Thrust to weight is less

Schorsch, come on , are you serious!?!:p

I’d like to see a phantom, armed in QRA fit, go to end of the runway, then go up vertically, absolute vertical to 40+ Kft.

Better SA, radar, payload, range, weapons, low level ride; but TWR/acceleration/climb the Lightning was in a different league. Lets remember in sheer performance terms it gave the F-15 something to think about!

The Tornado EF3….

Not the interceptor itself but the SEAD aircraft, proved to be a great SEAD aircraft during GW2 carrying 2 and sometimes 3 deadly ALARM missiles and 4 ASRAAM’s, (Agreed the ASRAAM’s weren’t needed then). It was a short lived project and I believe the RAF wanted to keep it classified, I have no reason why? Although it proved very succesful

Early test actually showed the identification system to be better than the dedicated ECR version! It was very good, but from what I gathered the GR4 with Alarm is already “good enough” and the money needed to fund the program further just wasn’t truely justified.:(

My guess is they’ll probably be fitted around or after T3 are introduced…I think the Typhoon users, especially the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, would want to update Typhoon with Radar, avionics, Meteor etc etc before anything else…

If I recall correctly, it was once thought (maybe just a claim) many of the Typhoon 2 seaters would employ the CFT’s, and use the rear seater as a dedicated WSO, much like the AdA use the the Rafale B.

It was governed by the technical limitations of that time. The Russians used the Suchoi 7 for that mission, just to show the quality difference west vs east at that time. The Eastern German air force got their first INS-equipped aircraft in the early 80ies, more than 15 years later (though the GDR was never supposed to do nuclear delivery).

The F-104G in such missions is comparable to the F-105D.

The Phantom is the better all-rounder, but also much more expensive, and a disaster in low-level flight at high Mach number.

Attrition of the F-104G was not so much worse than other aircraft of that time.

yeah I’d go with those points, just that the F-104G in that role, wasn’t ideal, until the true low level weapons system arrived; a.k.a Tornado 🙂

F-104 losses were pretty bad, but I dont think the GAF suffered the greatest losses.

For Iranian Tomcats, during the “first” Gulf War, the favoured load, when avaliable, was two of each; Pheonix, Sparrow, AIM-9. Any more Pheonix’s and the agility was apparently severly compromised.

The sea level top speed normally is governed by allowed airspeed.
It is not about drag or engine, at least most of the time.

what do you mean by “allowed airspeed”? Actual restrictions placed by the producer on the plane, or by conditions?

cheers

Anybody heard anything from the SAF concerning the Rafales performance?

WHY is Typhoon NOT navalisable?

Why is Typhoon Roll rate a full 90* lower than that of Rafale?

Why is Typhoon approach speed a full 20 kts HIGHER?

Why is Typhoon AoA approach HIGHER too while been FASTER?

CAN Typhoon pull 11 g?

CAN it land in 400 m without a drag chute?

Answered briefly in order;

Re.”navalisble”, It was not designed from the outset, so why should it be ridiculed for not, completely, doing so :confused:

If it is true, 90* less, if it is true, will be down to the typhoons FCS making it perform the VV role, hence detracting from its linear role rate. Then you need to ask the question why it does it and Rafale does not, for advantage reasons in the supersonic region of course.

Typhoons approach speed is higher, again, as the Rafale needed to land on a carrier deck. Now ask, why a typhoon has a shorter takeoff run, and reaches rotation quicker, which is FAR more useful for land based jets.

***not quite sure what this point mean, can you explain more?

The EF’s airframe is allowed, in emergency situations to pull 15g. As a M2000’s is allowed to pull 12g. For instantaneous turns, many aircraft can pull over ten, for example F-15 pilots have pulled 12g’s in the Firs Gulf War.

Not sure on the min landing distance, but will have to check. Remember it has a huge airbrake and two, larger, canards with greater control deflection than the Rafale.