toanInteresting. I’ve never seen any picture of a Rafale firing its gun, nor of a Rafale having fired its gun, nor have I read any report of EC 1/7 having done any strafe, nor of the gun being available for use.
Was the gun something that industry were going to clear, or was it being left to the customer – as was the case for Typhoon?
Nor would I expect the AdlA to have bothered pushing forward with clearance of such a low priority item at this stage. The RAF had a specific reason for doing so.
According to a Rafale’s report of AFM, Dec 2003:
The Rafale M fighters of Flottile 12F shot about 1,000 30 mm shells, nine Magic II, and four MICA during the three exercises for weapon test in 2002.
toanAIM 9M should be fired well within range of the Rafale MAWS.
Also, why would a Rafale pilot turn its radar on and risk being detected by the AN/ALR-94, while it could use OSF (of which the F22 lacks an equvalent btw) completely passively instead? To me it makes no sense at all.
Nic
Possibility 1:
It may simply because that OSF and Spectra does no better work than RBE2 while trying to search and identify Raptor.
Possibility 2:
The pilots of Rafale would rather be slaughtered by Raptor than showing the amazing anti-stealth capability of OSF declared by THALES to USAF.
toanMaybe because the FAF pilots were given the opportunity to evaluate the VLO characteristics of the F-22? (Wasn’t it the first time Rafales encounter Raptors?)
And then offering the chance to USAF to collect and analyze the electronic signals of Rafale without any payback ???
toanSo basically according to Putin, The T-50 is going to enter service before the F-35, which has been flying for 4 years already!:rolleyes:(
What Putin said is that the first prototype of productional PAK-FA should be handed over to Russian AF at the time of 2013 ~ By this standard, the F-35 has entered service and begun serial production since 2007.
toanI do not see how they can get the PAK-FA by 2013 , probably 2015 is more realistic figure
The PAK-FA that flew yesterday is still more like a techonological demonstrator: Engines from the flanker, no radar, no electronics for productional fighter, and no EWS.
I wouldn’t be surprise if a real prototype of early productional PAK-FA (with radar, basic electronics & EWS and so on……) comes out at the time of 2013.
toanWhat would be the benefit of putting those things into the PAKFA airframe, stealth? Look further up this thread and you’ll see they’re already saying it’ll be about the same as Typhoon. Apart from that you’d just be replicating the exact capability that upgrade programs will give to Typhoon, Rafale etc.
What kind of evidence make you so sure that the RCS of PAK-FA will be about the same as Typhoon today ???
toanno one of the rafale/EF/gripen countries will never build a “5 gen” fighter.. it will go for a 6 gen. Meaning: no pilot…this is beond 2030…may be some neuron derivate for a-to-g in small numbers.
Both RAF and ItAF will buy and operate F-35 after 2015, while GAF and SpAF also consider to buy some F-35 in the future.
What I mean in my previous post is that if the european airforces like RAF, ItAF, GAF, SpAF and so on really want to introduce a so-called 5 th gen. stealthy fighter, a competition between F-35 and a western modified PAK-FA may be good for them.
toan
Europe can develop a 5th gen fighter. The question is, which 4.5 gen fighter will it succeed, or will be based on ? The Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen ? Or will there be 3 European 5th gen. fighters ?
Well, I think that if the Western European countries really want a 5th gen. fighter at the time after 2020, they may have two choices:
Choice one: “Buy American” ~ F-35.
Choice two: Western PAK-FA ~ something like PAK-FA airframe + F136 engines + Western European AESA radar / cockpit / electronics / EWS + Integration of Meteor AAM…..
Competition often makes better offer and service. The possibility of Western PAK-FA may decrease the possibility of “Buy what Uncle Sam tells you to buy” in F-35 project.
toanPersonally, I’d be interested in pictures of Hades and *reliable* weights and performance figures of the M51 (and how exactly it differs from the earlier, more powerful, M5) 🙂
1. Weight:
M5: 48 tonnes.
M51: 52 to 56 tonnes.
2. Warheads:
M5: 10 to 12 MIRVs.
M51.1: 6 TN75 100 to 110kts MIRVs + penetration aids (2010~2015).
M51.2: 6 TNO MIRVs + penetration aids (post-2015).
3. Range:
M5: 10,000 to 12,000 km (Another kind of declaration: from 6,000 km with 12 warheads to 14,000 km with 1 to 2 warhead(s).)
M51: from “More than 8,000 km” to “Near 10,000 km” according to different news and reports.
4. CEP:
Better than M45 SLBM, whose CEP has been declared to be 350 m.
toanAFM, Jan, 2010
Typhoon Over Spain
by Ian Harding, Chris Lofting, and Keith Chilton
1. Before the end of 2009, Spanish AF has acquired 26 EF-2000s in total (19 Tranche I and 7 Tranche II).
2. The experience of Spanish AF’s pilot for the flight performance of EF-2000:
“A fighter that is born for flying supersonically ~ even at the height of 10,000ft (3,048 m), flying Typhoon at speeds below Mach 0.9 is not good for the aircraft.”
“The supersonical tendency of Typhoon causes problem sometimes to slow it down, especially during the flight of high AoA. There is no idle speed.”
“Typhoon performs just as well configured with extra wing and centreline fuel tanks plus weapons. The only noticeable difference is the extra 10 kts required for rotation.”
3. During a recent international exercise, two Spanish Typhoons had engaged eight F-15s in one stimulated A2A mission, and the two Typhoon scored hits of seven Eagles finally.
The origin of the information of “Two Typhoon beating / kicking / trampling / slaughtering eight Eagles with the exchange ratio of 7:0” should be from the article mentioned above.
Actually, the commander of SpAF only said that the Typhoon had done a good job of multiple targets (the roles that were played by eight USAF’s Eagles) engagement in that exercise. He didn’t say that the USAF’s Eagles were slaughtered after they had done their best to against the two Typhoons.
toanI guess the different opinions of English-side (BAE, Eurofighter GmbH, pilots of RAF……) and French-side (Dassault, commander of FAF, pilots of FAF…) today for the exchange ratio between Eurofighter and Rafale may partially because that during the 2009 ATLC exercise, both fighters didn’t carry the equipment like ACMI / Semac when fighting with each other.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/12484/
Dassault Aviation Equips French Rafales for Red Flag with Semac Pods
toanWhat nations that can afford to build and maintain a carrier fleet are worried about the price of the fighter operating from it? Doesn’t the costs of a carrier widely surpass the costs of the fighters, both acquiring and operating? Or am I missing something?
Example one:
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navycvn21.htm
CVN-77. Congress approved $4,053.7 million in FY2001 procurement funding to complete CVN-77’s total procurement cost of $4,974.9 million. The ship’s estimated total procurement cost has since grown to about $6.35 billion. The ship was named in honor of former president George H. W. Bush on December 9, 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_air_wing#2003_Iraq_War
The Navy has described an air wing for 2020 as follows:
A. 40-50 strike fighters (FA-18s or F-35 Lightning IIs)
* F/A-18E: around 50 million USD per fighter.
* F-35C: more than 120 million USD per fighter.
* 20 or 25 F/A-18E + 20 or 25 F-35C: 3.4 ~ 4.25 billion USD.
B. 4-6 EA-18G Growlers replacing EA-6B Prowlers
* E/A-18G: around 60 million USD per fighter.
* 4-6 EA-18G: 0.24 ~ 0.36 billion USD.
C. 4-6 E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes
* E-2D: around 216 million USD per AWACS.
* 4-6 E-2D: 0.864 ~ 1.296 billion USD.
D. 10 MH-60R Seahawks, including detachments on Strike Group escort ships
* MH-60R: around 44 million USD per helicoptor (2005).
* 10 MH-60R: 0.44 billion USD.
E. 12 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV)
* UCAV: supposed it is 60 to 100 million USD per UCAV.
* 12 UCAV: 0.72~1.2 billion USD.
Total number of aircrafts: 70 ~ 84
Total cost of the air wing: 5.664 ~ 7.546 billion USD
Example 2:
Charles De Gaulle ( R 91 ) cost: around 3.33 billion USDs.
French air wing after 2015:
A. 32 Rafale M
* Rafale M: 75 ~ 100 million USD per fighter.
* 32 Rafale M: 2.4 ~ 3.2 billion USD.
B. 3 E-2C Hawkeyes 2000
* E-2C: around 200 million USD per AWACS.
* 3 E-2C: 0.6 billion USD.
C. 5 Helicoptors, estimated cost: 0.15 ~ 0.25 billion USD.
Total number of aircrafts: 40
Total cost of the air wing: 3.15 ~ 4.05 billion USD.
toanCombat Aircraft, April 2002:
Page 160 – 175
SAAB JAS-39 GRIPEN by Jan Gunnar Jorgensen
British test pilot Dan Griffiths:
(JAS-39B with 100% internal fuel load and an empty center-line fuel tank)
1. Rotate speed: 240 km / hr.
2. Airborne speed: 330 km / hr.
3. Time-to-airborne: 18 secs.
4. Landing speed:
* 270 km / hr with 12 degrees Alpha landing.
* 235 km / hr with 14 degrees Alpha landing.
5. Landing distance: 350 – 400 m with 14 degrees Alpha landing.
6. 9g capable aircraft with 6g/sec onset rate.
7. The anti-G suit of Gripen makes the pilot’s body feel like pulling 5-6G when the pilot is actually pulling 9G.
8. CAP: 2 hours and 385 km / 240 miles away from the base (with two external fuel tanks, two AIM-120, and two AIM-9).
9. Combat radius:
* 350 nm / 403 miles / 648 km (with three 1,000 Ib GBU-16, LO-LO-LO).
* 450 nm / 517 miles / 833 km (with two GBU-16 and extra fuel tanks, LO-LO-LO).
10. Ferry range: 1,500 nm / 1,725 miles / 2,778 km.
Colonel Per-Olof Eldh, commander of the aircraft and armament section of the Swedish armed force at that time:
1. Systems reliability of Gripen: 7.6 flight hours between failures.
2. Fly-away cost: comparable to that of a new F-16C/D.
3. Operating costs: less than 2,500 USDs per flying hour, including fuel and all levels of maintenance.
4. Less than 10 maintenance man-hours per flight hour.
toanJon Lake (I know you don’t like him but he has a point here) has said that his contacts at Eurofighter Gbmh often complain about getting clearance on stories as they have to run them by the various relevant ministries of 4 nations as opposed to just one. Now having read the spain story there isn’t much that would seem to need that sort of authorization but it might be policy to check with the partner countries anyway and civil servants aren’t what you’d call speedy workers..
So, up to now, the replies from the Eurofighter Gbmh and RAF pilot(s) to the event of Eurofighter v.s Rafale during the 2009 ATLC exercise are something like:
“All I can say is that the declaration of French side is wrong, but I won’t / can’t / am not allowed to tell you what really happened between Typhoon and Rafale during the ATLC exercise…”
Right ???
Hmmm……That is really persuasive:rolleyes:
toanAFM, Jan, 2010
Typhoon Over Spain
by Ian Harding, Chris Lofting, and Keith Chilton
1. Before the end of 2009, Spanish AF has acquired 26 EF-2000s in total (19 Tranche I and 7 Tranche II).
2. The experience of Spanish AF’s pilot for the flight performance of EF-2000:
“A fighter that is born for flying supersonically ~ even at the height of 10,000ft (3,048 m), flying Typhoon at speeds below Mach 0.9 is not good for the aircraft.”
“The supersonical tendency of Typhoon causes problem sometimes to slow it down, especially during the flight of high AoA. There is no idle speed.”
“Typhoon performs just as well configured with extra wing and centreline fuel tanks plus weapons. The only noticeable difference is the extra 10 kts required for rotation.”
3. During a recent international exercise, two Spanish Typhoons had engaged eight F-15s in one stimulated A2A mission, and the two Typhoon scored hits of seven Eagles finally.
Sign In
