…flight tested (with a Typhoon)?

it has not. It’s being initially tested in 2014. It’s only been on display on the Eurofighter, but not tested.

Has the Storm Shadow already been flight tested?

Thought you said about the AGM-158 :stupid:. Yes they’ve tested Storm Shadow. It’s been around 2002-present. Initially, the Eurofighter Typhoon will begin to recive Storm Shadow in 2014. While Tornado, Rafale, and Mirage 2000 have been having storm shadow

It is, but there was no contract signed for the actual Missile itself even when trials were/are underway. It’s the same for Captor-E and Storm Shadow, trials are currently underway but there’s no final contract as of yet, same for other upgrades and enhancements.

Correct, even there to begin funding Meteor to Sweeden for the first time.

But their going to complete Meteor as soon as possible in 2013. While Meteor will be funded to the RAF in 2015.

While Sweeden will be the first country to operate the Meteor missile for their SAAB Gripens. While Meteor will integrate 6x the kinematic performance of recent or operational air to air missiles.

The key to Meteor’s performance is a throttleable ducted rockets manufactured by Bayern-Chemie of Germany.

Meteor has a range of 60+ Mi and over Mach 4.

PARIS AIR SHOW 2013 – Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH has today signed a weapon system integration contract with NETMA, the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency, to facilitate and secure integration of MBDA’s Meteor Beyond Visual Range Missile system.

http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/press-release-eurofighter-signs-contract-for-meteor-integration.html

Wish my Super Hornet had Meteor, anyways congratulations having Meteor on your Eurofighter. 😉

Havent had a dream yet last night 😮

You guys haven’t mentioned anything about the BAE Systems Hawk :confused:. Pretty much worldwide used as a trainer. Easy to fly, reliable etc. But the cost is 18 million each British Aerospace and BAE Systems, Hawk respectively. It has been used in a training capacity and as a low-cost combat aircraft. See? Light plane and subsonic.

Just saying, better choice to go with the BAE Systems Hawk in my opinion.

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/article.php?article=raptor-rules-the-desert-roost§ion=defence

Probobly Rafale pilot cried 😉

If your aeroplane is unable to reach the Transonic regime with a particular weapons load, or configuration, then your pre-flight plan isn’t going to feature going anywhere near Supersonic in actual flight. Common sense.

Yep

Not necessarily. A Harrier can out-accelerate a Tornado but the Tornado has a much higher top speed – Top speed and acceleration are two different things. Acceleration can have it’s advantages of getting to point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ in a specific time frame but it doesn’t always means it translates into a high Mach figure, an aircraft needs that fine balance of airframe design, aerodynamic efficiency, thrust, engine design amongst other elements.

Yea, acceleration is far more important than top speed. Many aircraft with Mach 2 as their top speed may barley hit it. While in acceleration your fighter hits Mach 1ish as carrying loadouts. But if you want to hit your top speed, it can take time. But you’ll burn alot of fuel hitting those speeds. So many fighter pilots claim top speed is life, but you need top speed when you need it. But it’s why you need to balance the aerodynamic performance, thrust, airframe etc in order to gain more Mach. But not all planes have superior top speed and acceleration in that regime That’s why the F-35 doesn’t have that much superior acceleration and top speed, mainly beacuse of its aerodynamic qualities, design features and requirements. But acceleration doesn’t have to be such a huge Mach number and same as top speed. Some may focus on other dynamic qualities like, survivability or mantainability instead of top speed/acceleration.