Page 9 – Key Publishing

typhoon1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 501 total)

← 1 2 3 … 8 9 10 … 32 33 34 →

Author

Posts
June 2, 2009 at 12:22 am in reply to: Tornado vs Jaguar; Which was more survivable/less detectable? #2472362

typhoon1
Participant

~600 kt in the dash. For endurance it is ~450 kt.

Its faster than that Sens; http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/102450-tornado-f3-maximum-speed-2.html

Unless you are taking into account tanks etc..

June 1, 2009 at 11:27 pm in reply to: Tornado vs Jaguar; Which was more survivable/less detectable? #2472566

typhoon1
Participant

Both designs could operate at ~200 feet and do a dash of 600 kt. The Tornado could do that at night or adverse weather for long periods, when the Jaguar could not.
Just special low level radars had a chance to pick-up such attacks in ~15 km distance (terrain and earth curvature and the related range demands for such systems!) , to start the sequence of IFF, track and fire something in a head on attack, otherwise a “bomb-run” could not be prevented and the damage from that is inflicted already. For the defender its less than 1 minute to do so.
The often quoted time-force race. The attacker can use his EW-suit to hamper the sequence further.
But that does work only, when the attacker has the perfect timing, by navigation, time, intelligence infos about the target and the weapons-release does work in a perfect way, when is not forced to pull up to aquire the intended target by “eyesight”.
Without any tactical suprise by timing, direction or other problems the chances of the defenders do rise to caught that attackers by bolster the SAMs with AAAs.
At low level stealth in the way of RAM does not help, when speed is of prime importance.
At that time scale it was figured out, that speeds below 450 kt were critical in an attack, so the need of AB to push it up close to optimum, which ~600 kt at s.l..
During daytime in not too much adverse weather condition, the Jaguar is the most cost-effective solution, when for the other 70% of the year it is the Tornado. But we have to keep in mind, in a fluid battle without stationary targets, the mayority of missions were flown in that 30% of the year in Central Europe conditions.
That in mind I would task the Jaguar and Tornado in the priority of targets. The lower to medium ones for the Jaguar and the medium to higher ones for the Tornado, if enough time for mission planning is left.

See ‘Fighter Missions’ from Bill Gunston a.o. or ‘Elite Flyers’ from Andy Evans about that.

Appreciate the detailed info Sens, I might try and get some of those books.

June 1, 2009 at 11:24 pm in reply to: Tornado vs Jaguar; Which was more survivable/less detectable? #2472590

typhoon1
Participant

Just would like to point out that in order to “chase down” or “out run” a low-level intruder, an interceptor does not have to drop down to said intuder’s altitude…

Big, fast interceptors with look down/shoot down capability (e.g. MiG-31, SU-27) made obsolete all of the nap-of-earth penetrating bombers like Tornado, Jaguar, F-111 and B-1 .

What happens when the jet is sustaining flight below the missiles miniumum engagement height?

June 1, 2009 at 11:22 pm in reply to: Tornado vs Jaguar; Which was more survivable/less detectable? #2472606

typhoon1
Participant

Clean airplanes don’t count. Put a useful warload on that Tornado and tell us what the speed at sea level is…

I read a thread on Pprune where some F3 pilots got it to ~ 1.5, full missile load at ~ 5000ft. The tornado was, and still is, ridiculously fast at low level. I would like to see how it compares even to Typhoon’s sea level acceelration from 350 kts +.

June 1, 2009 at 11:18 pm in reply to: Tornado vs Jaguar; Which was more survivable/less detectable? #2472637

typhoon1
Participant

DJ Cross,
Typhoon 1,

No radar meant no emissions for the Jag, but it also meant no low level NoE in IFR, and a less robust night capability.

The Jaguar was an interim aircraft for RAF Germany – for obvious reasons. The role was primarily nuclear and the Jaguar made a nonsense of the two-man principal. The aircraft was basically a Hunter FGA9 replacement for rapid deployment and regional reinforcement roles.

By the standards of the day, NAVWASS was almost unbelievably good (I flew a great deal with NAVWASS, and I remember only too well how impressed everyone was by it), and FIN1064 was better again (though I’m barely qualified to comment, as I only flew the 2A a handful of times) but Tornado marked a huge step forward, with its ability to use radar offsets, etc.

The RAF Jaguar was a magnificent machine – especially in its final incarnation – but comparing Jaguar and Tornado is like comparing Hunter and Canberra B(I)8, or Tempest V and Mosquito B.35. They were different classes of aircraft.

I agree with what you are saying Jack but I wan’t really trying to compare the Tornado weapons system vs Jaguar. Simply trying to get a gauge on how hard it would be to “detect” an example of a passive (relatively) low level jet vs a TFR equiped jet such as the Tornado.

Can I ask what are “radar offsets”?

May 31, 2009 at 11:39 pm in reply to: Good News for the F-35 Program #2475250

typhoon1
Participant

Tell that to the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale & super-Flanker pilots who are more than happy to talk your ear off about how their aircraft’s extended flight envelope vs the F-15/F-16 allows them to best said F-15/F-16…

Maybe you did not read mine or your own original posts :confused:

I was claiming, the point you presented of no AOA limits being classed as ” extended flight envelope”, was stupid as having no AOA limits is irrelavant tactically 99.99999% of the time. Having alpha limits to appropiate levels e.g ~30 deg is much more logical. Why do you think EF has its limited to an in service value of 28 deg?

We were not talking about any other aspect of performance.

May 31, 2009 at 1:18 pm in reply to: Good News for the F-35 Program #2476703

typhoon1
Participant

Extended flight envelope…

Well its extended in a useless way then. The only reason it could be used in the F-22 is to make up (or at least try to make up) for a lack of HMS.

May 31, 2009 at 1:12 pm in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon news II #2476716

typhoon1
Participant

Do you have a link for that video, please? 🙂 Not sure I’ve watched that one.

Its in post #981. 🙂

May 31, 2009 at 10:19 am in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon news II #2477028

typhoon1
Participant

Only in terms of absolute speed, climb and transonic acceleration is the Eurofrauder superior. In another league? Only if you are a fan boy and believe all of the Eurofrauder hype.

I would suggest you look at around the 30sec and rthe 5:40 mark on the F-18 demo. Things you will never see a frauder do because it cannot do it.

Lol having seen them both in the air many, many times, albeit at airshows for many years, the SH isn’t a patch on he Eurofighter. Now you obviously havnt seen a Typhoon, so comment when you have please.:)

And as a small point. Look at the tranch 2 test display video, it does 90-180 deg turns in less than a second, IT doesnt need TVC!

Thats enough of sensless dribble from me now, back to the proper topic I rekon.

May 31, 2009 at 12:11 am in reply to: Good News for the F-35 Program #2477887

typhoon1
Participant

Whats the point of having no AOA limits?

Getting slow in WVR is not too clever you know!

May 30, 2009 at 9:21 am in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon news II #2479214

typhoon1
Participant

Maybe you should compare it to a demo with a full combat load instead of one center line tank. Try this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeDWlJauHwQ

Lol. The Eurofighter’s kinematic pefromance is in a different league to the F-18E/F, and just about everyone knows that!

May 29, 2009 at 9:59 am in reply to: Good News for the F-35 Program #2482430

typhoon1
Participant

First of all it is >Mach 1.5, not =Mach 1.5 and the KPP THRESHOLD for the ATF was >Mach 1.6 & the F-22 is actually capable of Mach 1.78.

Even Mach 1.5 is ~15.4% faster than Mach 1.3…that means traveling either ~15.4% farther in the same amount of time or traveling the same distance in ~15.4% less time. And if you can cruise @ >Mach 1.5 you can always slow to Mach 1.3.

~15.4% is not much really. I can understand when figures as high as 1.8 are said for the Raptor, that figure is more substantial over 1.2~3 and will give decent benefits of a good distance or time. I’m still unsure of the actual combat significance of SC though as any combat usually lasts minutes at the most, now would SC play any advantage in such a short time? From what I gatherer it can help in giving advantagous postions for missile shots without using AB/fuel savings etc..but if ; detection, tracking, firing only lasts minutes wouldn’t any fighter be using all they can such as AB to gain any advantage anyway, trying to use all the physical performance of the jet?

With the F-22’s LO ability, it allows it to fire from different positions during BVR in the sky indeed alot more easily and possibly not be detected, and if the distances are great between firing points, SC I guess comes in pretty handy right? Again are they large enough to make SC a significant advantage, I’m not sure. It pretty sure there was a thread, I’m gonna go find it.

May 28, 2009 at 11:15 pm in reply to: Rafale news VI #2483384

typhoon1
Participant

The part which surprise me is the “better discretion”.

How wide is Dassault margin about that specific point ? I read that they designed new air intake (with no need to retest everything) + the “weapons coffin” but except that, what’s left without an important redesign ?

Maybe more advanced RAM, possible further IR m-88 reduction. It wont be stealth in the full sense I guess, but it will have a smaller signiture.

May 28, 2009 at 11:04 pm in reply to: Good News for the F-35 Program #2483435

typhoon1
Participant

>Mach 1.5 is a significant advantage. Even over Mach 1.2-1.3.

Can you explain why going an extra ~150-200 m.p.h faster (ie ~1.5 over~ 1.3) is a significant advantage?

I understand >1.3 gives way to better drag characteristics, but is the jump that stark?

May 28, 2009 at 9:30 am in reply to: Good News for the F-35 Program #2485738

typhoon1
Participant

Coming back to the real world;

Does anyone know how often USAF F-22 pilots use it in exercises/training? Or is it a capability thats only there when needed?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 501 total)

← 1 2 3 … 8 9 10 … 32 33 34 →