Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 67 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 1981

Thread: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    Yes but if you look at who came up with the big boxy chin intake first and then stuck to it throughout, it was the Germans with designs for the TKF-90 requirement.

    The EAP came at a time when the main layout had been decided upon by the partners and was therefore in need of refining. The overall design owes plenty to the German requirements and research.

    In short, whilst it may be optimised for A2A engagements, the Typhoon was always slated to be able to do A2G. The weight which this requirement carried just changed once the Cold War ended.
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 29th April 2015 at 12:21.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    Yes but if you look at who came up with the big boxy chin intake first and then stuck to it throughout, it was the Germans with designs for the TKF-90 requirement.

    The EAP came at a time when the main layout had been decided upon by the partners and was therefore in need of refining. The overall design owes plenty to the German requirements and research.

    In short, whilst it may be optimised for A2A engagements, the Typhoon was always slated to be able to do A2G. The weight which this requirement carried just changed once the Cold War ended.
    The ACA came out 4 years before the EAP, another BAE design. It was just a general change in thinking and focus, which happens across the board at very times in fighter evolution.

    Sure, it was always intended to do some A2G because, as mentioned already, A2G capability can be tacked on to any fighter but that wasn't the principle design focus. I don't think the end of the Cold War affected weighting that much, as mentioned in a Typhoon documentary, because the ex-Soviet planes were still likely to be cropping up in other theatre conflicts, just as they did in Desert Storm and the Balkans.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    I got involved in this discussion because one party said the Typhoon had A2G as part of its design requirement from the beginning and the other said it didn't. I know that the Typhoon was always intended to blow things up as well as shoot things down and have provided some interesting links about the origins of the programme for those that can be bothered to look into it.

    I don't want to have an argument with anyone about it.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    I got involved in this discussion because one party said the Typhoon had A2G as part of its design requirement from the beginning and the other said it didn't. I know that the Typhoon was always intended to blow things up as well as shoot things down and have provided some interesting links about the origins of the programme for those that can be bothered to look into it.

    I don't want to have an argument with anyone about it.
    That's not really what I said. I said it was primarily an A2A design and not a true multi-role design and gave very well substantiated reasoning ranging from design features, to use, to capability development priorities. Any fighter can have A2G as a secondary feature but that doesn't make it a multi-role design.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    Eight years of peace-time operations is barely enough to get a platform integrated with other units. Its not like you buy a plane and voila! It's operational.
    Go Huskers!

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    True but the Rafale gave A2G integration a way higher priority and you can judge by F-35 testing that the A2G focus is high there too.
    Last edited by lukos; 29th April 2015 at 16:59.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    Lukos/mrmalaya, you are both correct, the Eurofighter is indeed primarily an ATA design, but the multirole capability was part of the program right from the original 1985 EFA contract.

    1984 Flight Global "Germany outlines Nineties fighter requirements":
    "In its secondary role of ground attack, JF-90 will carry a variety of underwing stores including stand-off attack weapons and antiradiation missiles. The specified combatradius is 500km (300 n.m.) with up to one hour of loiter possible at this range. For escort missions a radius of 1,000km (600 n.m.) is required."
    "Finally, the Germans see a need for a true multi-mission airframe with changes from air-to-air into air-to-ground roles simply a matter of weapons fit. Specialised versions of
    the aircraft to meet both missions will not be acceptable."
    1985 Flight Global "Tripartite EFA is go"
    "The aircraft will be optimised for the air-to-air role."
    "Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Williamson, Chief of the Air Staff in the United Kingdom, gave an in-service date for the aircraft of 1995. This, he said, was a "slight compromise" as the Royal Air Force had wanted it as early as possible. EFA will replace the RAF's Phantoms and Jaguars."
    Cheers

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    True, I certainly won't argue with that. With relatively few fighters (compared to say Russia/US), A2G will always be a role of any fighter in the RAF, even if it isn't the main focus. Thanks Sintra.
    Last edited by lukos; 30th April 2015 at 15:02.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,439
    I don't know how often we went through it over the last decade. Hope it's over now.

    Just one thing, the canards aren't linked to the AIS, DASS or any AVSS for that matter. Their purpose is solely aerodynamic and they aren't moving to minimise the aircraft's RCS. Dunno who invented that nonsense, but it's just that!

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,769
    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    Oooooh nooooo it doesn't. Care to state a quote that specifically contradicts it, I've shown one dated a year ago that continues to confirm it.
    Oh yes, it does.. The mention about changed radomes clearly contradicts the previous articles.

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    All posts from > 5 years ago, many of them stating that the Captor-E-equipped Typhoon should have been operational 2 years ago. So why the wait? Increased development, expanded capabilities.
    There was no clear devotion of partner nations to AESA. That means low priority, slow development, short on funds.. the Captor-E wasn't developed because it was badly needed - its sole purpose is to keep Typhoon relevant on export market..

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    Latest information dated December 2013.
    http://www.armada.ch/aircraft-self-p...ophistication/
    This article doesn't mention a thing about EW capabilities of the Captor, even in Tranche 3. Quite on the contrary, it mentions pretty much everything else doing the job (DASS, Praetorian, etc.). And I'll tell you why - because the Captor cannot do any of these. And neither does Captor-E, as we speak..

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    Retractable IFR probe, smaller canard span, recessed AAM carriage, smaller tail, swashplate-mounted radar vs vertically-mounted radar.
    LOL.. is that a proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    Now you resort to insults.
    You reap what you sow.

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    You're missing my point, I'm asking if the navy tested this or not and how fully they tested it. I'll say again, YOU DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF WHAT THEY TESTED.
    I don't need to.. They know how to test it, you don't. Your problem is that you want to hear at all costs that AESA alone is a magical game changer and can't stand the idea that it isn't. But that is your problem, not mine..

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    Now could you please go back to the Rafale thread and talk about whatever you like concerning the Rafale there rather than here.
    Do you really think I am looking for your permission?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Oh yes, it does.. The mention about changed radomes clearly contradicts the previous articles.
    Oh no, it doesn't. Changing the randome doesn't change the back-end.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    There was no clear devotion of partner nations to AESA. That means low priority, slow development, short on funds.. the Captor-E wasn't developed because it was badly needed - its sole purpose is to keep Typhoon relevant on export market..
    Actually, it's been all about timing. The GR4 will be dropping out of service within the next three years, so all of a sudden a variety of upgrades for the Typhoon have become necessary to the point where they can't be put back any more. Since those A2G upgrades are needed anyway, it was more efficient to wait for that time and continue to develop the AESA in the background. So when the Typhoon has the full Tornado A2G capability added to it, the AESA is likely to form part of that upgrade package, along with Meteor. The RAF and European AFs can't afford to do ad-hoc rolling updates like the USAF, so the phasing of capability addition is a slower and more carefully planned process.

    http://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-...ement-contract

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    This article doesn't mention a thing about EW capabilities of the Captor, even in Tranche 3. Quite on the contrary, it mentions pretty much everything else doing the job (DASS, Praetorian, etc.). And I'll tell you why - because the Captor cannot do any of these. And neither does Captor-E, as we speak.. LOL.. is that a proof?
    You obviously don't read too good.

    http://www.armada.ch/aircraft-self-p...ophistication/

    The latest support to self-protection will however originate from the new aesa radar which is to replace the Captor system, providing in a spiralled programme with passive, active and cyberwarfare RF capabilities.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    You reap what you sow.
    That's what Saddam Hussein said in one of his last speeches following 9/11.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    I don't need to.. They know how to test it, you don't. Your problem is that you want to hear at all costs that AESA alone is a magical game changer and can't stand the idea that it isn't. But that is your problem, not mine..
    Oh they do, but you don't know what they test! How many times must I say that. They may well have tested it in the environment of current theatre warzones, which aren't too challenging.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Do you really think I am looking for your permission?
    Please go spam the Rafale thread instead. This is what I don't get about Rafale people, always spamming threads on other aircraft. Aren't there any major Rafale capability updates for you to go talk about in the Rafale thread or something?
    Last edited by lukos; 1st May 2015 at 09:49.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    I don't know how often we went through it over the last decade. Hope it's over now.

    Just one thing, the canards aren't linked to the AIS, DASS or any AVSS for that matter. Their purpose is solely aerodynamic and they aren't moving to minimise the aircraft's RCS. Dunno who invented that nonsense, but it's just that!
    http://translate.google.com/translat...hl=de&ie=UTF-8

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    842
    Trying to argue against Scorpion82 on Typhoon stuff ?
    LOL !!

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    I'm not sure lukos has any other setting

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    I've read it in a few places, not saying it's right but it's been proliferated around quite a few sources.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    87
    A bit like Hollow Earth, then.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,769
    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    Oh no, it doesn't. Changing the randome doesn't change the back-end.
    I have never claimed the RBE2-AA had changed back-end.

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    Actually, it's been all about timing. The GR4 will be dropping out of service within the next three years, so all of a sudden a variety of upgrades for the Typhoon have become necessary to the point where they can't be put back any more. Since those A2G upgrades are needed anyway, it was more efficient to wait for that time and continue to develop the AESA in the background. So when the Typhoon has the full Tornado A2G capability added to it, the AESA is likely to form part of that upgrade package, along with Meteor. The RAF and European AFs can't afford to do ad-hoc rolling updates like the USAF, so the phasing of capability addition is a slower and more carefully planned process.
    Still doesn't say a thing about Captor-E having any more capabilities than RBE2-AA. Both have their upgrade path defined and they are technologically on the same level.

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    You obviously don't read too good.
    I read very good. And another dozen of people here read the same. The only fool reading something else is yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    That's what Saddam Hussein said in one of his last speeches following 9/11.
    And? How exactly is that related to our topic?

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    Oh they do, but you don't know what they test! How many times must I say that. They may well have tested it in the environment of current theatre warzones, which aren't too challenging.
    Of course, they surely spend their time testing new hardware in the least challenging missions possible, just to please you.

    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    Please go spam the Rafale thread instead. This is what I don't get about Rafale people, always spamming threads on other aircraft. Aren't there any major Rafale capability updates for you to go talk about in the Rafale thread or something?
    Who told you that I was Rafale man?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,147
    I'm a bit surprised noone really took notice of this:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B-hqLCgIIAAZyNg.jpg 
Views:	374 
Size:	35.3 KB 
ID:	237197

    Swapping the Stormshadows with fuel tanks and this looks like a solid loadout. Pretty much what the Tornadoes carried in Libya times 2 plus Meteors. Now the question is: just a mockup or really in development ?

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurel View Post
    I'm a bit surprised noone really took notice of this:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B-hqLCgIIAAZyNg.jpg 
Views:	374 
Size:	35.3 KB 
ID:	237197

    Swapping the Stormshadows with fuel tanks and this looks like a solid loadout. Pretty much what the Tornadoes carried in Libya times 2 plus Meteors. Now the question is: just a mockup or really in development ?
    Range in that config?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,439
    Quote Originally Posted by lukos View Post
    I've read it in a few places, not saying it's right but it's been proliferated around quite a few sources.
    There is quite alot that's being said by "sources". One only needs to think about such a claim and its implications. This one is definitely a mere.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    I have never claimed the RBE2-AA had changed back-end.
    Pffft, sure you did, that's what you now argued about forever and a day.
    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...99#post2220399

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Still doesn't say a thing about Captor-E having any more capabilities than RBE2-AA. Both have their upgrade path defined and they are technologically on the same level.
    It says it has RF cyberwarfare and both active and passive detection/tracking capabilities, which is more than can be said for RBE2-AA. Aside from that, it has 50% more modules, which itself is good for a 36% increase in detection and targeting range.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    I read very good. And another dozen of people here read the same. The only fool reading something else is yourself.
    Go figure.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    And? How exactly is that related to our topic?
    Your comment wasn't exactly related either, just something that put you in bad company, e.g. Saddam Hussein.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Of course, they surely spend their time testing new hardware in the least challenging missions possible, just to please you.
    Not every test pushes the absolute limit in terms of simulating the greatest imaginable enemy threat. Some training scenarios in the last decade have had fighters mimicking 3rd generation fighter enemies. So in that particular case, you get left with a situation where a mechanically scanned radar, a PESA, an AESA, or even an IRST system ticks the box.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Who told you that I was Rafale man?
    It's plain to see. The immediate belief in the Rafale's whole electronic stealth BS over in the F-35 thread. I see people willing to believe any Rafale hocus-pocus claim ever made, like the recent BS about the AESA RBE2 having a >100% increase in range over the PESA, putting it on par with an APG-77 based on RBE2 PESA range claims. Yeah, that's right, the RBE2-AA is apparently 8 times more efficient than an APG-77 relative to its size. Pffft.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurel View Post
    I'm a bit surprised noone really took notice of this:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B-hqLCgIIAAZyNg.jpg 
Views:	374 
Size:	35.3 KB 
ID:	237197

    Swapping the Stormshadows with fuel tanks and this looks like a solid loadout. Pretty much what the Tornadoes carried in Libya times 2 plus Meteors. Now the question is: just a mockup or really in development ?
    Seems to all be included in this new update. Of course the CFTs will be needed to make full use of the Storm Shadow. Interestingly the Storm Shadow MLU is due to introduce a 2-way datalink and anti-ship capability too. Very useful upgrades, concentrate on the upgrades and the bids will win themselves, shame that wasn't the philosophy from the start.

    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...67#post2219567

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    There is quite alot that's being said by "sources". One only needs to think about such a claim and its implications. This one is definitely a mere.
    There are obviously some flight conditions where stabilising the aircraft will take precedence, for obvious reasons, but it's potentially possible heading into a BVR encounter in stable flight. Heh, don't know.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurel View Post
    I'm a bit surprised noone really took notice of this:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B-hqLCgIIAAZyNg.jpg 
Views:	374 
Size:	35.3 KB 
ID:	237197

    Swapping the Stormshadows with fuel tanks and this looks like a solid loadout. Pretty much what the Tornadoes carried in Libya times 2 plus Meteors. Now the question is: just a mockup or really in development ?
    I'm always sceptical of these mock ups. That said if you take fuel instead of cruise missiles then that is plenty of useful hardware.

    If you compare to this layout we are now looking at more precision strike than ever
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	189 
Size:	124.6 KB 
ID:	237203
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 2nd May 2015 at 10:48.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    Swap the Paveway IVs for another 3 Brimstones and you're looking at taking out a dozen tanks, IFVs, APCs, artillery pieces or SAM sites from up to 60km away in a single mission. It's a moderately effective SEAD/DEAD package as well as a precision strike package. SPEAR will be another game changer. I think that the next few years will see the Typhoon undergo massive development, as the Tornado is phased out:

    Already funded for integration in P3E
    CFTs;
    Storm Shadow MLU (anti-ship capability);
    Brimstone II, anti-tank and DEAD capability, up to 18;
    Paveway IV dual racks, up to 12 in total;
    ASRAAM upgrade (unspecified, based on CAMM?);
    Meteor;
    DASS upgrade;
    Striker II helmet;
    AESA radar (Captor-E).


    Soon after 2018 - funded for development?
    SPEAR quad racks.
    Last edited by lukos; 2nd May 2015 at 11:50.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,535
    It's looking like Typhoon will only have 4 hard points able to carry Brimstone though.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    Maybe, maybe not. There's no reason why 6 couldn't be used with CFTs, although 12 missiles is probably more than enough.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,535
    Don't ask me why, although it's probably down to money. All the sources mentioning numbers that I have seen are consistently saying 12.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,147
    6 Brimstone and 4 PW IV is exactly twice what the Tornadoes carried over Libya. Plus the option for 4 BVR missiles. That's good enough for me. Can someone identify the dual carrier ? Couldn't find any detailed info on it.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,762
    I think that's a new enhancement in P3E too. There's also a common quad rack in development for the F-35 and Typhoon.

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