EELightningyou might have forgotten Thunder can look up and shoot up, something WW1 planes can’t do 😮
I’m aware of it yet still I doubt many pilots would pick a JF-17 over a Typhoon or F-22 to fight way above the supersonic regime.
I pretty much said the theory about A/A combat goes back to WW1 and is the same today – higher speed + higher altitude = advantage.
EELightningSo the JF-17 has DSI, all very nice but it does have it’s limitations as has already been pointed out – its hardly a big deal. The JF-17 is hardly going to have superior supersonic performance to that of the Typhoon or F-22. The same theory still stands today as it did in WW1, the chap with higher speed at higher altitudes holds the advantage in A/A combat – I wouldn’t pick the JF-17 for these areas.
Btw, welcome back, Ocean Boy. Wonder how long you’ll last this time before another ban. Place your bets.
EELightningAs I’m sure most of you are aware, I’m rather fond of the Typhoon (I prefer the Lightning overall, but hey) as many are of the Rafale and Gripen, so I was routing for it in Switzerland while knowing that it would be overkill somewhat, as would the Rafale, and knowing that the Gripen would be the logical choice for a country that very rarely takes part in conflicts despite the results from the competition.
I get the impression that some people are moaning and whining just because their favourite wonder toy didn’t get selected by the Swiss. So what, the Rafale & Typhoon lost out, move on, its not the end of the world.
EELightningThanks for the reminder, Scopion82. I should’ve explained in a little more detail.
Giblets, quite possibly, its rather compelling speculation that it could be since ZJ700/IPA5 is known to be the aircraft for radar trials & from what I understand ZJ700/IPA5 hasn’t been airborne for quite some time, pre the photo of the aircraft shown with various pieces fitted – which was shown on here and Starstreak. However, since its been officially announced that the UK are funding for further upgrades and enhancements for their Typhoons (amonst other programmes the UK are involved in), one has to wonder if it could be the Bright Adder or the Captor-E radar? If the radar does recieve further funding that is.
~
The Royal Saudi Air Force’s remaining Tranche 2 aircraft will be completed in the UK at a rate of between eight and 10 per year, and will be “future-proofed” to receive planned enhancements. Airframe modifications would enable them to carry an active electronically scanned array radar and potentially range-extending conformal fuel tanks.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saudi-arabian-typhoons-to-get-capability-boost-371967/
Other than from Eurofighter GmbH, its been quite a while since CFTs got a mention. Nice one.
EELightningGood, I’ve been hoping we’d be buying some for the F35s this pretty much guarantees it.
Indeed. Now that the RSAF are in the process of integrating Hammer onto their Typhoons for an UOR – I’ve been hoping the RAF will do the same. On the other hand, I believe Paveway IV and SDB would compliment each other rather well.
All of a sudden the Typhoon seems to have a solid road map in place for the next 4-5 years.
EELightningMrmalaya, may be. But as I say, and I believe in so (corrections welcome), that the software needed to integrate these weapons is more than what P1EA has to offer, which has already been funded for.
Kev99, if I remember correctly, a piece was written in Air Forces Monthly’s news section that funding for further integrations of A/G weapons on Typhoon would be undertaken in the next five years, at the time of mid ’11 when the Lybian Campaign was underway. I’m 90% positive SDB was mentioned in the list.
Plus, from the RAF website:
Future weapons integration will include Meteor air-to-air missile, Paveway IV, Storm Shadow, Brimstone and Small Diameter Bomb. Additionally, it is intended to upgrade the radar to an Active Electronically Scanned Array.
EELightningIf he previously mentioned the integration of Storm Shadow and Brimstone onto Typhoon, and taking this quote into account: ‘Eurofighter Typhoon upgrades are also to be funded, Hammond says, without giving details of which enhancements are due.’, then it must be more than just the integration of these missiles. And one must be aware that, from what I believe, the Typhoon needs more than just the software of P1E (which has already been funded and is due to enter operational frontline service) to operate these missiles. So its most certainly he has other enhancements in mind, who knows may be the second part of P1E known as ‘B’, further funding for Captor-E, Meteor, SDB, other forms of software and such.
As is quoted, he’s not giving away any details about the enhancements, and we already know about Brimstone and Storm Shadow – for quite some time I can say, which I remember it was stated that funding has gone ahead back when the Lybian Campaign was ongoing, middle of ’11. And as I say P1E is already funded, so…
Interesting times indeed.
EELightningIts a pity this wasn’t done a few years ago, but better now than never I guess. Hopefully, this news will shut some people up that doubt any funding.
Have the RAF recently shown any interest in Conformal Fuel Tanks?
EELightningU.K. Sets £160 Billion 10-Year Defense Equipment Plan
The funding being set aside includes an extra £4 billion for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance projects (such as the Solomon and Crowsnest efforts) and £7 billion for complex weapons. Eurofighter Typhoon upgrades are also to be funded, Hammond says, without giving details of which enhancements are due.
http://www.aviationnow.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_14_2012_p0-457436.xml
P1EA has already been funded for and is due to enter frontline operational service. Anyone else have any other ideas of what these upgrade & enhancements might be?
EELightningAnd as soon as he’s done some googling, Eagle 1 obliges, proving himself to be as credulous and witless as Page is!
Lewis Page’s reports about the Typhoon are quite entertaining, but they have some way to go before they’re better than Bluewings’ claim that the ‘Typhoon is just a souped up Mirage.’ Classic!
Most recent(ish) news:
Eurofighter back on for Japan?
During his official visit to Tokya, UK Priminister David Cameron has renewed the UK’s commitment to signing a Defence Co-operation Memorandum with Japan in the near future.
During a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, Mr Cameron agreed thet their respective defence ministers would sign the memorandum next time they meet. In parallel, officials will be discussing a range of defence programmes that present industrial opportunities for both the Uk and Japan.
According to the Daily Telegraph, a new package would include British designed Future Combat Ships and additional AW101 Merlin helicopters. If signed, the UK and Japan will collaborate in a number of areas, including mine warfare. In addition, the deal could see Tokya renege on its F-35 buy in favour of the Eurofighter Typhoon to fulfil its F-X fighter requirement. Despite having been rejected in favour of the F-35 in last year’s F-X competition announcement, mant see the defence memorandum as a possible route back for the Typhoon. Japan has voiced serious concerns over the F-35 cost and potential delays, and an F-4EJ Kai Phantom replacement cannot be allowed to slip further.
Regarding the UAE:
Elsewhere, British Ministers say the Typhoon still has a chance of winning an order from the United Arab Emirates. The announcement came amid growing rumours that France was close to sealing a $10-billion deal for 60 Dassault Rafales. A previous agreement with Dassault collapsed in 2011 after UAE officials called the proposed terms ‘uncompetitive and unworkable’. Gerald Howarth, UK minister for international security, said: ‘There is real hope for substantial partnership should the UAE select the Typhoon… it is now a real possibility.’
Source: Combat Aircraft Monthly, Vol 13, No. 6, June Edition – News section, pages 30-31.
A few paragraphs from a piece reported by Jon Lake regarding Saudi Typhoons:
Having rejected the Litening pod, the RSAF reportedly considered Lockheed Martin’s Sniper pod, before settling on the Thales Damocles pod – already being built in Saudi Arabia by AEC for the RSAF Tornado fleet. Integration work on the Damocles pod is believed to be about to begin at Warton.
Defence News reported that problems in Saudi Arabia with acquiring Paveway IVs were confirmed by Britian’s defence attache in Washington, Maj Gen Francis Hedley Robertson ‘Buster’ Howes. The Paveway IV allows the pilot to select a desired angle of impact and direction of approach for the bomb, as well as a range of fusing options, all selectable by the pilot, in the air. This allows ‘effect’ to be very precisely tailored, and can allow the weapon to offer very low collateral damage. The American block on supplying Paveway IV to Saudi Arabia, argueably its most important ally in the Gulf region, must have come as agrave setback to the RSAF.
The RSAF is now understood to be looking at acquiring the Sagem AASM (Armement Air-Sol Modulaire, air-to-surface modular weapon) Hammer in place of the Paveway IV, and is looking to this on both the Tornado and the Typhoon.
The Saudi plans to use the Damocles and AASM on the Typhoon demonstrate a hitherto unexpected capability for integrating new weapons and systems on the aircraft flexibly and in a rapid timescale, and seem to show that hitherto slow pace of weapon integration has been imposed by funding constraints and not by any technical difficulty.
It is believed that BAE Systems is offering further air-to-ground weapons options and integrations to the RSAF (perhaps including an early integration of the Storm Shadow cruise missile), and in shorter timescales, supporting the RSAF’s aspiration to keep the aircraft at the core of its future fleet plans. These could see the Kingdom ordering further Typhoons.
This could prove to be of pivotal importance to a number of potential Typhoon customers, including the United Arab Emirates , who could perhaps see the Saudi example as evidence that a similar stand-alone integration of their Black Shaheen stand-off missile on the Typhoon could be achieved before any NETMA clearance of a Taurus/Storm Shadow integration.
Source/author: Combat Aircraft Monthly, Vol 13, No. 6, June Edition, pages 26-27. Jon Lake. Much more is reported in the report.
EELightningTo add to your post, Sharkey is pretty much Persona non Grata within the Royal Navy as well. He has attacked other (often better) pilots in the service, the admiralty and highly criticised 800 NAS during the Falklands war (ignoring the minor fact that 800 NAS got more kills!). His temper tantrum at an RAF base on his return to the UK is legendary! After the war he is regarded as an arch bull$hitter especially in respect of Harrier performance and capabilities, his contempt for the RAF is well known and high ups in the MOD regarded him as “somebody not to trust national secrets with”!
If I may add myself. When I read his book it gave me the impression Sharky was fighting two wars, one against the Argentines and the other being the RAF. Further more I got the impression he respected the Argentines more than he did 800 NAS, if I remember correctly he looked down on what the RAF Harrier GR3s brought to the party regarding A/G capabilities obviously, quite possibly intentionally, forgetting that the GR3s were as good at A/G as the FRS-1s were at A/A. The GR3s were considered better at A/G than the the FRS-1s.
I think I heard about his tantrum at the RAF base. Was that the one where he expected a red carpet at his feet or something?
To keep the discussion on topic to the thread; later in his book he criticised the Typhoon programme, back when ZH558 was into various trials, claiming it was no good and that the Harrier was the way to go pretty much. I’ve got his book somewhere in my collection, but can’t be ar$ed to flick through his biased gibberish. A good book but somewhat repetitive. Dave Morgan’s is much better.
EELightningPost what nonsense you wish to highlight from the report about the Typhoon & Tornado, anyone with an idea wouldn’t read much more let alone post it. His arguements are clearly against anything to do with the RAF.
With F18SH the UK could tackle with more efficiency and more capability the realistic threats it would face than with the typhoon/tornado combo letting appart industry consideration.
The Tornado GR4 is never going to have the A/A capabilities of the Super Hornet, sure, but it’s quite a match for it in A/G. On the other hand, the Super Hornet is never going to have the A/A capabilities of the Typhoon, however, it can be safely said that the Typhoon will have the A/G capabilities to match the Super Hornet.
Pre 9/11, who’d thought that these modern day fighters would be performing, somehwhat unorthodox, sorties for the past 10 years with upgrades & enhancements to help them adapt to this kind of environment.
The term, “Realistic Threats”, is often given too much thought sometimes.
I don’t grasp how the Super Hornet can tackle threats with more efficiency and capability than the Typhoon and Tornado, Typhoon/Tornado combo, which ever way one wants to put it.
EELightningI’m not one of those that posts un-related reports or ones that are bollox such as just posted by Eagle1, whom has a bit of a history of it. So a bit of a moot point.
Whats wrong with the claims, I hear you ask? First of all look at the source they come from and do a quick check of The Register’s history and particularly it’s author.
The claim that the Tornado GR4 being “inferior” to the F-18 is rather silly to say the least, especially when one doesn’t go into detail about which areas in A/G. We all know that Typhoon has quite a way to go in the A/G department but to say that the Typhoon “probably isn’t a lot better than a Hornet” in A/A is rather far fetched.
There are reports worth posting and there are reports that aren’t. This one falls in the latter category.
EELightningStill Trolling and posting utter bollox I see, Eagle1. :rolleyes:
EELightningI don’t think it is boring and childish.
Obviously, coming from someone who has a history of posting unrelated news on a Typhoon thread. :rolleyes:
I can also see that this is a pro navy report but that does not mean the arguments brought are not valid and unfunded.
You might need to check the differences between the official figures and these latter figures.
Sign In
