WarCryThe US doesn’t what embargoes lifted from Rouge States. Because one day we and/or our Allies my have to fight them! Surely, you wouldn’t want your enemy to have weapons equal to your own? As for the the RCS of the Rafale/Typhoon vs the Eagle clearly both of the European Designs are Superior. The only problem with that is both are Superior while flying clean! In the real world each type would carry External Tanks, Bombs, Missiles, and possibly Jammers…………….Regardless, in the end the Ealge still offers alot of capability for the price or no one would still be purchasing it! 😀
Precisely Europeans have weapons that are capable of threatening even the American systems, therefore the US will make such lobbies… this is to point out to Turbinia…
As for the RCS, i was refering to frontal RCS and not all-aspect stealth… of course when we talk about all aspect stealth, non of the European fighters nor Eagle can make the mark… however when both planes are going on a head on in BVR, chances are Typhoon and Rafale will have an advantage over Eagle even when loaded with full a2a missiles load due to a much lower frontal RCS…
as i have said earlier, air forces are still buying Eagles because like u said they are still useful, heck even the F-5 is still useful in some airforces, and there are factors of political strings and of course being a mature systems, Eagles can be delivered at a faster pace with guaranteed performance…
downside would be the upgradability and potentially higher long term maintainence cost!
WarCryWhy are so many European countries buying the F35? Why does Europe rely on E3 AWACS? Why did Spain buy the AEGIS system for the F100? What other destroyer has an ABM capability? What is the Euro equivalent of the C17? Why is it that the Typhoon and Rafael enter service 30 years after the F15 and offer equivalent capability? Why is it is you look inside the shiny boxes of a lot of European products you find a lot of US sourced electronics and systems?
Why is it that the US gets uptight and always lobby for the Europeans not to lift embargo of European weapons on rouge states… or even countries like China which have great access to Russian tech?
Anyway the point is that you cannot argue the fact that Rafale/Typhoon are inherently better in terms of RCS and maintainability as compared to Eagle!
As for whether these are important considerations in the respective air forces of Japan, Korea or Singapore… we are really not in the position to judge… but we can all be sure that political considerations are factored in and also delivery schedules are factored in too… and these two points are strongly favorable to the US!
WarCryTo sferrin:
Pls read the below quote and come to terms on why the rest of the world chose canard-deltas, based on technical facts and not some artist impression…
American fighter constructors mostly tend to use conventional configurations to achieve their wanted spesification, and the europeans have many times choosen
an delta construction to achieve their wanted flight characteristics. WHY??
Who cares, as long they end up getting good result’s. However. When choosing an
delta con. you`ll get excellent supersonic manuvering performance, large wing surface areas with high weaponloads areas, but more drag, and not as good subsonic manuvering performance. That`s why they add canard`s, and now choose to built delta-canards instead. With canards, you get higher low speed performance and lower
drag. You also get better lift increasement, and high manuvering performance even with heavy loadings so that you does`nt loose as much performance when carring
heavy weapon loads. All this and the normal deltas excellent supersonic manuvering performance, are the reason why they have choosen to go for delta-canards.
So. What`s the best construction? Delta-canard or conventional configuration?
None. It all depends on how the final testing results end up at each projects, and
the real overall performance on the final fighter.
And back to the topic…
The one that’s Mach 1.4 with 6 + 2, and ‘about’ Mach 1.2 with tanks, you mean?
The one demonstrated to Singapore and confirmed by their evaluation pilots?
That supercruise capability?
CFTs would probably make it marginal, without more powerful EJ200s.
Is there any source for the part where Typhoon actually supercruise with tanks? I would really like to know…
and are there any links to the Singapore evaluations…? Thanks…
WarCryAnd maybe it’s just that. Supposedly.
yeah supposedly in reality, but definitely in theory…
That has never prevented things like Sidewinder clones, the B-1 clone, the Shuttle clone, the Lavi clone and so on. You gotta admit it looks strange. EVERYBODY goes with canards and thinks the US is too and then the US doesn’t and new designs you see today (Photoshop dreams don’t count) don’t seem to have them? I’d be interested in alternative theories that account for what seems to have happened.
how different do you want missiles to look? B-1 clone by the russians is a case of actual modification and enlargement of an actual operational bomber of the USAF, not some artist publication… not too sure wat is it about the shuttle and lavi clone…
and although it seems there is a copying conspiracy, but we are talking about the most sophisticated flying machines here, these are flying systems with so many complex technical challenges involved and so much cost involved to just copy someone’s drawings… dont u think?
imo, this is more of a case of global evolution in the aerospace industry in respect to aerodynamics… just look at the history of aviation, u will realise that every generation of airplanes have something similar to one another, be it american, european or russian designs… its more or less a known fact that canard-deltas are very efficient in various envelopes of flight … maybe the americans have found ways to achieve the same efficiency using tailed design or they found a better compromise that will boost all other systems on board if they discard the canard design…
at the end of the day, as i have said many many times, americans are not the only ones with a wind tunnel… the europeans, russians or even the indians and chinese have the necessary capabilities to conclude if canard-deltas are good choices for their planes or not…!
WarCryTime will tell with the Russians. If PAK-FA has a canard then I’d agree with you. If it doesn’t then what? Both MiG and Sukhoi had canards on their MFI and now they get rid of it? Must have been lacking in some regard then wouldn’t you think?
well, PAK-FA may not adopt canards could be due to other technical related reasons… and there could be many other than canards being an inferior design… in engineering, there is always the case where u need to compromise certain things to achieve other more desirable aspects…
maybe the US design houses gave up the supposedly more manueverable canard-delta design for some other things… just like they chose not to install thrust vectoring on Super Hornet in favor of more advance avionics integration of advance missiles.
in fighter aircrafts there are many systems, subsystems, fuel load, weapons load, engine size, aerodynamics and many other considerations… its not unusual if giving up one particular superior config to give plus points to other parts of the fighter…
most importantly, there are many excellent aircraft manufacturers outside of US that has their own research capabilities, phd graduates from their own excellent universities, experienced aerodynamics experts, computing resources and long history of aviation experience to draw upon to come out with their own design… rather than looking at concept pictures of US publications…
WarCrySurely all of that has an influence on the aerodynamics configuration.
those stuff does affect aerodynamics… but is not a major factor on deciding which aerodynamics configuration to use… whether is it a canard-delta, tailess delta, double delta, deltas with tails, conventional configurations, tri-plane, forward swept, etc etc…
Well, as far as the F-22 goes, a Lockheed official (I’m thinking it was Ben Rich or Kelly Johnson, but I can’t remember who it was really) once stated that “the best place for a canard is on somebody else’s airplane”, so they apparently weren’t too keen on the concept for some reason. Might be a stealth reason, if the canards are constantly in motion as part of the flight control system it might be a lot more difficult to predict and attain a certain RCS level.
Amusingly though, the original LockMart JAST scale model (it tested the lift fan idea used in the F-35B for one) was a canard delta…
perhaps the canards in motion will make some sense to it… but we cant really be sure that will be the major technical reason for not using that config… i guess americans always likes to be different could be the true reason… :p
WarCryaerodynamics configuration is not a major factor in the stealth compatibility of the plane, but rather the shaping of the surfaces of the plane, materials used, heat reduction and all sorts of shielding for internal aircraft components… especially the engine… are the key aspects of stealth.
WarCryLets be specific and factor in the full potential of all fighters in the near future…
Base on this, which will be your choice as a primary carrier fighter for both air defence and ground assault?
WarCryEuro-canards was the name given to Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen. These are all canard-delta designs. Advantages of deltas should be high maneuverability at supersonic speeds but low on maneuverability on subsonic speeds. However the addition of canards will make the design becomes aerodynamically unstable and thus with proper software control of the fly-by-wire, canard-deltas are efficient and highly maneuverable in both subsonic and supersonic flight envelope.
As to why Americans doesn’t adopt it is beyond me, while russians did attempt on it with the Mig stealth prototype and the chinese are trying to come up with their own canard-delta.
EDIT: The canards also suppose to create more airflow over the delta at subsonic speeds so as to improve performance.
WarCryoh its a typo… should be 1000km.. 🙂
WarCryso rafale/eurofighters are about 1000km short on range compared to the likes of flankers/eagles…
does carrying of ground attack weaponry of say 4-6 bombs greatly reduce their range..? especially for smaller crafts?
The range on internal fuel of the Typhoon compared to the Rafale is slightly better. However, the Rafale carries larger external tanks, and has two additional wet pylons.
is there any way to confirm the internal fuel comparison?
WarCryso how does their range fair against bigger crafts like the Eagle or Flanker?
Sign In
