Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    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, 13:21.

    Comment


      #62
      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.

      Comment


        #63
        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.

        Comment


          #64
          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.

          Comment


            #65
            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!

            Comment


              #66
              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, 17:59.

              Comment


                #67
                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
                sigpic

                Comment


                  #68
                  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, 16:02.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    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!

                    Comment


                      #70
                      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.

                      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..

                      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..

                      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?

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

                      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..

                      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?

                      Comment


                        #71
                        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.

                        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

                        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.
                        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.

                        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.

                        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, 10:49.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          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

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Trying to argue against Scorpion82 on Typhoon stuff ?
                            LOL !!

                            Comment


                              #74
                              I'm not sure lukos has any other setting

                              Comment


                                #75
                                I've read it in a few places, not saying it's right but it's been proliferated around quite a few sources.

                                Comment


                                  #76
                                  A bit like Hollow Earth, then.

                                  Comment


                                    #77
                                    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.

                                    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.

                                    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.

                                    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?

                                    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.

                                    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?

                                    Comment


                                      #78
                                      I'm a bit surprised noone really took notice of this:
                                      Click image for larger version

Name:	B-hqLCgIIAAZyNg.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	35.3 KB
ID:	3661416

                                      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 ?

                                      Comment


                                        #79
                                        Originally posted by Aurel View Post
                                        I'm a bit surprised noone really took notice of this:
                                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]237197[/ATTACH]

                                        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?

                                        Comment


                                          #80
                                          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.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X