viable solution for at the present time. ARMAT is ancient history and STAR fell through. ARMIGER is a possibility but only to the extent that it is developed fully and _all_ the 'better bullets, not the gun' solutions which France at one time espoused have since been abandoned or lagged-out in development. Largely because they continue to hope to fund their own weapons devlopments through other people's pockets. Initial Damocles research being paid for via UAE Mirage 2000-09 upgrades. Others like the ANS/ANF and Excalibur have either gone the way of the dodo or been superceded by cheaper U.S. IAM mass production technologies.

AASM is a good weapon but it is expensive. Combining rocket propulsion (vice Diamond Back or Quick Shot glide kits) with a seeker to aid in terminal homing once the shakey-ride is over. It is however /far/ too slow to attac Mach 4-5 S2A threats and it's 60km downrange option is also somewhat pathetic (once you're within 30nm of any known EOB threat or primary target, you are 100+km beyond the point of route-variable indecision by which a look-back defense is going to put snakes in the ground track of an inbound raid package).

Comparitively, the Brit's ALARM Is a fair (heavy but with decent seeker and RHAWS integration) ARM but one which foolishly put emphasis on the 'stick around and they'll come back up' ideal of a paraloiter and bunt reacceleration secondary blip motor. A better idea is the use of on-board alternative seeker modes and GPS enhanced 'footprinting' to keep the weapon within a specific target corridor in an RF dense signals environment. And despite an initial lead in the Brsimstone system seeker metric, they don't have that technology base locked down. We do. In Quickbolt/HARM-VI and (rampower) HSAD/HSARM.

Meanwhile, they are even worse off when it comes to the ability to deliver munitions other than Paveway from a reasonable /terminal/ standoff (TIALD, even in it's blk.2 standard is not as good a set of optics and dewar as even LITENING is) so they face threats from the VSHORADS on up as they run a designation wheel within 8-15km of the aimpoint.

The Germans may actually have the best of both worlds when and if they stop kicking a dead horse in the ECR and start fast tracking both the AASM and Armiger on their own Flubbers.

Which just reinforces my own view that "It's not the rifle but ammunition and the scope..."

Something which may itself get a kick in the nuts when DEWS come online in 2015 or so and we have all these 5-10 year old jets suddenly vulnerable, not to the complexities of radar driven weapons systems. But a simple rangetracking camera hooked up to a COIL or diode driven weapon that can burst the 10-20 mill thick skins on a wing tank in less than a second before flash vaporizing the airframe attached there too.

Mind you, OUR systems will still work. Because we synergized Supercruise (doubled glide standoff and twice the sortie rate:radius numbers) with /true/ (revolutionary, not evolutionary) VLO commitment. And sufficient micromunition + guidance/targeting options to continue to make the fixed wing system more appealing than the missile.

But even we will be increasingly looking to cease the futility of LOMD arrogance inherent to 'fighter' performance numerics. For replacement by platforms whose optical as well as RF invisibility is tied to endurance, not agility.

Don't get seen. Don't get shot. (Smaller is better than 'agiler'.)

Can't kill a target you aren't there to see. (Station Loiter and Absolute Radius are /everything/.)

He who can afford to lose the most, wins. (Robots can't die.)

Three phrases to design an airforce by. The ones you folks are bandying about are just old news based on largely false premises to begin with.


posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 12:24 PM

I would add that the only reason the Euros went with the canard layout was because they were expecting U.S. to do so in the ATF.

Sometines i wonder if these posts are serious, but then I see something that howls 'post modern irony' and I can relax and have a good laugh

posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 12:38 PM
Stealth Spy - once i see my persistance has paid off
and you fell for it

i know the rafale is in a different `class` to the Teja - the MCA as an example - maybe that should be scrapped for the Rafale , since Rafale is soooo good, and can be bought now and not in 2020.

Waynos - i allways thought that one of the key features of the ALARM was it *remembered* the location of the transmitter and could attack it anyway?

[edit on 25-12-2005 by Harlequin]

posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 02:29 PM
That is one of its tricks, as is the loiter facility that CH1466 readily dismisses.

Haven't you worked out yet that Ch1466 is a genius and the entire defence industry of the world is controlled by gimps?


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in