Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Four Eurofighter countries' range requirements?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    479

    Four Eurofighter countries' range requirements?

    Both the F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon were defined as air superiority fighters in the 1980's with a Central European scenario as the most critical driver - correct me if I'm wrong.

    But they went separate ways on two points - stealthiness and supercruise - due to affordability issue, although the Eurofighter Typhoon later showed it can supercruise. At what speed and altitude, carrying what, and for how long are not known, however.

    Jane's All the World's Aircraft says:

    "No official requirement for thrust vectoring (TV), supercruise or high order of 'stealthiness'; however, TV nozzle for Eurofighter has been under private development; supercruise was 'inadvertently' demonstrated at high altitude in 1997 and is now common practice with operators ..."

    Given that Luftwaffe Eurofighters are based in Germany, I guess they would have soon crossed into the other side - a lot of deadly SAMs waiting - if they had supercruised in any Central European scenario and suspect that the Germans had the least demanding requirement on range.

    Also, a transcript of the UK Parliament debate in July 1992 says that the Italians and Spaniards demanded "sufficient range to deal with threats—particularly in Africa and the middle east" because "their countries were threatened just as much from the south as from the east".

    So, what was each country's original range requirement, and what was their final agreed number?

    --------------------

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...ghter-aircraft

    European Fighter Aircraft

    HC Deb 09 July 1992 vol 211 cc604-23

    Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre)

    (snip)

    In analysing why Herr Rühe said that Germany would not produce the aircraft, it is worth considering the original requirement. I will not reiterate the points made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North but I will add to them. Despite the German Defence Minister's comments, I believe that the requirement itself is more relevant today than in 1985, and not, as the Germans would have us believe, the other way round.

    Built into the EFA requirement was not only the need to move out of area but sufficient range to deal with threats—particularly in Africa and the middle east. That was prompted not only by us but by the Italians and Spaniards, who said that their countries were threatened just as much from the south as from the east. If nothing else, that demonstrates the problem of analysing the German's present position.

    The Germans maintain that, because the threat has changed, there is no longer a need for such a large, long-range aircraft. However, one could argue that, as a result of the changing threat, there is a greater need for such an aircraft.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    2,712
    i have no figures to add I'm afraid but you should also consider the UK North Sea defence requirement that fed into the programme.

    Those quotes are an excellent snapshot of the way the project started to falter once the Germans felt the Soviet threat had dissappeared from their borders....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,048
    Nothing special about the practical range or flight-time requirements of the Typhoon with a internal fuel-fraction close to 0,3.
    It was one hour by internal fuel or up to two hours with 3 typical 1000 litre ETs in general, when the air-refuelling capability can add more time and range. All that varies with height, speed, weapons-load, combat allowance and safety requirements.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    128
    Is there any reliable figure about its ferry range (with 2x 1,466 or 3x 1,055 liters EFTs) ?

    Early sources claimed it to be 2,000 nautical miles (about 3,700 kilometers) or 3,790 kilometers...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Austere View Post
    Is there any reliable figure about its ferry range (with 2x 1,466 or 3x 1,055 liters EFTs) ?

    Early sources claimed it to be 2,000 nautical miles (about 3,700 kilometers) or 3,790 kilometers...
    That is the theoretical max under optimum conditions reached by a test-pilot to verify that claim. Keeping the ETs in an airliner style flight profile under average conditions for an average pilot and some allowance 2/3 of that will be still an excellent value of ~2500 km distance covered in ~4hours.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,600
    There are no 1500l tanks for the EF, only 1000l as of now.

    It was planned to integrate Tornado's 1500l tank and develop a new 2000l tank, but all that was cancelled iirc. Scorpion will surely correct me if I told bs
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,121
    Almost correct Eagle. The only minor error is that 2000 l tanks were never required by the customers, but offered as an option by the manufacturer. Whether that option will ever be exercised remains to be seen.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,048
    http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/weapons.html

    The customer decides what he will buy from that options tested and on offer.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    479
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    Nothing special about the practical range or flight-time requirements of the Typhoon with a internal fuel-fraction close to 0,3.
    It was one hour by internal fuel or up to two hours with 3 typical 1000 litre ETs in general, when the air-refuelling capability can add more time and range. All that varies with height, speed, weapons-load, combat allowance and safety requirements.
    Was the original German range requirement shorter than the UK's?

    Any credible numbers on the combat radius of the F-22 and Eurofighter in an apple-to-apple comparison?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    Almost correct Eagle. The only minor error is that 2000 l tanks were never required by the customers, but offered as an option by the manufacturer. Whether that option will ever be exercised remains to be seen.
    Thanks for the clarification. Does that mean 1500l tanks were originally required but cancelled?
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,121
    Correct the 1500 l tanks were planned as under wing tanks. Flight trials were conducted, but the tanks were found to be insufficient imposing envelope limitations on the aircraft which aren't operationally viable or the Typhoon, especially not in the A2A role.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES