Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 57 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 1700

Thread: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    The part about radar angle is pretty straightforward and accurate. Nobody really talks in depth about RCS reduction measures, just the obvious stuff.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,441
    But why is the radar mounted tilted up/back? Isn't Typhoon in the interceptor role meant to be flying high and fast and hence mostly be hunting targets below it?
    Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,396
    Are you confusing the mounting angle of most US fighter AESAs with that of the Typhoon?

    The Typhoon AESA has a movable mount. It is NOT mounted tilted upward.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,441
    Ah, I misread. Still, the question remains -- but for F-22.
    Last edited by Rii; 25th April 2015 at 20:08.
    Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    But why is the radar mounted tilted up/back? Isn't Typhoon in the interceptor role meant to be flying high and fast and hence mostly be hunting targets below it?
    The Typhoon radar can be tilted anyway you like within 45-50deg, so you can have the range advantage of vertical mounting when you need it, except with a large radar, and you also get RCS reduction advantages by tilting it off-centre when you need it.

    I like it because it's a simple, pure physical advantage that can be described in plain English, rather than an onslaught of buzz words used to give the impression of an advantage where none exists and baffle customers into contract signature.

    (The article also says 'up or down 30deg' for newer fixed AESAs.)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    I like it because it's a simple, pure physical advantage that can be described in plain English
    It's also a simple, pure physical drawback that can be described in plain English ; a single point of failure.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by OPIT View Post
    It's also a simple, pure physical drawback that can be described in plain English ; a single point of failure.
    A very incorrect statement. Assuming you mean the swash-plate jamming, that either leaves it tilted like other new-style large fixed AESA, or vertical, like the Rafale. So this 'single-point failure' only reduces the radar to the functionality of a standard fixed AESA. In reality, it's an electro-mechanical device, shielded from the elements, making it less likely to fail that a whole load of other moving parts on the aircraft, like say, the landing gear. The electrical side is redundant and mechanicals are inherently more reliable than electricals. It does actually depend on the hinge design as to whether it is even a case of a single-point issue. Your statement is ill-conceived.
    Last edited by lukos; 26th April 2015 at 10:26.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,506
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Are you confusing the mounting angle of most US fighter AESAs with that of the Typhoon?

    The Typhoon AESA has a movable mount. It is NOT mounted tilted upward.
    I am a bit confused by the article though,

    It seems to me that they discribe 2 possible functions of the swashplate that operates in 2 opposite ways :

    The swashplate is supposed to enable wider scaning and tracking range by moving the antenna towards the target but it is now also supposed to enable lower RCS by moving it away from the target.

    Isn't that a bit contradictory ?

    BTW, couldn't a fixed antenna aircraft achieve the same lower RCS trick by managing the aspect angle of the engagement ?
    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

    Rafale news blog :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post

    BTW, couldn't a fixed antenna aircraft achieve the same lower RCS trick by managing the aspect angle of the engagement ?
    you mean flying awkward just as an effort to lower a certain aspect of rcs ?
    It can be of use towards a know ground based radar,
    but flying irrational in an air duel would just be , well irrational
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,254
    The repositioner is a great answer to the problem of how to make the Typhoon a long term bet for EA and the new cyber attack roles. It also has the added benefit of reducing the Typhoons head on return to any target.

    It's not all about A2A after all. The RAF are anxious to get their hands on the new kit and work it with the F35.

    Grumbling about a perceived negative sounds like you are just rooting around for something bad to say about Typhoon. Anyway won't Rafale be getting distributed arrays in the next several years ?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    I am a bit confused by the article though,

    It seems to me that they discribe 2 possible functions of the swashplate that operates in 2 opposite ways :

    The swashplate is supposed to enable wider scaning and tracking range by moving the antenna towards the target but it is now also supposed to enable lower RCS by moving it away from the target.

    Isn't that a bit contradictory ?

    BTW, couldn't a fixed antenna aircraft achieve the same lower RCS trick by managing the aspect angle of the engagement ?
    It can do both depending on the situation, much like the canards, it moves to minimise RCS on approach but after a missile shot it can move to retain track of the target for mid-course correction, whilst the aircraft disengages.

    To do that with a fixed plate you would have to know where your enemy is, before you know where they are.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    Grumbling about a perceived negative sounds like you are just rooting around for something bad to say about Typhoon. Anyway won't Rafale be getting distributed arrays in the next several years ?
    It's been mentioned as a perceived concept, so in terms of future proximity, it's about as close to realisation as the Perseus missile concept. I imagine the Taranis will likely be flying combat sorties before it happens. It requires £1bn of funding, which hasn't been released, and will take 10 years.

    http://rafalenews.blogspot.co.uk/201...radar-for.html

    Raytheon are however actively developing a demonstrator, and if Raytheon are only developing a demonstrator, that means it's some way off.

    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...ed-array-radar
    Last edited by lukos; 26th April 2015 at 14:16.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post

    Raytheon are however actively developing a demonstrator, and if Raytheon are only developing a demonstrator, that means it's some way off.

    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...ed-array-radar
    http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions...l#.VTz7-c4iq5Q

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/254244798/Sensor-Craft
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 26th April 2015 at 15:15.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Thanks. It's interesting how long people work on this stuff for before it becomes operational, i.e. passive anti-stealth radar was being demonstrated in the '90s but to date, I'm not aware of any operational variants capable of targeting.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,254
    I think you are right, Rafale does not have endless funds for endless fantastic upgrades and so Taranis flying operational missions is perhaps more likely.
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 26th April 2015 at 18:45.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    From other thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by vleugelmoer View Post
    I repeat, Typhoon was designed from the ground up as multi-role.
    You can repeat until you're blue in the face but it clearly wasn't because the underside intake and recessed BVRAAM carriage are both very clear indications that it wasn't. Both those features improve A2A effectiveness but at the expense of A2G flexibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by vleugelmoer View Post
    For which I gave one source, but more are available. More focused on A2A than Rafale, but still: multi-role, capable enough of ground attack for this to be reflected in its designation. The German Luftwaffe is replacing most of its Tornado IDS fleet with Typhoons, which indicates they use the same definition of multi-role as the one used by the RAF. I accept your definition of multi-role is different from theirs.
    You're confusing a fighter being designed primarily for A2A, with the intention of adding A2G as a secondary aspect with a dedicated multi-role design. Two different things. Personally I think A2A is a better focus because A2G is real difficult without air superiority.

    Quote Originally Posted by vleugelmoer View Post
    I really don't think I'm the one who is confused here.
    I think you are. If you can seriously look at the design features I've highlighted and the operation of the Eurofighter as well as the historical capability and say that it was designed as a true multi-roler, you're definitely confused, no two ways about it. Any fighter can have A2G added, but that doesn't make its design intent primarily multi-role, that's your confusion.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,254
    Typhoon lineage for all to see here at the very excellent secret projects forum:
    http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...pic,169.0.html

    Here is a Eurofighter precursor design, the BAE p110 from 1981 complete with A2G weaponry
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	410 
Size:	19.0 KB 
ID:	237110

    More BAE imagery of the ACA which fed into the Eurofighter from the UK end:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	136 
Size:	18.1 KB 
ID:	237115
    Note ALARM underwing

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	257 
Size:	293.0 KB 
ID:	237116
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 28th April 2015 at 19:41.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    I think you are. If you can seriously look at the design features I've highlighted and the operation of the Eurofighter as well as the historical capability and say that it was designed as a true multi-roler, you're definitely confused, no two ways about it. Any fighter can have A2G added, but that doesn't make its design intent primarily multi-role, that's your confusion.
    The RAF thinks Typhoon FGR4 is multi-role. The Luftwaffe thinks Typhoon is multi-role, judging by their replacing Tornado (ground-attack) with Typhoon and using Typhoon as an interceptor.

    You disagree with the RAF's and Luftwaffe's definition of multi-role. Noted, no confusion here.

    I've posted a link to a 1994 story that tells you Typhoon was, at that time, intended to be a multi-role aircraft. Had a look in the mirror, not a hint of blue.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by vleugelmoer View Post
    The RAF thinks Typhoon FGR4 is multi-role. The Luftwaffe thinks Typhoon is multi-role, judging by their replacing Tornado (ground-attack) with Typhoon and using Typhoon as an interceptor.

    You disagree with the RAF's and Luftwaffe's definition of multi-role. Noted, no confusion here.

    I've posted a link to a 1994 story that tells you Typhoon was, at that time, intended to be a multi-role aircraft. Had a look in the mirror, not a hint of blue.
    Only in that it is A2G capable. A2A was definitely the primary design focus though, for all the very obvious reasons mentioned repeatedly already. That's the bit you can't grasp. An A2A fighter with A2G ability doesn't make a true multi-roler by design focus. Why? Because you can equip any fighter with A2G ability and I don't think there is one single fighter in operation without some kind of A2G ability. Does that make all fighters primarily focused on multi-role? Hell no! Even an F-22 can carry bombs, as could the F-14 pre-scrap, and Israeli F-15s were also A2G equipped later on. As a rule of thumb, if a fighter only has A2A weapons qualified when it enters service that's usually a very good indication it's intended primarily for A2A, especially if it remains that way for 8 years before the first A2G weapons are equipped! Length of time before first Typhoon A2G mission - 8 years. Length of time before first F-22 A2G mission - 9 years. Quite the coincidence. Putting an apple label on an orange doesn't make it an apple.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    Typhoon lineage for all to see here at the very excellent secret projects forum:
    http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...pic,169.0.html

    Here is a Eurofighter precursor design, the BAE p110 from 1981 complete with A2G weaponry
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	410 
Size:	19.0 KB 
ID:	237110

    More BAE imagery of the ACA which fed into the Eurofighter from the UK end:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	136 
Size:	18.1 KB 
ID:	237115
    Note ALARM underwing

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	257 
Size:	293.0 KB 
ID:	237116
    Note that they moved away from side-mount intakes with canards on their outer edges. 1981 - side-mount intakes and lots of A2G weapons on display. 1982 ACA, bottom-mount intakes - mainly A2A.

    Also see chart for F-22. A2G weapons, does that make it a primarily multi-role focused design? Hell, even called an 'F/A-22' - does the 'F/A' make it primarily multi-role focused, or is there just a chance that the super large radar, massive performance and more restrictive internal bays (relative to F-35A wrt A2G weapons) designed for 6 BVRAAMs make it primarily focused on A2A?

    Last edited by lukos; 28th April 2015 at 20:15.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,499
    I guess F15E and SU34 aren't strike aircraft then.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Based on the logic being bandied about here, the 'F' and lack of 'F/A' make it a fighter only.

    The Su-34 is definitely a fighter bomber. The F-15E is a version of an air superiority fighter heavily modified for strike purposes. So yes it's a strike aircraft but the design focus of the F-15 as a whole was air superiority. The F-111 however is another fighter bomber that someone briefly had the screwed up idea of using as a naval interceptor before getting their head straight. As mentioned previously, adding A2G to a fighter is easy but turning a fighter bomber or attack aircraft into an air superiority fighter is much more difficult.
    Last edited by lukos; 28th April 2015 at 20:26.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by j_jza80 View Post
    I guess F15E and SU34 aren't strike aircraft then.
    I'm suddenly reminded of Peter Cook telling John Cleese 'A whale is not fish but an insect. It lives on bananas.' He then says it's a joke, of course. I have a feeling dear lukos isn't going to be so obliging.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,499
    What about Tornado F series? Were they not interceptors because their primary design was based on a strike aircraft?

    People are too obsessed with trying to categorize aircraft by type, generation etc. Each aircraft should be judged on its own merits

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by vleugelmoer View Post
    The RAF thinks Typhoon FGR4 is multi-role. The Luftwaffe thinks Typhoon is multi-role, judging by their replacing Tornado (ground-attack) with Typhoon and using Typhoon as an interceptor.
    The Germans never intended to replace their Tornado fleet with Eurofighters. But since they're obliged to buy 140 EFs and without money to replace Tornado with someting else, what else would they do but re-equip some Tornado units with EFs and declare them multirole. Actually, only one wing (TaktLwG 31 Boelcke) has converted from Tornado to Tyhpoon.
    It remains to be seen what happens with the rest of the Tornado fleet, around 85 IDS and ECR jets.

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    Only in that it is A2G capable. A2A was definitely the primary design focus though, for all the very obvious reasons mentioned repeatedly already.
    I agree here. The Brits wanted to replace the light attack Jaguar fleet and for that, an A/G capable but pure A/A design of medium weight was enough. It would have been different if a direct replacement for Tornado or the Spanish Hornets had been wanted.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,631
    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    It can do both depending on the situation, much like the canards, it moves to minimise RCS on approach but after a missile shot it can move to retain track of the target for mid-course correction, whilst the aircraft disengages.
    Can the position be controlled manually?

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by vleugelmoer View Post
    I'm suddenly reminded of Peter Cook telling John Cleese 'A whale is not fish but an insect. It lives on bananas.' He then says it's a joke, of course. I have a feeling dear lukos isn't going to be so obliging.
    A label doesn't determine primary design focus, especially when every single feature of design, use and capability development priorities contradict that label. It's that simple. I could put a suit and tie on a bear but that wouldn't make it an accountant.

    Quote Originally Posted by j_jza80 View Post
    What about Tornado F series? Were they not interceptors because their primary design was based on a strike aircraft?

    People are too obsessed with trying to categorize aircraft by type, generation etc. Each aircraft should be judged on its own merits
    Well that only goes to prove my point. The F-15 was designed as an air superiority fighter, someone heavily modded it and transformed it for strikes roles, which it did pretty well. The Tornado F2, which I've already mentioned, was a strike aircraft, dynamically identical to a GR1/4, that was forced to become a fighter, and it didn't really fit that role too well at all, probably the least manoeuvrable fighter of the 1980s and 1990s but it could shoot down bombers, which pretty much any fighter bomber could do if equipped with AAMs and a radar.

    It is difficult to classify aircraft, but if we use the overly simplistic definition of having A2G and A2A capability to define a multi-role aircraft, then just about every fighter is multi-role, since all have been equipped for A2G in some guise, except perhaps the MiG-31, but I certainly wouldn't say the F-15, F-14 or MiG-25 were designed to be multi-role.

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle View Post
    I agree here. The Brits wanted to replace the light attack Jaguar fleet and for that, an A/G capable but pure A/A design of medium weight was enough. It would have been different if a direct replacement for Tornado or the Spanish Hornets had been wanted.
    Got it in one, they had an entire airforce of strike aircraft and a strike aircraft design posing as an interceptor in the Tornado F2. Absolutely nothing remotely resembled an air superiority fighter and everything was hopelessly outdone by MiG-29s and Su-27s. Therefore that was the capability gap to fill.
    Last edited by lukos; 29th April 2015 at 09:25.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Can the position be controlled manually?
    Automatic like canards. Ideal position is determined in conjunction with DASS and AIS suite.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,254
    On the subject of intake position, the chin intake was something Germany was largely responsible for. All of the designs that directly lead to the Typhoon from Germany has the boxy chin intake, whilst the UK was less convinced of the absolute need for them to fulfil its requirement.

    It is perfectly possible to say that the UK requirement was for multirole whilst the Germans has A2A as a priority as the design coalesced around the form we see today.

    So could you not say that that the UK required a secondary A2G capability to be built into the design (multirole rather than the ability to drop dumb bombs) but ended up with a design optimised for A2A.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,354
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post

    It is perfectly possible to say that the UK requirement was for multirole whilst the Germans has A2A as a priority as the design coalesced around the form we see today.

    So could you not say that that the UK required a secondary A2G capability to be built into the design (multirole rather than the ability to drop dumb bombs) but ended up with a design optimised for A2A.
    Thats precisely what happened.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    On the subject of intake position, the chin intake was something Germany was largely responsible for. All of the designs that directly lead to the Typhoon from Germany has the boxy chin intake, whilst the UK was less convinced of the absolute need for them to fulfil its requirement.

    It is perfectly possible to say that the UK requirement was for multirole whilst the Germans has A2A as a priority as the design coalesced around the form we see today.

    So could you not say that that the UK required a secondary A2G capability to be built into the design (multirole rather than the ability to drop dumb bombs) but ended up with a design optimised for A2A.
    Strange statement because the EAP and ACA were both BAE designs and BAE continued development even in the absence of the other partners when they withdrew funding.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_EAP

    The P110 was more of a multi-role design but that was a 1981 proposal drafted in the late-70s, which was before the MiG-29 and Su-27 were introduced or widely known about. After that, it became apparent that the P110 wasn't going to cut it, hence the ACA and subsequently the EAP.

    Even the P110 was intended primarily for air defence though.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...e/bae-p110.htm

    The P110 had been designed primarily for the air defence role, although it could have a capability in other roles.
    Last edited by lukos; 29th April 2015 at 11:27.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 4 guests)

  1. OPIT

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