PuffadderDo you want the max ordnance layout or just the layout that won’t damage the rear end of the helicopter during launch 😀
PuffadderPuffadder:
18t? Blimey people are putting that figure up all the time, even PilotGHT only puts it at 11.5t.
Walked away from Airbus? BAe still owns 20% of it and builds the wings. When did they walk away? Must have been in the last few weeks then?
Your opinion sucks.
With an atitude like that why should we bother?
Phil
My 18 ton figure refers to a nominal carrier plane, not a specific model. I was pointing out the weakness inherent in the design of a low slung intake.
A brief excursion into the history of the Airbus company- you need it!
As the requirement for a 300 seat plane cystallised in the mid ’60s Britain and France agreed to a joint undertaking whereby Britain and France would take a 37,5% share in the company with Germany taking the remaining 25%.
In April 1969 Britain pulled out of the undertaking, leaving France and Germany to carry the can just as development was set to start. Prior to this Britain had done all it could to make the project sink!
Thus France and Germany agreed to a new framework where each would get 50%. Realising Hawker Siddley’s pre-eminence in the field of wing design, Hans Joseph Strauss chairman of the board, persuaded Germany to divert some of the funds going to pay for the British occupation of western Germany to Hawker Siddley. British engineers were sent to Bremen to work because they had no projects to keep them occupied in Britain.
On the 31 August 1978 Britain formally committed itself to Airbus again, but this time as a “junior” partner- junior in the sense of it’s financial commitment, not it’ competences.
Lightning? What do you want to hear from me- that it was a fine plane?
.
PuffadderFrench had no intention of joining the Eurofighter programme. They wanted to slow it down , delay it and then finally bury it. They delayed it alright but they did not bury it. Why? Because the people who designed it can build supersonic combat aircraft as well as anybody else can, including the French.
Phil 🙂
Phil, the idea that France wanted to bury the programme is ludicrous. They wanted it done their way. So did Britain. If you look at their requirement you can understand why France wanted to do it it’s way. There is no way in hell that the Typhoon design could be optimised for the carrier environment. I’m not trashing Typhoon, but it’s design doesn’t lend itself to carrier ops. Other than that it’s OK. GD tried to sell a navalised F16 back in the ’70s. Obviously it failed- how the hell do you want to catapult an 18 ton plane with THAT intake?
Also, I’m keen to remind you that Britain didn’t exactly do itself credit when it walked away from Airbus. That decision, rightly or wrongly, certainly left it’s mark on the minds of the French aviation industry and the politicians. Obviously, Germany didn’t give a damn. The German politicians (with few exceptions) didn’t give a s**t about the aviation industry.
Harrier is great. Lightning sucked big time. France (Dassault) has far more experience than any other European manufacturer with regard to design, manufacture and support of modern fighter planes.
Admittedly, Dassault did a disservice to the Aeronavale by plugging the Etendard against the Jaguar.
“Puffadder the problem is that the USA and Brussels see ‘Europe’ as a single political entity. It is not. The Brits, the French, The Germans, Dutch, Poles etc etc all have their own agenda. Europe is not a country and if NATO can’t standardise what makes you think Europe can?”
You’re right- to an extent. I do however believe that the actual requirements expressed by most of the airforces in Europe do actually overlap. Obviously petty nationalism, to which France is in no way immune, seems to win out quite often. As regards Rafale and Typhoon, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the RAF and Luftwaffe pilots would be quite at home in a plane with a close coupled canard and side intakes and that AdlA and Aeronavale pilots would be equally happy with a somewhat heavier Rafale with a centre joystick.
The Eurotrainer requirement would the the ideal opportunity for the European airforces to actually procure, in quantity, the M346 which is going to be an excellent trainer. Either that or go for a stripped down Gripen rather than Mako and K50. Watch us screw it up again 🙁
PuffadderIt doesn’t look as sleek as the 747 though. A bit pugnacious 🙂
PuffadderWhen PILOTGHT steps into this thread and writes a couple of posts it will get much clearer to you. Believe me. 😀
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
“How many has France designed? Mirage III, Mirage V, Mirage IV, Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, Mirage G, Mirage F-1…
How can you say Britain has more experience in high performance fighter design?”
’nuff said.
Resident Yanks will be pleased to know the the Euro-Muddle that resulted in two very similar planes will soon be repeated in the upcoming Eurotrainer requirement. Instead of going for the M346 we’ll again see n amount of designs being proposed. Bizness as usual 🙁
I look forward to the day when we get our sheet together as regards procurement. Resident Yankee imperialists are cordially invited to roll on the floor with laughter 🙁 🙁
PuffadderI guess this is an argument that will run and run.
I must confess that I’m having a problem with the concept that lift and wing loading can be ignored, whether it be at range or in a “knife fight”. To some extent at least we are talking about little “jets”. The old coal burning Blk 15’s are more agile than a 52 because of wing loading. I would normally assume that the vehicle with higher wing loading would handle sluggishly (at least more so than one with less wing loading).
The waveform remains constant at all intercept ranges after launch.
“The 5in motor is an economic choice to complement that preference”
Hmmm. The first Magic 1 had a diametre of 6.2 inches. Shafrir 2 has a 6.3 inch diametre as do most other modern designs. You have almost no advantage by sticking to the 5 inch diametre. A bigger seeker, easier cooling, bigger motor.
The AIM-132 has been having a rough time but they´ll find their way out of the woods. Even so, it isn´t up to the IRIS-T.
PuffadderThe seats they use are French made!
Aahh, Société d’Exploitation des Matériels Martin-Baker 🙂
http://www.martin-baker.com/Loc_FR.htm
PuffadderIf my AIM120 has “gone ballistic” at range then so will your MICA and it will do that before mine….according to sources outside France that test fired the MICA AND AIM120. I fail to see how a TVC would work when the T isn’t there anymore. Waveform remains constant, you mean MICA-IR? Mind you that there are other ways to detect missiles besides active EM waves. Anyways, after burnout, it comes down to trading potential energy for kinetic energy while ballistic drag is heavily based on the slender ratio, not simply just size….it’s opposite of what you think. Now, let’s say you’re relatively close. That AIM9X is even deadlier since based on your assumption, TVC, weight, size….. 😀 😀 😀
Hi Vortex
You are of course quite right with regard to TVC- no T, no TVC.
The MICA does still have conventional tail surfaces. I must point out though that the strake wings provide more lift and lower wing loading than the conventional triangular wings. It is with good reason that the AIM-54 has strake wings- at long range with no thrust you need all the lift you can get. The AIM-120 has a sectional density (l/d) of about 20.6 compared to the MICA with an s.d of about 19.4- not much in it. The long strakes of the MICA produce less drag per unit lift than do the conventional wings.
“If my AIM120 has “gone ballistic” at range then so will your MICA and it will do that before mine….according to sources outside France that test fired the MICA AND AIM120”
Do you have a link for this ? I’m certainly no expert and cannot trash this claim but would you agree with me that it seems counter-intuitive that a heavier, thrustless missile producing less lift somehow is still manoeuvring when a somewhat lighter, thrustless missile producing more lift is somehow unable to manoeuvre. I don’t have any numbers for the weight of either missile at burnout but given that the warhead of the AIM-120 is 10 kg heavier than that of the MICA (which is quite a bit actually) I reckon that the difference in weight at burnout is about 20-25 kg. Is that a lot? I don’t know. Any input on this would be most welcome.
There can be little doubt that at range an AIM-120 near miss would be more lethal than a MICA near miss, given the -120’s almost 100% larger warhead. Even so, the MICA warhead, at 12 kg easily matches any current WVR, be it US, British, Israeli or Russian. Only the South African AAMs have bigger warheads.
“Waveform remains constant, you mean MICA-IR”
I was referring to the launch platform. When a -5 or -5 MkII launches a MICA the waveform of the RDY remains constant. Thus an enemy plane cannot immediately tell if a missile has been launched. This feature is not common to many other radar types.
AIM-9X?
Why not? A 9X coupled with strake wings and a motor optimised for extended WVR would IMHO be a good single weapon solution. The single biggest problem with regard to the AIM-9X is the fuselage diametre. The motor cannot burn as efficiently and the fuselage doesn’t have the same degree of rigidity as does IRIS-T or MICA. BTW the MICA motor and fuselage section containing the motor and the laser welded strakes are actually German.
Sorry about the considerable delay in replying to your post.
Puffadder“Alpha Jet is a very complex bitch, hard to maintain and very costly to operate for a trainer, that might be the true reason why it never outsold the Hawk. But the Czech L-39 stays unbeaten in this category, I guess.”
Hi Flex
Your comments regarding the Alpajet suprise me.
The Alphajet and the Hawk entered production at roughly the same time. Both types did initially enjoy a few export orders. To BAe’s credit they continued to push the Hawk and funded several upgraded versions in the hope of garnering some more orders even as the trainer market started to falter. Dassault and Dornier on the other hand basically ceased their marketing efforts too soon. As the market for trainers picked up again Dassault and Dornier found themselves up against a reinvigorated Hawk that was still in limited production and when the US Navy requirement came along. Dassault could only offer a plane that would require reactivation of the production line, possibly without Dornier. It was a non-starter.
The Alphajet is a very rugged plane (12g) and aerodynamically very clean. Compare it with the Hawk- the Alphajet has no wing fences, no ventral fins and elevator fillets. Also it flies better. Some years ago a magazine published an article entitled “Hawk: the Alpha beater”.
An RAF IP recounted his experiences as an exchange IP with the AdlA. He could outturn visiting Hawks with ease.
When the Indian AF initially invited tenders for their trainer requirement the Alphajet won (sometime around 1989-1990). One of their main criticisms of the Hawk was the 2000 hour life of the wings. The Alphajet wings don’t need replacing.
About 2 or 3 years ago in an issue of AFM mention was made of the Alphajet that DERA is using. The Alphajet experienced its first breakdown after about 19 hours. It was said that this contrasted well with the Hawk which would experience a failure after about 4 hours, if I remember correctly. If somebody has this issue of AFM I would appreciate it if they could confirm or correct my figures.
Also, some years ago a senior Russian officer, responding to criticisms from Russian politicians regarding the choice of the LARZAC engine for the MiG AT said that SNECMA allowed him to inspect engines that had in excess of 4000 hours flight time and were still in use and that no Russian manufacturer could come close to this.
In this respect, I’m reminded of a chat that I had with an American engineer involved in the licence production of the Marbore engine for the T37. He was based in France at the time when SNECMA was finalising development of the LARZAC. He witnessed the engine in the altitude chamber at Villaroche. He praised the engine for its exceptional performance above 60000 ft.
The Alphajet and Hawk are both expensive compared with the L39. The L39 had the benefit of a huge captive market. The Hawk is a better trainer than the Alphajet. The canopy design of the Alphajet makes the installation of a rear HUD difficult. In the Hawk the switches in both cockpits move in unison, thus allowing the instructor to see which switches have been selected by the student pilot and how they have been set- clever idea.
PuffadderGMT+2 ??
Are they in Athens, or perhaps Cairo? 😉Tolouse is in France, thats GMT+1 or CET (Central European Time)
Summer CET is indeed GMT +2
PuffadderGMT+2 ??
Are they in Athens, or perhaps Cairo? 😉Tolouse is in France, thats GMT+1 or CET (Central European Time)
Summer CET is indeed GMT +2
PuffadderSome things never change…
The F18E debate on this forum has produced a permanent fault line, it seems.
All of you Hornet haters should remember that this plane has to launch from and recover to a carrier, day in, day out. This is the alpha and omega and this means compromises in most every aspect of the design. The Super Hornet is the best thing that’s happened to US naval aviation in a long time. No Tomcat, A7, A6 or any other plane has close to the mix of capabilities that the F18E has.
Now I know that there are some members of the Holy Episcopal Church of Our Sacred F14 on this forum and they will be wetting their Tomcat underwear as they read this- The US, unlike us Europeans throws real folding money at naval aviation and they were having problems keeping the F14’s going. Lovely plane- a maintenance nightmare. The F18E is the perfect one plane solution for the Yanks. Tomcatters- go home, it’s over.
OK, sock it to me :rolleyes:
Puffadder“But the Saudi’s may buy Rafale’s, If they do, it will give much needed credability to the program.”
Credibility? The Rafale has been in service for some years now and launchs from and recovers to a carrier. The Rafale programme doesn’t need credibility- foreign customers would be most welcome though.
Just for you JW I’m going to stick more pins into my 1/72 scale Typhoon voodoo doll 🙂
Puffadder10 aircraft is a joke. They should have gone the way the Portuguese did. A decent number of used Blk 15 and look to the Israelis, Belgians or anyone else to modify them and arm them.
PuffadderI’ll believe this when I see Rafales in a hot desert paint scheme, but not before. The Saudis bust the bank with all their weapons purchases after the 1990 Gulf thing. Within the kingdom there is massive resistance to spending more money on fancy jets or anything else from the West for that matter. But who knows..
Sign In
