Continue from here

Lockheed Martin Details F-35 Fighter Delay

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp. plans to delay the first flight of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the biggest U.S. warplane program and a model of international cooperation, to August 2006 from the fall of 2005, the company said on Thursday.

Fleshing out details of the previously reported delay, Lockheed said the first flight, by a conventional takeoff and landing model, would benefit from design refinements being made on the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft.

"A slip in the JSF program is not news," said Thomas Jurkowsky, a spokesman in Bethesda, Maryland. The STOVL version, the one most overweight, is expected to fly in 2007, he said.

"We've established our own target weights and we're not where we want to be," said John Kent, a company spokesman in Fort Worth, Texas, where final F-35 assembly is to take place.

The Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board, a top-level panel convened to weigh major weapons purchases, met Thursday to consider the program's "replan strategy," said Cheryl Irwin, a Defense Department spokeswoman.

No details of any decisions by the Defense Acquisitions Board were made available.

Lockheed's biggest partners in the program are Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems Plc.

Kent said F-35 low-rate initial production, originally scheduled for 2006, would be delayed to 2007 under the revised plan.

Eight other countries have pledged to invest more than $4.5 billion in the F-35's development phase, which would be extended one year to 2013, he said.

The project involves three models of the aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, and the British Royal Navy, with 80 percent common parts.

As currently planned, the United States would spend an estimated $245 billion to develop and buy about 2,400 F-35s and support equipment by 2027. In addition, international sales of 2,000 to 3,500 aircraft have been projected.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5452311

Any intentions by MINDEF on this? Are we getting it? :P

F-35 In-Service Dates Slide
By Robert Wall
06/13/2004 08:29:39 PM

STRETCHED-OUT

Top Pentagon officials are about to consider a new course for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that includes delaying the fielding by two years.

The adjustments are merely the latest ripple stemming from the Pentagon's realization last year that the fighter is overweight. Managers have opted to spend more time and money early in the development program to tackle the weight problem which is impacting, in particular, the short takeoff and vertical landing (Stovl) version. Program officials had already delayed design reviews and indicated first flights of the various models would incur schedule slips.

The move will further complicate deliberations for British military planners at a time when they are reviewing which version of the multirole fighter to buy. If the U.K. bows out of the Stovl version, it would buy the carrier-based configuration instead.

The Pentagon's top acquisition panel is to convene as early as this week to discuss whether the new schedule is acceptable. The revised plan calls for the U.S. Marine Corps to remain the first to field the F-35. However, the in-service date is now projected to be 2012, rather than 2010. The U.S. Air Force's initial operational capability with the conventional takeoff and landing version (CTOL) has been delayed to 2013 from 2011.

The U.S. Navy's carrier-based model would reach service in 2013, a one-year delay rather than two. The original Navy schedule was not as aggressive as those of its sister services, so the effect of the delay is least on its version. Navy officials aren't overly concerned by the development. Since the F/A-18E/F production line is hot, the Navy can easily avoid operational shortfalls, notes Capt. David Philman, who oversees strike aircraft requirements for the Navy.

The British in-service date is still undefined, although it is likely to be in 2013 or later, according to a U.S. government schedule. The U.K. wanted to take delivery of JSFs as early as 2010, with an initial operational capability in 2012 concurrent with the fielding of the first of two new aircraft carriers.

First flight of the CTOL will now take place in late 2006, while the first Stovl model will fly in mid-2007, says John C. McKeown, JSF's technical director. Both of those aircraft will be in the original configuration and not feature some of the weight reduction measures being implemented for later models. The carrier version would fly in 2008, also a year later than planned.

Critical design review for the CTOL aircraft, the first to take place, is set for November 2005. The Stovl review will follow in mid-2006 and the carrier version in 2007. The start of low-rate production so far is holding steady and is slated for mid-2006.

McKeown told the American Helicopter Society that the government and Lockheed Martin have made great strides in recent months to reduce the F-35's weight to achieve range performance goals. However, he suggested that for the Stovl version--which last year was still 2,400 lb. overweight--more needs to be done since managers are taking a very conservative view as to weight savings. In fact, he indicated weight reductions alone won't achieve the desired results and that the services will likely have to trade off some JSF performance parameters.

Top level performance goals--such as a 450-naut.-mi. combat radius for the Marines with the ability to land on a ship while carrying two 1,000-lb. bombs and two AIM-120 missiles--are unlikely to be affected. However, smaller requirements could be adjusted. For instance, the wave-off flight pattern the U.K. uses is smaller than for U.S. carrier operations. Adhering to the U.K. standard would reduce fuel requirements when returning to the ship and save weight.

McKeown noted that managers are looking to performance trades because they want to avoid being overly aggressive in their on-aircraft weight reduction initiatives. There is concern that cutting too much weight could jeopardize the airframe's durability and drastically boost life-cycle costs. Similarly, the government so far is steering clear of pressuring engine makers Pratt & Whitney and General Electric to boost thrust to offset the higher weight, because such efforts curtail the life of the F135 and F136 powerplants. Engineers hope that installed engine weight will generate about 500 lb. of additional savings in areas such as the inlet.

Deciding on what weight savings to pursue hasn't always been easy. Some suggestions could have led to negative results in other areas, so managers are closely scrutinizing every measure before proceeding.

In terms of range performance, Mc- Keown said USAF and Navy aircraft pretty much meet their requirement. Developers also have brought the carrier version's maximum on-ship landing speed near the target of 145 kt. with more work being done. The Navy official notes that the projected approach speed is adequate and that the improvements being sought are intended to reduce strain on the airframe during landing.

The Stovl aircraft also can meet its range requirements, even with the added weight, but it can't do so when landing vertically, in zero wind and with the required "bring back"--weapons and fuel.

Although weight has received lots of attention, there are some long-term challenges managers are grappling with. For instance, McKeown said development of JSF's extensive prognostics and health management system could become a challenge to complete in time. Moreover, software is likely to be a hurdle, with 5-6 million lines of code on the aircraft and another 6-8 million lines for mission planning and other ground equipment directly related to the fighter. Coding of the initial aircraft flight software is ongoing, and first results should become available next year.

JSF program director USAF Maj. Gen. John Hudson also noted that there are continuing problems working international aspects of the program, such as sharing information on datalinks, logistics, and in the long-term software support arena.

In the coming months, designers also hope to set interoperability demands. Interoperability, the ability to share information with other systems, is one of JSF's key performance parameters. But there is a potentially large pitfall because not all the interoperability demands have been set, since some systems that will interface with JSF aren't fully defined. The challenge to developers is to devise a configuration that can accommodate those later, McKeown notes.

Douglas Barrie contributed to this report from London.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ws/06144wna.xml

Rafale Test Report 1999

Interesting article about the capabilities of the Rafale....

Southpark
The Dude :D

Rafale - Information

It assessed that Rafale has 49% chance of winning the S'pore NGF deal....

JSF Worries
Aviation Week & Space Technology
06/28/2004, page 33

David A. Fulghum
Washington
Robert Wall
Washington

Tests reveal F135 engine flaw; Lockheed Martin realigns management

Pratt & Whitney halted testing of the engine it designed for the short takeoff/vertical landing (Stovl) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, while partner Lockheed Martin juggled its management team.

For better or worse, the two events will buffet the program to some degree, although analysts are still debating the ultimate significance of each.

Senior U.S. Air Force officials are keeping up the pressure to stay with the F-35 program, however, by arguing that these new aircraft will allow them to reduce the Air Force's size.

"I predict that we will be significantly smaller in the next 20 years than we are today but with the same capability or better," says Gen. Hal Hornburg, chief of Air Combat Command. "We have aircraft emerging that are so much more capable than the F-15 and F-16 that we believe replacing them one for one is not required."

Pratt & Whitney stopped its tests when the first Stovl F135 production-configuration engine developed erosion damage in the second-stage vanes of its low-pressure turbine. Initial reports from inside the engine community indicate that Pratt & Whitney will not have to redesign any components, but designers will likely have to change some interior engine coatings. A company official says the engine is expected to be back into the test program by early July.

after the negative reports from Cope India and development problems with eurofighter. rafale is now the leading contender for RSAF NGF program.

Interesting Article about problems of cooperation in EF2000 & JSF...

I must say, the author is not wrong, esp. from a project management perspective....

Too many cooks spoil the broth - they also get lots of cuts as well.... :D

Southpark
The Dude

Interesting Read on the Korean FX programme

"Only 8 people are needed for one Rafale, compared to 16.6 for one F-15. In other words, only 60 ground personnel are needed to maintain more than 90 percent forties of twenty Rafale squadrons. And, it takes two or three hours of training for a pilot to fly it (Other fighters need two or three weeks)."

Fighter jets make first flight outside Europe, to Singapore
State-of-the-art Eurofighter Typhoon could replace Singapore's ageing Super Skyhawk, and will be tried by RSAF pilots

ALFRED LEE
FOR THE STRAITS TIMES

Capable of twice the speed of sound, the plane also boasts a unique on-board testing system.
LONDON - Two of the world's newest fighter jets took off from Britain yesterday for Singapore, where they will be seen for the first time outside Europe.

The swing-wing, twin-engined Eurofighter Typhoons will be in Singapore for two weeks for evaluation as a replacement for the Republic of Singapore Air Force's ageing Super Skyhawk fighters.

The Typhoons, which can fly at twice the speed of sound, will take five days to complete the 13,000km journey. They will make four stopovers at air bases in the Mediterranean, the Middle East and Asia - the locations are secret for security reasons - and will be refuelled mid-air about 16 times.

The British Royal Air Force's most senior officer of Chinese heritage, Wing Commander David Chan, is piloting one of the Typhoons and is the officer-in-charge of the Singapore-bound air detachment, which includes three giant support C130 Hercules transports, a Nimrod reconnaissance plane and tanker aircraft.

Wing Cdr Chan told The Straits Times just before take-off from the Typhoon's British home base at Warton, Lancashire, 400km north of London: 'The Typhoon is a brand new, state-of-the-art multi-role fighter which is just now going into service with the air forces of Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain.

'We are still carrying out tests and evaluation and they are ahead of schedule, with no major problems.

'The Typhoon is a great aircraft, a dream to fly, and I am confident everything will go well in Singapore.'

RSAF pilots will be flying the Typhoons and senior officials of Singapore's Ministry of Defence and top politicians will have a chance to see how the aircraft perform in what could be their future home-base temperature and humidity conditions.

Pilots, ground crew and VIPs in Singapore will be able to inspect the Typhoon's unique computerised on-board testing system, designed to sustain top performance and reliability and reduce the cost of maintenance.

Squadron Leader Geordie Evans, senior engineering officer with the group on its way to Singapore, told The Straits Times: 'All records are electronic and all personnel working on the aircraft must sign off their work using iris-scan technology.

'Typhoons came into service only six months ago, and from an engineering point of view this is very early in an aircraft's life cycle for such a mammoth undertaking as the flight to Singapore and the very detailed evaluation programme.

'But I am sure we will come through with flying colours.'....................

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstorie...,258664,00.html

Then why did the Koreans choose the F-15 over the Rafale.

Purely on political grounds.

"We settled on Boeing's F-15K after taking into account security, diplomatic and trade partnerships with bidders' countries in the final round of competition," said Brig. Gen. Hwang Eui-dong, spokesman for the ministry. He strongly implied that the military alliance between South Korea and the U.S. played a predominant role.

F-15K Formally Chosen for F-X Project

US fights dirty in Seoul jet deal

Enuf said....

Interesting Report from Dassault to the French Parliament (translation tools Req'd)

Snippets (translated by Google):

Unit Cost (vs. Eurofighter)
"...the unit cost of the Rafale is 89 million euros...

"the development cost of Eurofighter is 21,6 billion euros, three times that of the Rafale. The budgetary cost for Germany is 26,2 billion euros for 180 apparatuses, that is to say 146 million euros per apparatus; for the United Kingdom, it is 33,6 billion euros for 232 apparatuses, that is to say 145 million euros per apparatus."

Rafale Capabilities / Export Potential
"...Mr. Charles Edelstenne answered that, on the markets with export, three data were to be taken into account: performances of the materials and their price, which must correspond to the international market rates, but also political environment. The Rafale plane is well placed being the first two criteria. On the other hand, the last can sometimes raise difficulties. Thus, in South Korea, the commission charged to evaluate the various offers had placed the Rafale at the head, while all the signals showed the preference of the Korean Air Force for this apparatus; however, that was not enough to carry it on the influence of the United States, whose 35 000 soldiers are stationed in this country. The Netherlands carried out an evaluation of the various apparatuses on 700 criteria: the American plane Joint Strike Fighter obtained the score of 697 points out of 850 and the Rafale 695 points, is only two less, but that was enough so that the Netherlands retain without hesitation the American apparatus, that they had not been able to evaluate in flight with the difference of the Rafale."

Active Electronic Scanned Array Radar - Part of SG's NGF's Requirements?
"...Mr. Charles Edelstenne answered that the technology of the antenna radar activates from now on was controlled by the French industrialists. Remain the question of the financing of its industrialization. The French Armies consider from now on that this technology, which increases the range of the radar considerably, constitutes a projection which they need. In parallel, Singapore, which wishes that such a radar equip its aircraft, is eager guarantee that its installation will constitute on the French Rafale. This question should be solved by 2012."

Have fun reading....

Cross-referenced from: guys in World Armed Forces Forum...

Rafale, although looks more and more like the winner, is not the foregone conclusion. The unit cost quote as 89 Euros is also way too high, half this figure and I would think that is more reasonable.

Many of us here like the look and smell of Rafale, but afterall, it is a French jet. Singapore has so far never bought a French jet even though it has acquired French helo, frigates, APC, light tank, IFV, light howitzer, missiles, etc. In terms of jets, other than the Hawker Hunter, all other current jets are Americans, for a good reason, integration of weapons, either from USA or Israel.

So it will still be a close fight till the end. ;)

From my limited knowledge of the Eurofighter, back when it was still the EF-2000, it was meant as an air-superiority fighter on par with the F15 and SU 27 wasn't it? I believe it was only in recent years did the consortium tout it as a "total package" aircraft capable of all spectrums of missions.

My question is, is the eurofighter with it's large delta wing airframe inherently suitable for interdiction missions?

I would argue that the Eurofighter is suitable / capable for interdiction missions, despite it being first conceived as an air superiority fighter.

Remember, the F-15 was similarly conceived as such; it was only the upgrade to F-15E version that it is capable of A2G roles (hence the name "Strike" Eagle).

Having said that, it is questionable if the Eurofighter is optimal for the role. I read in another forum that it is not due, to the positioning of its canards (small wings in front). It obsures the view of the ground directly in front. [ then again modern tech might do away with looking at the ground targets with your eyes ]

Cheers :unsure:

The Typhoon will eventually be optimised for a strike role to turn it into a Multirole Fighter, but that is still far off. The full multirole version will be Tranche 3, of which there is a lot of debate in the main partner nations over whether they can afford it. So it is still not confirmed if Tranche 3 might come to pass.

The current Tranche 1 aircraft being delivered are pure air combat versions, there will be almost no air to ground capbility. Tranche 2 will have limited A/G capability.

BTW, I've gotten a tip-off that 2x Typhoons arrived in Singapore shortly before 1700 today (Fri 2 July). 1 single and 1 twin seater.

where will they be? PLAB?

Yes, they landed there.

shit, i was hoping to catch them tomorrow

the single seat could be PS002 which flew on the 7th last month

http://www.eurofighter.com/News

Really hope to see the three contending NGFs do a BVR, WVR dogfight as well as a A2G competition.....

Alas, I hear that is not to be..... :(

is it flying tomorrow and sunday?

Well, theres a least 2 more weeks of opportunity...

I doubt so for tomorrow, most likely the crew will get some rest first. Sunday might be a possibility though. I would expect next Sat and Sun would be flying, like the Rafale and Eagle when they were here.

well personally think that they might not fly until probably next week..... those people from mindef will definitely pop in next week....and after flying for 18000km...i bet the ground crew will be working doubly hard to make sure that the aircraft is in tip top condition......in view of mindef visit....

The Strike Eagle will be creamed in a Air-to-Air combat against Rafale and Typhoon. I suspect Rafale will beat Typhoon nearly every time in their current form.

As to A2G, Strike Ealge rules no doubt.

Joe Black, care to elaborate? I'm not too sure the Strike Eagle will rule the roost all the way in A/G.

Well, Viper52, why I said Strike Eagle rules are (and pretty sure you are going to dispute :)):

1. Strike Eagle will be able to carry approx twice the amout of load (20K lb more than the 2 Euro-Canards.

2. Strike Eagle has a longer operation range (don't have the exact figures) compared to the other 2, of course, one can dispute and say that the Euro canards can have CFTs added to increase the range to close to that of the Strike Eagle. Strike Eagle is the only plane (other than the retired F-111) that can loiter in enemy's airspace to hunt for targets. All other current western or russian jets are only capable of doing just getting to the target, drop the ordanance and go home ops.

3. Strike Eagle is integrated with more weapons (albeit all US-made) compared to the two other. Rafale being the worst of the 3 as it is integrated mainly with the Euro made (EDAS) missiles and guided munitions except for the Paveway series.

4. Strike Eagle avionic suite is optimised for A2G, workload being shared by a WSO, and the APG-70 radar has the SAR mode. As far as I recall, the Rafale RBE2 radar is only recently added a SAR mode - then again I might be wrong, and the Typhoon ECR-90 currently (or in the next 5 years) would not have SAR mode at all. Rafale is predominately single seat multi-role fighter, so is the Typhoon. The dual seats are mainly designed for training purposes only. Any attempts to make the back seat pilot a WSO means it is just another "poor-man" tailor dedicated strike aircraft unlike Strike Eagles, Tornadoes, F-111 and A-6 Intruders.

I guess I will just stop at these 4 points for the time being ;)

Indian Daily: The real story behind Indian Air Force Superiority over US Air Force - USAF underestimated Indians as Iraqis or Iranians

"The major takeaway for the Air Force is that our prediction of needing to replace the F-15 with the F/A-22 is proving out as we get smarter and smarter about other [countries'] capabilities around the world and what technology is limited to in the F-15 airframe," Col. Snodgrass said. "We've taken [the F-15] about as far as we can and it's now time to move to the next generation."

what a perfect excuse for the USAF to get congress to approve the purchase of the Raptors given that the congress nearly killed it recently. I smell a rat here...

Well....I wouldn't exactly call a request to elaborate as disputing :lol:

1. Full loadout is something that looks good on brochures. In years of Strike Eagle combat operations from Iraq in 1991 to...Iraq in 2003/04 <_< , I've yet to see them carry loadouts to their full potential. Besides, with todays PGMs, carrying more weapons would more often than not result in unused weapons being carried back to base when insufficient targets are found (a frequent occurence in missions like CAS)

2. I think loiter time is really another myth. With IFR, the only factor limiting loiter time over target is pilot fatigue and tanker availability. I don't dispute the fact that the Strike Eagle has greater combat radius, but then again, is it that important to us? Unless we're thinking of hitting military targets in Perlis? :P

3. Ha! We're now back to availability of those US-made missiles in our (The F-15T) context aren't we? Here I am wondering how much use the integration is if we're denied the weapons (again) <_<

4. Thats true now. But then again, the Strike Eagle WSO station was not dedicated to be a WSO station from the outset, it was born out of the F-15B's instructor cockpit on a/c 71-0291, wasn't it?

That I agree with, theres definitely an agenda in the USAF report.

No really, the avionics and cockpit design was done from ground up. The F-15B was used as a prototype for the F-15E. I read this many years ago in one of the Engineering journals - Popular Mechanics or something like that.

The F-15B APG-62 radar was not capable to support the new CRT. The old F-15 CRT technology was 70s technologies whereas the F-15E was based on the F-18's cockpit design after MacDonald Douglas had some years of experience with advanced cockpit design and the APG-65 radar. The APG-70 radar has its root from the APG-65, and the cockpit design was based more on the Hornet's than the old Eagles.

Furthermore, the pilot HUD was LANTIRN capable since day 1.

1. Strike Eagle will be able to carry approx twice the amout of load (20K lb more than the 2 Euro-Canards.

According to the chart posted here, the F-15E/I/K can carry up to 24,500lb or 11,113kg of ordances versus 20,943lb or 9,500kg for the Rafale. Hardly 2x....

Agree if you compare to the Eurofighter though...6,000kg

2. Strike Eagle has a longer operation range (don't have the exact figures) compared to the other 2, of course, one can dispute and say that the Euro canards can have CFTs added to increase the range to close to that of the Strike Eagle. Strike Eagle is the only plane (other than the retired F-111) that can loiter in enemy's airspace to hunt for targets. All other current western or russian jets are only capable of doing just getting to the target, drop the ordanance and go home ops.

Generally true, but I think Rafale is not far off. Depending on the combinations / bomb loads, it can operate up to 1,000 nm. The Eurofighter apparently has the shortest range.

3. Strike Eagle is integrated with more weapons (albeit all US-made) compared to the two other. Rafale being the worst of the 3 as it is integrated mainly with the Euro made (EDAS) missiles and guided munitions except for the Paveway series.
Not true. Rafale is consistent and fires all NATO missiles. If any, it is the Eagle and Eurofighter that is not integrated with the French-made weapons....

See here under "Weapons" heading - you will find your Sidewinders, and AMRAAMs, as well as Harpoon, and Mavericks....

4. Strike Eagle avionic suite is optimised for A2G, workload being shared by a WSO, and the APG-70 radar has the SAR mode. As far as I recall, the Rafale RBE2 radar is only recently added a SAR mode - then again I might be wrong, and the Typhoon ECR-90 currently (or in the next 5 years) would not have SAR mode at all. Rafale is predominately single seat multi-role fighter, so is the Typhoon. The dual seats are mainly designed for training purposes only. Any attempts to make the back seat pilot a WSO means it is just another "poor-man" tailor dedicated strike aircraft unlike Strike Eagles, Tornadoes, F-111 and A-6 Intruders.

Wrong again. Like the original Eagle, the Rafale was first conceived to be a single-seat ominrole fighter bomber. However since Gulf War I, the French Air Force felt that a two-seater plane will give it more flexibility, esp. having a WSO for complicated strike missions where necessary. The orders for Rafale are now predominately two-seaters. (For info, I think SG's recent F-16 acquistions were primarily 2-seaters).

Question: Are the two cockpits in the Strike Eagle dissimilar as is the case for Tornado / F-14? ,i.e., a pilot cockpit in front and a WSO cockpit at the back? Got source?

Regards

Southpark
The Dude

True, but what does it say about F-15T? ;)

not to mention they fought 4 ships against 10 to 12 similarly advanced jet. They must be mad. 4 Raptors may beat 10 to 12 charlies but that is because they have such a low RCS compared to the F-15C. Raptors have the chance to fire multiple AMRAAMs first before the charlies become aware of what is going on. With the F-15C, they don't even stand a chance on paper. The fight was design to fail in the first place.

From my conversation with my Viper pilot friend who had the opportunity to participate in one of their Red Flag (I think), in the exercise, they never stack their odds so badly against themselves. They always go with a full emsemble.

Once again, I smell a rat... a rather big one.

3. Strike Eagle is integrated with more weapons (albeit all US-made) compared to the two other. Rafale being the worst of the 3 as it is integrated mainly with the Euro made (EDAS) missiles and guided munitions except for the Paveway series.
Not true. Rafale is consistent and fires all NATO missiles. If any, it is the Eagle and Eurofighter that is not integrated with the French-made weapons....

See here under "Weapons" heading - you will find your Sidewinders, and AMRAAMs, as well as Harpoon, and Mavericks....

The info above is wrong. This is the only error I have seen so far in the airforce-technology website. I would suggest you pay a visit to the Dassault website or even visit here:
Latest news from Rafale International

The only US made weapon that has been tested so far are the 500lb Paveway 2 LGBs. The rest are all french or european weapons.




4. Strike Eagle avionic suite is optimised for A2G, workload being shared by a WSO, and the APG-70 radar has the SAR mode. As far as I recall, the Rafale RBE2 radar is only recently added a SAR mode - then again I might be wrong, and the Typhoon ECR-90 currently (or in the next 5 years) would not have SAR mode at all. Rafale is predominately single seat multi-role fighter, so is the Typhoon. The dual seats are mainly designed for training purposes only. Any attempts to make the back seat pilot a WSO means it is just another "poor-man" tailor dedicated strike aircraft unlike Strike Eagles, Tornadoes, F-111 and A-6 Intruders.

Wrong again. Like the original Eagle, the Rafale was first conceived to be a single-seat ominrole fighter bomber. However since Gulf War I, the French Air Force felt that a two-seater plane will give it more flexibility, esp. having a WSO for complicated strike missions where necessary. The orders for Rafale are now predominately two-seaters. (For info, I think SG's recent F-16 acquistions were primarily 2-seaters).


Sure, but they were NOT designed initially to be that way. They are being currently modified to accomodate a WSO just like how the Israeli adapted their Vipers with a WSO which is also how RSAF got theirs (based on the IAF).




Question: Are the two cockpits in the Strike Eagle dissimilar as is the case for Tornado / F-14? ,i.e., a pilot cockpit in front and a WSO cockpit at the back? Got source?

They are. The Strike Eagle pilot cockpit has 2 (maybe 3) regular CRT very much like the Hornet's layout. The WSO has 2 extra large CRT on the middle, two regular CRT on each side, and flight controls are stack awkwardly beside.

Here is an snippet
"One of the most important additions to the F-15E is the rear cockpit, reserved for the weapons systems officer. On four screens, this officer can display information from the radar, electronic warfare or infrared sensors, monitor aircraft or weapons status and possible threats, select targets, and use an electronic "moving map" to navigate. Two hand controls are used to select new displays and to refine targeting information. Displays can be moved from one screen to another, chosen from a "menu" of display options."

ref: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=102