By: lukos
- 26th April 2015 at 15:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
By: mrmalaya
- 26th April 2015 at 19:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 28th April 2015 at 20:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From other thread:
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.
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.
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.
By: vleugelmoer
- 28th April 2015 at 20:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 28th April 2015 at 20:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Here is a Eurofighter precursor design, the BAE p110 from 1981 complete with A2G weaponry
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237110[/ATTACH]
More BAE imagery of the ACA which fed into the Eurofighter from the UK end:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237115[/ATTACH]
Note ALARM underwing
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237116[/ATTACH]
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?
By: j_jza80
- 28th April 2015 at 21:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess F15E and SU34 aren't strike aircraft then.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 28th April 2015 at 21:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Based on the logic being bandied about here, the 'F' and lack of 'F/A' make it a fighter only.:highly_amused:
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.
By: vleugelmoer
- 28th April 2015 at 21:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: eagle
- 28th April 2015 at 22:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 28th April 2015 at 22:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 29th April 2015 at 10:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
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.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 29th April 2015 at 10:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can the position be controlled manually?
Automatic like canards. Ideal position is determined in conjunction with DASS and AIS suite.
By: mrmalaya
- 29th April 2015 at 10:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: Sintra
- 29th April 2015 at 11:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 29th April 2015 at 11:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
By: mrmalaya
- 29th April 2015 at 13:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 26th April 2015 at 15:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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/2010/08/thales-deliver-first-aesa-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/national/defence-watch/raytheon-to-design-flexible-distributed-array-radar
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 26th April 2015 at 15:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions/usa/Product-Focus-Conformal-Antennas-Sharing-the-Load_1183.html#.VTz7-c4iq5Q
https://www.scribd.com/doc/254244798/Sensor-Craft
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 26th April 2015 at 16:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 26th April 2015 at 19:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 28th April 2015 at 20:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From other thread:
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 28th April 2015 at 20:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Typhoon lineage for all to see here at the very excellent secret projects forum:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,169.0.html
Here is a Eurofighter precursor design, the BAE p110 from 1981 complete with A2G weaponry
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237110[/ATTACH]
More BAE imagery of the ACA which fed into the Eurofighter from the UK end:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237115[/ATTACH]
Note ALARM underwing
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237116[/ATTACH]
Posts: 87
By: vleugelmoer - 28th April 2015 at 20:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 28th April 2015 at 20:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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?
Posts: 1,542
By: j_jza80 - 28th April 2015 at 21:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess F15E and SU34 aren't strike aircraft then.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 28th April 2015 at 21:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Based on the logic being bandied about here, the 'F' and lack of 'F/A' make it a fighter only.:highly_amused:
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.
Posts: 87
By: vleugelmoer - 28th April 2015 at 21:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.Posts: 1,542
By: j_jza80 - 28th April 2015 at 21:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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 :)
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 28th April 2015 at 22:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 28th April 2015 at 22:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can the position be controlled manually?
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 29th April 2015 at 10:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 29th April 2015 at 10:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Automatic like canards. Ideal position is determined in conjunction with DASS and AIS suite.
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 29th April 2015 at 10:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 29th April 2015 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats precisely what happened.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 29th April 2015 at 11:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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/military/world/europe/bae-p110.htm
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 29th April 2015 at 13:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.