News of further Anglo/French cooperation

Profile picture for user mrmalaya

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 4,619

Well there is another summit between the two countries happening today at RAF Brize Norton, and we are expecting news of UCAVs, helicopter launched ASM production and other UAV type news. Here is an article to kick things off with a view to news appearing when it happens: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=feature&prod=151202&cat=5 Interesting to read that the UK is borrowing wheeled armoured vehicles from France as well as juggling A400M production slots with France so it can get 2 into service sooner than planned.
Original post

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 6,467

I can hardly wait.
Profile picture for user Rii

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 3,381

Concorde it ain't.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 265

Shamelessly stolen from Milphotos. http://i61.tinypic.com/e621r6.jpg http://i59.tinypic.com/9t2ujp.jpg

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 265

Another one... http://i62.tinypic.com/k55yr5.jpg
Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 13,434

...Interesting to read that the UK is borrowing wheeled armoured vehicles from France ....
Yeah - after dropping out of the Boxer because we decided such a vehicle wasn't needed, then changing our minds again & evaluating Boxer, VBCI & Piranha 5, then kicking it into the long grass again, having spent a few hundred million & not bought anything . . . . Frankly, I don't care very much which we get. I'm damned sure that if we'd stuck with Boxer we'd now have an excellent vehicle, but if we'd bought either of the others we'd also have something good & useful. All I ask is that we don't waste a fortune on repeated evaluations, cancellations, re-evaluations, then spending three times as much as we need to by turning a supposedly OTS product into something customised beyond recognition & built in a specially built factory in tiny numbers because that's all we can afford after spending most of the budget on the procurement process, extra development & the pointless factory stuck in whatever constituency the govt. wants to curry favour in.
Profile picture for user mrmalaya

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 4,619

Fresh from Flight Global: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dassault-and-bae-systems-welcome-anglo-french-ucav-pact-395445/ Well no real detail other than its now moved to a 2 year feasibility study and that they are sticking with the conceptual artwork we have had for the past 2 years.... @swerve, I assume you can apply those gripes to any UK defence project including this one potentially. As to smart comments about Concorde, this is far more important than Concorde. Get this one wrong and the whole fast jet sector is up the swanny..... That is true for both countries, whether the more conservative sections of their societies like it or not.

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 6,467

Re 6 Spot on !

Member for

7 years 8 months

Posts: 4,165

Another artwork seen at Le Bourget... for mrmalaya [ATTACH=CONFIG]225091[/ATTACH]
Attachment Size
IMG_8095.JPG 123.48 KB

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 2,114

What is the (new?) UCAV called if i may ask, it's not Taranis and it's not Neuron. Thanks. PS: It's FCAS DPPP right?

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 5,831

Shamelessly stolen from Milphotos. http://i61.tinypic.com/e621r6.jpg http://i59.tinypic.com/9t2ujp.jpg
Much better (even both officials are impressively marking an acute sens of defense objectives - again). The greater aspect ratio wing, less sweep, more flatter extrados (and boosted boundary layer perhaps), negative diedra reflecting a concern for roll rate and a confidence regarding split flaps usage. What it lacks IMOHO: more pointy tips reflecting an increased plasma usage, more speed (but I guess that the turbofan (high bypass) is a choice dictated by a need for an increased range. But Mach 0.6.... It's a huge time regarding ToT.
Profile picture for user mrmalaya

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 4,619

Well to my highly trained eye, the model on display at the conference looks like they have reimagined an Avenger. A slow UAV won't come close to filling any future requirements let alone be able to work effectively with Typhoon and Rafale or the F35. So for this reason I think it is as someone (Amiga500?) said in an earlier thread about this artwork: they have taken the front of Taranis and stuck it on the back of Neuron. If the UK still wont talk about what is going on with Taranis, I think the chances of this model being representative of their current thinking is quite slim. @Halloweene isn't that just an old Dassault design model?

Member for

7 years 8 months

Posts: 4,165

Of course it is slim, they are just starting phase 2 (feasability studies)....
Profile picture for user mrmalaya

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 4,619

Indeed. As someone who is not in the industry I have struggled with some of the terms used (they all seem to be another way of saying "marking time until we work out what we want to do"). What does a feasibility study do that is different to a risk reduction effort? Was the past year or more just seeing if the two projects could work if merged and the upcoming study is now to do with seeing what is possible? You can see why I am a little confused I hope?

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 5,831

[...] If the UK still wont talk about what is going on with Taranis, I think the chances of this model being representative of their current thinking is quite slim.
I am not sure that Taranis is a success regarding the configuration chosen. This one looks better. My own personal view of course.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 69

I'd expect the final product to be an EJ200 powered supercruiser. The Ardour version might do for bomb trucking later in a successful air campaign.

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 5,831

Outsourced from the article linked by Tango: SIPRI Top 100 Defense Companies Data – 2012 The ranking is followed by sales in 2012 and 2011 1. Lockheed Martin, US, $36bn, $36.27bn 2. Boeing, US, $27.6bn, $30.56bn 3. BAE Systems, UK, $26.85bn, $29.16bn 4. Raytheon, US, $22.5bn, $22.9bn 5. General Dynamics, US, $20.94bn, $23.33bn 6. Northtrop, US, $19.40bn, $23.34bn 7. EADS, Trans Europe, $15.40bn, $16.40bn 8. United Technologies, US, $13.46bn, $11.64bn 9. Finmeccanica, Italy, $12.53bn, $14.57bn 10. L-3 Communications, US, $10.84bn, $12.52bn 11. BAE Systems Inc, US, $10.37bn, $13.56bn 12. Thales, France, $8.88bn, $9.48bn 13. SAIC, US, $7.82bn, $7.94bn 14. Hungington Ingalls, US, $6.44bn, $6.38bn 15. Almaz-Antel, Russia, $5.51bn, $3.86bn 16. Safran, France, $5.30bn, $5.24bn 17. Honeywell, US, $5.11bn, $5.28bn 18. Rolls Royce, UK, $5.01bn, $4.73bn 19. Sikorsky, US, $4.51bn, $4.97bn (United Technologies) 20. United Aircraft, Russia, $$4.44, bn$4.40bn 21. General Electric, US, $4.1bn, $4.1bn 22. Oshkosh Truck, US, $3.95, bn$4.37bn 23. MBDA, Trans Europe, $3.86bn, $4.17bn (Finmeccanica/ BAE Systems/ EADS) 24. ITT Exelis, US, $3.80bn, $4.15bn 25. Pratt & Whitney, US, $3.72bn, $3.00bn
Profile picture for user giganick1

Member for

10 years 2 months

Posts: 387

Add them together and BAE is the biggest (Excluding MBDA)

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 1,642

What is the (new?) UCAV called if i may ask, it's not Taranis and it's not Neuron. Thanks. PS: It's FCAS DPPP right?
They should call it Jaguar 2.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 265

Well to my highly trained eye, the model on display at the conference looks like they have reimagined an Avenger. A slow UAV won't come close to filling any future requirements let alone be able to work effectively with Typhoon and Rafale or the F35. So for this reason I think it is as someone (Amiga500?) said in an earlier thread about this artwork: they have taken the front of Taranis and stuck it on the back of Neuron. If the UK still wont talk about what is going on with Taranis, I think the chances of this model being representative of their current thinking is quite slim. @Halloweene isn't that just an old Dassault design model?
Ironically enough next week's "Flight international" is supposed to have an update on Taranis....

Member for

10 years 7 months

Posts: 840

What does a feasibility study do that is different to a risk reduction effort?
Uneducated guess: the latter was about bringing technologies to higher maturity levels. The former is about making plans about which high or near-high maturity technologies to actually utilize and what possible combinations of them could be made a final product. In all likelyhood, with rough budget estimates along with development risk profiles for the different options. One was just about pushing the technological frontier, not directly worried about how to fit into a specific program with specific capability requirements and "fixed" (:very_drunk:) budget, the other exactly focused to that aim. The most latest program will be crucial in establishing what exact requirements to attach to the final program. :very_drunk: