Plane manI don’t know how up to date this information is so,,,
Excerpt from World Air Power Journal, Volume 42.
In early 1999, the Department of Defence’s directorate of operational test and evaluation(DOT&E) reprted that the Super Hornet – in its current configuration, in which it entered Opeval – suffered from a number of limitations in the dogfighting arena. These included “limited high angle of attack agility and engagement controllability, poor loaded energy addition, slow angle of attack reduction, slow engaged turn reversal, slow sustained turn performance and high bleed rates.”
A retired Navy fighter pilot with combat and flight test experience sums up these limitations: “This airplane is a dog in ACM”. High AoA agility, he notes, is essential to perform a scissors or other basic fighter manoeuvers. “Limited… engagement controllability” means that the aircraft is slow to change its flight path. Other comments in the DoD report, he says, suggest that the Super Hornet loses energy (in speed or altitude) too quickly in a turning engagement, and does not recover rapidly. Once the nose is up, it takes too long to lower it before accelerating. Turning reversal, described as “slow”, is a primary defence capability.
These points were reinforced in late 1999 by a controversial article by Lieutenant Colonel Jay Stout, a combat veteran Marine Hornet pilot: “The Super Hornet’s shortcomings have been borne out anecdotally. There are numerous stories, but one episode sums it up nicely. Said one crew member who flew a standard Hornet alongside new Super Hornets: “We outran them, we out-flew them, and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for those pilots.” These shortcomings are tacitly known around the fleet, were the aircraft is referred to as the Super-Slow Hornet.
lol, that’s the source I was trying to describe, good find.:D
Plane manDoes it have greater performance than the A-C series of F-18’s, rember many conflicting views.
I remember Boeings test pilot, Ricardo Travern explaining how the E/F had better acceleration and turn performance, but this was conflicted by F-18c pilots explaining, when they first deliverd the E/F, they (c model pilots) out turned and accelerated the E/F on the spot, calling it a joke! 😮
Does the E/F give superior performance or is it Boeings made up waffle???
Plane manbetter suited for multirole with lower price, Su-35.
a whole flanker airframe is so big and has had a huge potential, now last time its pushed to its limits,beats EF in AtoA and AtoG modes,superior- missiles,radar,more fuel…an evergreen aircraft.
now last time its pushed to its limits,beats EF in AtoA and AtoG modes
Where did it do this???????:rolleyes:
Plane manGee… Its what BAE and EADS wants you to think and you are falling for it. Right now Typhoon is matched by Su-30 MKI (as air dominance fighter only, Air to Ground MKI is Waaaaay better). Wait for Su-35.
That is such a pointless, vague, stupid statement. I do not think you really understand the capabilities of the two planes to analyse in depth, especially the Eurofighter. Many people make wide statements about this plane’s ability without realising its nearly the best plane on the planet. If I were to say such a statement, “your believing all that Sukhoi/Russian hype about spectacular airshow performers, that when you look in depth have many pitfalls and are not yet in many aspects comparable to present western fighters e.g F-16 block 50+/18e, let alone Eurofighter, f-35 etc..
Give me some reasons why they are waaaaaaaaay better 😉
Plane manLoL I really wonder how this could finish… 😀
lol:D
Plane manThe big difference between Su-35 and eurocanards is that Flanker don’t need external tanks.
Thing is the Eurofighter’s performance with tanks is better than the Su-etc.. ,fully fuelled without them.:D
Plane manRight from what I see, I cannot really see the big huffle about the Su-35, it has superior radar, cockpit, weapon systems etc.. more so than the latest versions MKI, SMK etc.
But It is still a flanker, same basic frame and the dissadvantges associated with it, but with a few improvements.
In performance wise, It will not match the Eurofighter in turn rate, T/W ratio, Climb rate, agility, supercruise—only max range from what I see.
Talking about RS, not my fortay, the Eurofighter is claimed to have 3rd best (F-22/35 aside) and how the hell sukhoi will make the, areodynamicly optimised,huge, traditonal shape into something with a low RS will be something. No matter how much extra RS coating ect.. you put on it, it still will be a very big, flanker. Also the Eurofighter as sub-set missile storage under the fuselage, where as the su-35 literally lets it all hang out.
Another unknown to me (initate discussion) is the radar in he su-35,
is it AESA? Can it really track targets up to 400km away as mention regurlay (airforces monthly, aircraft etc…)
I may be better than the Typhoon radar at present :confused: , but hopefully and Im pretty confident when the Eurofighter gets it AESA radar it will be F-22 standard.
Prove me wrong 😀
Plane manThe big problem is that PANAVIA consortium apparently learned absolutely nothing from the Vietnam War. Low level flight had become increasingly untenable by the era of Linebacker II and the 1973 Yom Kipper War. The Tornado IDS wasn’t any more survivable than the much earlier Buccaneer, and it was only a matter of luck that the MiG-23 didn’t possess the look-down/shoot-down radar capabilities that it might have. Of course, the Tornado ADV was dynamically inferior to Spey Phantom and infinitely inferior to any contemporary American fighters.
The Tornado was absolutely incapable of meeting the MiG-29/Su-27 threat that came at the end of the cold war, and far from contributing, the Tornado fleet might have been considered a weak spot in the NATO arsenal if the Soviet Union hadn’t disintegrated.
Could you explain why it was inferior to any American contempory fighters.;)
From what I have gathered in the flight performance the F.3 has is quite brilliant over a most of them; Having a greater range than the f-16, a longer loiter time, better low level acclereration, shorter take off and landing distances, higher top speed, higher max. altitude flight to name a few.;)
Moving to the radar, once sorted, offered greater range and target ability, ablitlity to be used through extremely harsh electronic counter-measures. The two seat crew which has a dedicated weapons systems opperater provides brilliant situational awareness. The only way I see an F-16 being more superior in the role is its dogfighting ability, which as always is not what anyone wants to get into.
The F-15 I believe is better in the performance side, dunno bout range or max altitude though:confused: , however I wouldnt believe It would have been able to carry out the tornado f.3 task in such a specialised role so well.
The mig-29, 😀 , would not have been able to get close to it with its poor radar/avionics combo, only in the WVR area would it have been a bit of a ******. The su-27 I am not sure about, I dont know the radar ranges of early su-27’s:confused: but Im pretty sure they wouldnt have opperated very well in an intense EC enviroment.
Now to insult the IDS is pure madness. The EC were brilliant of the day, the terrian hugging radar and its various modes of opperation were far in advance of any aircraft, able to literally fly itself at 100ft where no interceptor could catch it at low level, just below the sound barrier for long periods of time with a large payload. Lets us say a mig-29/su-27/mig-23 managed to acquire the tornado at low level, very unlikely, the missile has specifications to minimum operating flying altitudes and below the 200ft mark, in the case of Russian missiles especially, I doubt would be able to engage the Tornado.
I do not think you should make such wide sweeping statements about an aircraft you do not know much about, that has protected Europe for a good 25 years, stuck the fear of God into the Soviet’s, where any F-16,15,14,18 would have had no chance of surving in, let alone being good at at the role.:mad:
Plane manThe IDS version of the tornado is probably the best low level strike aircraft of all time, still continuing, albeit with upgrades, to come out on top in the Red flag exercises. I cannot think of another aircraft able to do 901 m.p.h at 60 ft and basically fly itself at low level all the way to the target.
The F.3 version was brilliant in its intended role, to attack Russian bomber formations off northeren Scotland in the harshest of weather’s and EC enviroments. It was far to specified, apart from being a missile platform in this role there was very little else it could do, only the alternative Alarm capability comes to mind. One of the things that is lacking is actual fighter like performance in the F.3 compared to contempories of the day, climb performance and turning ablility are not so good, but once again, it was not designed to dogfight.
Recently the RAF has begun flight testing a Tornado GR4.A with a new ASEA radar which will indefinitly improve the tornado’s capability, replacing the well used 70’s era radar.
Plane manYes definately:rolleyes:
Lol, the chinese one looks nothing like it 😀
Plane manLoud!
LOL dam right, very, very loud:D
Plane manHas anyone got any video links/clips of the BAE systems Eurofighter typhoon T.1 display at Farnborough airshow last year?
The display that was carried out with 6x1000lb paveways, 4 AMRAAM, 2 sidewinders and a fuel tank.
Unfortunatly I didn’t get chance to see it and still never have (went on public day 😡 ). Since this is the typhoon thread I hope someone can help,
will 😎
Plane manI was not really questioning you, I just wanted an official number as it might be easier then to get to know the conditions when it was achived. But you stated that Typhoon is STOL wich means Short Take Off and Landing and the only official numbers I’ve seen regarding EF is take off distances.
And there are a fundemantal difference between Typhoon and Rafale and Gripen as the later two are closecoupled canards that are known to give better low speed qualities. The reports on tests with LERX on Typhoon might indicate that they are not totally satisfied with it’s low speed capability.
How about this from the eurofighter typhoon website, states takeoff run is 300m and takeoff time 7 seconds in aircombat situation.
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/tech.html#eval
Also to those people who think the typhoon is not he best looking aircraft, take an independant mind and watch this;
Plane manLets say we use metric tonnes.
Problem is about the pilot stating 5.5 tons/tonnes of fuel, this could have been a rounded figure, this alone could compensate for the weight of AMRAAMS, but lets continue.
lets say: 38600lb jet (5.5 tonnes fuel incuded and 2 asraams)
4 x 330lb amraams
2 x further 2 asraams= 194lbs x 2
2 x 1000 litre fuel tanks= 4409 lb’s
which gives a takeoff weight of 45917= 46000lb.
Assuming each engine provides 20250lb x 2= 40500lb gives a T/W ration of 0.88 in QRA loadout.
But if using often quoted 11 tonne empty weight and 5 tonnes of fuel this gives a T/W ration of 0.97. (In the second calculation 4 x194lb used for ASRAAM weight)
Plane manI don’t agree with your figures.
I was calculating this assuming he meant metric tonnes i.e. 17.5 tonnes = 17,500kg or 38,600lbs.
If he meant imperial tons then 17.5 ton = 17,780kg or 39,200lbs, giving a T/W = 1.03
Hopefully he meant metric tonnes!
The 35,000lbs (15.6 tonnes) net takeoff weight you refer to is close to the one quoted on various sources e.g. wikipedia. Why do these figures not correspond to the pilots?
I was using; one short ton (2000 lb), which is 90.72% of a tonne. This gives the figure of 35000lb’s. Lol I used a google converter and that is what it came up with; 17.5 ton’s = 35000 lb’s, and 17.5 tonnes = 38600 lbs, so actually I think your right,;) I do not really know what a “short ton” is:confused:
But I would have thought it would have been higher for the typhoon in any case. Slightly greater then 1 to 1 with 2 ASRAAM and full internal fuel seems less than I would expect. Has anyone got any ideas of the T/W ration when on QRA duty?
Sign In
