toan2008, Eurofighter Tranche I, Block5:
1. CAPTOR MESA Radar.
2. Complete DASS, PIRATE, and Data fusion.
3. Complete flight envelope and weapons (AIM-120B, AIM-120C5, AIM-132, AIM-9L, IRIS-T) for Air-to-air combat.
4. Austere AG strike capability:
* Unable to handle A2A and A2G modes at the same time.
* Unable to attack multiple ground targets with LGBs at the same time.
* Exploring about 70% capability of Lightening III pod with ROVER 3 function.
* Weapons for AG mission: Paveway II, Enhanced paveway II, dumb bumb.
2010, Eurofighter Tranche II, Block8:
1. Upgrading 40 to 50 items of fighter’s subsystems, such as using Power PC chips for fighter’s central computer.
2. However, the initial Block8 fighters won’t A2G strike capability until they accept P1E upgrading a few years later.
2012, Eurofighter Tranche II, Block8 with P1E upgrading:
1. The new modular software systems for more flexible ability and easy future upgrading.
2. Cockpit upgrading for guiding new A2G weapons.
3. Exploring 100% capability of Lightening III pod.
4. Minor upgradings for MIDS, GPS, DASS, and communication.
5. Being able to handle A2A and A2G modes at the same time.
6. Being able to attack multiple ground targets with LGBs at the same time.
7. New weapons for A2G mission: Paveway IV and Enhanced GBU-16.
8. Helmet-mounted displays (??)
2014 and thereafter, Eurofighter Tranche II with further upgrading and Tranche III:
1. There will be no major difference between late Tranche II and Tranche III since saving money has become the No1 priority.
2. EJ230/270 +/- 2D or 3D TVC are highly unlikely to become the truth, not to mention any major change / modification in Tranche III fighter’s structure or aerodynamic.
3. Even the AESA radar won’t be equipped to the Tranche III fighters at first ~ It might become a possible choice for the future upgrading of Tranche II and III fighters.
4. New weapon for A2A mission: Meteor BVRAAM (post-2012).
5. New weapons for A2G missions: Storm Shadow, Taurus, Brimestone, Selected precision at range air-launched weapons and so on.
6. CFTs and / or larger (2,000 liter class) external fuel tanks (Possible choices for the future upgrading).
toanAFM, 2008/09：
The Block 5 Eurofighter could reach 24 degrees AoA in all speeds.
toanThe Eurofighter contract, designed to discourage countries from cutting back orders, is written so tightly that it would be almost as cheap to take delivery of the aircraft as to incur the penalties.
However, it seems that the contract has no deadline to enforce UK government to sign the Tranche 3 deal before a certain time. Therefore, UK MoD may keep delaying to sign the deal until it has found the foreign customer(s) to accept these fighters one day.
toanWould be interesting to know what capabilities are meant…
Such as:
1. The capability of excute AA and AG missions at the same time.
2. More versatile and advanced capabilities for AG missions, such as Off-range striking (SCALP-EG), relative long range GPS-guided weapon striking (AASM), tactical reconnaissance (Reco-NG), Air-to-Air refueling and so on.
3. The capability of fire-and-forget attacking up to six independent ground targets at the same time with the help of AASMs.
4. EM stealthy BVR air combat capability with the help of FSO, Spectra, and MICA IR, which may also be a much better method for engaging stealthy / LO target comparing with radar + AIM-120.
5. The capabilities of larger external weapon/fuel load and longer striking range.
6. The better flight performance in relative low-altitude, low-speed, and high-AoA dogfight.
7. And finally, perhaps this one: http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-53063.aspx
toanAccording to the declaration of one Hellenic AF pilot I’ve read before, the CFTs for F-16C/D Block52+ cause very little impact to F-16’s aerodynamic and maneuverability ~ Viper can still pull up to 9G and maintain 98 to 99% maneuverability with CFT on it.
The CFT for Rafale also has the similar performance according to the declaration from the team of Rafale:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/gauche/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_2.pdf
toanFrance could (I presume) have gone in with the Eurojet consortium, had an engine that is seen as being superior to the M-88 and could have saved some money. But then I have read that France wanted any new fighter in which it would be involved to use the M-88.
So France got what it wanted – a fighter using the M-88. But with weight creep, France got what it did not want – a fighter with an engine that needed an increase in power …up to EJ200 level.
Switching to a US engine? France could not export Rafale to any country without the approval of the USA. What if Dassault wanted to supply Rafale to Libya? Or Venezuela? Or Iran in the future?
1. There is no any commonality between EJ-200 and M88-2 (while M88-3 has at least 40% commonality with M88-2 accroding to the manufacturer’s declaration), and Rafale is not designed for incorporate EJ-200. It is highly unlikely that the total costs of remodifying some Rafale for EJ-200 and using & maintaining two total different engines for one fighter at the same time can be cheaper than just using one type of engine family.
2. It seems that French AF and Navy think the thrust of M88-2 is good enough for Rafale today and near future ~ They has no request for thrust increase even to the project of Rafale F3+ during 2012 ~ 2017.
3. Using EJ-200 will also have the same problem ~ It is highly unlikely that the team of Eurofighter will let Rafale to use its engine and then competing with Eurofighter in the global market.
toanWould two F404 (or RM12) be feasible for the Rafale? Would it have any advantages over the existing M-88?
A: The prototype of Rafale had used F404 in 1980s, then it was replaced by M88-2, which is smaller, lighter, and more powerful than F404 at that time.
Although RM12 (18,000 Ib class) is a little more powerful than M88-2 (17,000 Ib class), it is bigger and heavier than M88-2 (1,050 kg versus 897 kg) too. It seems that if Rafale really adopted RM12, the engine and the modification would make Rafale more heavier than it is now, and this would make the little increase in thrust become almost meaningless.
Would anything more powerful fit (F414 maybe?)
A: If French AF, Navy and / or any other foreign customer(s) really have / has the requirement of thrust increase for Rafale, It / they can choose the product from M88 ECO / M88-3 project.
toanIt is said that the capacity of the CFT for Eurofighter is around 1500 L fuel per tank.
With the help of two CFTs and three 1,000 L tanks, the Eurofighter shall be able to carry 4,500 ~ 4,996 kg internal fuel and around 4,800 kg external fuel in total.
It is said that Rafale could reach:
A. The striking radius of 1,850 km+ with 4,700 ~ 4,800 kg internal fuel, two 1,150 L CFTs and three 2,000 L tanks (which is roughly equal to 6,640 kg external fuel in total), two SCALP-EG CMs, and two to four MICA AAMs for self-defense.
–> The configuration of Rafale MK2 for ROKAF’s F-X fighter competition, however, as we know, it lost the competition and could never become the truth. Therefore, the striking radius for this configuration is nothing more than estimation that can never be proved.
B. The striking radius of 1,480 km+ with 4,700 ~ 4,800 kg internal fuel, three 2,000 L tanks (which is roughly equal to 4,800 kg external fuel in total), four 500 Ib LGBs, and four AAMs for self-defense.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/gauche/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_1.pdf
C. The combat radius of 1,850 km+ with 4,700 ~ 4,800 kg internal fuel, three 2,000 L and two 1,250 L tanks (which is roughly equal to 6,800 kg external fuel in total), and six MICA AAMs.
toanI think no airforce would like the idea of being a bad guy in the movie ~ especially a defeated one:D
toanAhhh…… thanx for the link glitter….
I am waiting for 1-on-1 EF Vs F-22….. WVR
It’s almost impossible to happen in Red Flag ~ Since both F-22A and EF-2000 are highly unlikely to be adopted by the “Red force” (64th and 65th aggressor squadrons) of Red Flag exercise in the foreseeable future………
toanA2A game need help of fighter’s radar, and it is said that Russian does not allow IAF to use Su-30 MKI’s radar in the foreign countries in order to avoid their top radar secrets being stolen by the Western Intelligency…….
toanThey said the F16 were rather old block 25 and used this as an argument that they should have been an easy target for the Rafales… One poster claimed block 25 had same weight and weaker engine than later blocks F16. Furthermore the block 25 radar was according to one poster not quite state of the art…
L
http://www.f-16.net/units_article108.html
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?module=f16serials&func=view_airframes_byunitactive&unit=64%20AS
The F-16 that the 64th Aggressor Squadron uses in DACT and Red Flag are F-16C Block32 and F-16C Block42, which have the same or similar engine, radar, and empty weight as Block25.
If F-16C Block25 could be described as an “Easy target” in dogfight, then USAF had always shown how almighty the F-22A is by choosing an “Almost the same easy target” to bully……:D
toanInteresting. So the AESA is a from go for the German Luftwaffe from 2012 on.
Personally, I think it is still nothing more than an over-optimistic anticipation ~ it seems no partner of Eurofighter has started to invest the project of producing CAPTOR-E right now, so it is highly unlikely that the productional Typhoon will be able to get the AESA radar formally just four years later from now on.
toanWhich twin-jet fighters can do roll rate over 240 degrees per second?
According to the information / declaration I’ve gotten, at least the manufacturers (or pilots) of Rafale, Super hornet, Flanker, and Fulcrum all declared that their fighters could achieve the maximal roll rate of 250 to 270 degrees / per second.
toanFlanker ?
It is also said that the maximal roll rate of Su-27 could achieve 270 degrees/sec, however………..
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199908/ai_n8862137/pg_4
Sign In
