Phil FosterThe top picture is a Harrier with ASRAAM. Check.
The bottom picture is a Sea Harrier with AMRAAM. Check.
The Harrier never carried AMRAAM and the Sea Harrier never carried ASRAAM.
The Sea Harrier was slated to carry ASRAAM but it was premerturely retired from service by the British government before it could do so.
Phil FosterHarriers with ASRAAMs and AIM-120s, when was this? F/A-2 had ASRAAM?
I was thinking the same thing. The Sea Harrier never had ASRAAM and the GR7/9 certainly doesn’t have AMRAAM.
The Tornado IDS is an excellent strike aircraft, one to be really proud of and well proven in combat time and again. Tornado ADV has been vastly improved over the years and does have the benefit of a well sorted radar, good avionics, ASRAAM/AMRAAM and some excellent tactics. The Jaguar is a good close support/strike aircraft but an American F series or a Mig 29/Su27 it ain’t.
They have had some good aircraft, certainly a few exceptional ones in certain fields but nothing in the league of the Typhoon. Not the whole caboodle all roled into one neat package. This is catchup time and for some it’ll be payback on the ranges.
Phil FosterThe RAF did change the mission profil in the meanwhile as the GAF did too after the Cold War. That the special RB 199 is longer suited to that is obvious.
No real war around the corner the Tornado has to do with its RB 199s.
Maybe a RAF pilot can tell us, what thrust levels were freed in the Gulf-wars for a limited period. A thrust to weight ratio of ~8:1 for the RB 199 is still a very good value.
Please do not compare static thrust only, which becomes very misleading at height and speed.
Above Mach 1,2 the propulsion-system of a Mirage 2000 surpasses that of a F-16.
When the whole propulsion-system is not optimised for a new engine, the performance gains are limited and may not justify the outlays for that.
That was the main reason, why most F-14s kept their TF-30s. I remember about the RAF F-4s with Spey-engines. The Swedes are not eager to replace F 404 with F 414 for their Gripens.
It is not the engine alone, but a new transmission is in need and many things more to change. For a land-based fighter a 300 yards shorter take-off run is no longer a safety issue. With a snap-up AAM the time to height is less urgent.
So balls out performance as you call it, will not bring better results in all performance areas.
France decided against M 88-3 for its Rafales. Life time costs, a state of the art EW suite and AAM are much more important than brute force in modern air-combat.
You misunderstand me. I am not talking about the end results I am talking about the mindset of the pilots of these aircraft. I am not disputing you, what you say makes sense. To be fair I am just thinking out loud about how much ‘fun’ the RAF Typhoon pilots must be having, I am not really contributing anymore to the discussion. Apologies 🙂 .
Phil FosterIn the “wartime” of the 70s both had to stay at 200 feet or below. In the “wartime”, when engine-life is no issue, the ratings were much higher.
By the way, extra or surplus power did not come for free. For every kp you have to carry fuel to keep the desired range level. 20% more thrust will not give you 20% more performance. Every fighter has sweet points related to its design. A loaden IDS goes ~ 600 kt in a low level dash at all. Stronger engines will change nothing about that. You will get a shorter take-off run or a few seconds less in acceleration time to that. An IDS clean with “weak” engines is ~800 kt at all on the deck, what is a physical limit at all.
A shortcoming of the Tornado IDS was, that it had not the smoother fuselage of the ADV to utelise some gains from stronger engines.
Hot and higher up the IDS is “underpowered”, when it comes to dry thrust.
But the IDS was not built for that. The main criteria was max low-level range.
The RB 199 and its dry power rating was choosen to deliver the best sfc for a loaden IDS at 200 feet. To reach that, the RB 199 had its best sfc at close 100% military. Around 450 kt to target. Similar thing to a Jaguar.
Under tropical conditions an IAF Jaguar wll not have higher performances compared to a RAF one in Europe. The difference in installed thrust can be felt in similar conditions only.
But like every car-driver a pilot enjoys some surplus power, as long he has not go far with that or pay the fuel.
You have lost me I’m afraid. What has this got to do with my ‘strange’ claim? I am talking about balls out performance. Accelleration, max take off weight, radius of action, bring back stores etc all of which relate to a very efficient engine with a high thrust to weight ration. None of which the RAF has enjoyed up until right now. This is not the cold war, the RAF still trains at very low level, likely always will but most operations take place at medium to high altitudes these days. The Tornado ADV did not have more powerful engines than the IDS it had a bigger afterburner and to get best use out of that you had to dump even more fuel into the jet flow and further decrease your time on station. It weighed 32,000lb dry and even with afterburner the RB199 Mk104 doesn’t make 18,000lb of thrust. Even when it comes close it is a lower altitudes.
I’m sorry I’m not sure what the argument is here I’m just plucking arguments out of the air as I understand them now. I don’t see how any of this disputes or supports what I said. We might be having a misunderstanding here. Sorry, I’m very confused.
Phil FosterI reckon Ms Royale is a bit of a honey though. Thats got to count for something. 😀
Phil FosterStrange claim in general. When did the RAF suffer from “underpowered” fighters really?!
Are you suggesting that the Jaguar and the Tornado are………what? Overpowered? Admittedely the Tornado has good performance at medium to low altitudes but thats hardly a desireable characteristic for a fighter is it? One that it runs out of steam anything over perhaps 25,000ft. Even below that it was never endowed with an abundance of thrust when compared to its 32,000lb dry weight.
Even the Phantom was never that well endowed in this area or even the Lightning for that matter. Now compare some of the above to the likes of the F15, F16, F18 or Soviet/Russian/CIS types like the MiG29 or the Su27.
In the face of this evidence why is my claim so strange?
Phil FosterThe Eurofighter is on time, not in the time politicians would had liked but on time, why?
Number one of the more 150 nations on earth very few make aircraft, the ones that make aircraft, for example, Brazil, Ukraine, Canada, China, Argentina, Sweden, Taiwan, India, South Korea, Japan etc etc … can not build an Eurofighter equivalent, and number two, the ones that make Eurofighter`s equivalents well are only Russia, France and the US, these nations have had the same delays that the Eurofighter program has had, even in the case of Russia there is no Eurofighter equivalent and the F-22 will be built in so small numbers that still is a very expensive aircraft
After saying that i do not think the Eurofighter is a looser but a total winner, and at least have assured bigger manufacturing numbers than the F-22 and Rafale and probably only the J-10 might be built in larger numbers.
The only possible rival is the F-35 but this will enter service at least a decade after the Eurofighter and in performance does not seem to be as good as the Eurofighter.
The Eurofighters has boosted Europe`s aircraft ability to a level enough to remain competitive with the rest of aircraft manufacturing nations assuring Europe`s aircraft manufacturing independence for at least another 20 years.
If the Europeans can detect Stealth aircraft well the Eurofighter will be one of the best aircraft ever built in the early XXI century
When I talk about the Typhoon being a long time coming for the RAF I am talking about what they have had to make do with for the past 20 or 30 years. With the exception of the Lightning and maybe the Phantom (both of which were prematurely retired to save money) RAF pilots have had to make do and mend with pretty much whatever they were given. The aircraft they had were generally underpowered and RAF pilots had to wring every scrap of performance out of them and still the airframes underperformed when compared to what their allies were using. So the RAF had to come up with tactics that took into account their performance deficiencies and some of it was pretty off the wall and created a slightly unique mindset amongst RAF pilots.
Now they have something like the Typhoon which is for the RAF ‘a long time coming’ I wonder how they are going to apply decades of experience to the type. Its a very interesting and exciting time for the RAF (even if it is shrinking) and I think that is what makes the Typhoon special. It is being brought into service with a force that hasn’t had the benefit of its sheer power, perfomance and ‘electrickery 😀 ‘ for a very long time. Not all in one package at least.
Phil FosterRadars get developed and built faster that aircraft do, a lot faster. A generation for a radar system can be as little as 5 years or less, just look how far the Foxhunter came in 20 years on the Tornado F3 (actually thats a bad analogy they started life as balast………………..:o ) but my point is simple. It takes 20 years to develop and deploy and aircraft like the Raptor/Rafale/Typhoon………..it takes a fraction of that time to build a radar that can deal with them, even the Raptor.
The Raptor will always have that edge over its life cycle but it will narrow rapidly as the years go by.
Phil Foster-I think all the recent Flag’s and Cope’s the Raptor has been involved with against very credible platforms show otherwise. The Raptor pilot seems to have a very good understanding of his weapon’s capabilities, stealth very much included, the Raptor has first look first shot capability where the Typhoon simply does not compare. You easly dismiss stealth technology when tied to superior data fusion and systems integration (the Typhoon only has one of these fundemental qualities in its possesion) and no your dismissiveness does not annoy me.
That because the USAF are superbly trained professionals who do not go into battle assuming they can’t be seen. Read what I wrote not what you want to see. They know what modern radar systems are capable of and they tailor their tactics to suite and therefore retain the edge that stealth offers. No I don’t discount stealth and I don’t discount the USAF but unless the USA intends to fight a war with the UK at any time in the near future I really don’t think I have an awful lot to worry about.
Here is the logic as I understand it, appologies for the simplistic delivery:
1970s, 80s or even 90s radar systems would not have the resolution or the software to recognise a stealth aircraft for what it was. Even if the array saw something logic would dictate that the contact was dismissed as an anomoly.
Nowadays radars are designed with a knowledge of stealth very much in mind. They have the resolution to see tiny radar returns and the back end hardware and the software to logically explain what it is.
“Its about the size of a golf ball, its at such and such a height at such and such a speed and its heading straight at us. Hmmmmmm. What can it be I wonder?”
Modern radars are less easily fooled and stealth aircraft will more often than not be tagged and tracked. Shooting them down may be a different matter but if you understand stealth you understand how it needs to be countered.
Stealth gives you an important edge it does not make you invisible or invulnerable.
Phil FosterYes. Further development and investment. They are currently at Block 5 Tranche 1 configuration. The final configuration is expected to be Block 25 Tranche 3 configuration at which point you are dealing with an aircraft which is about as good as it gets. Yes it is in service to a limited degree and the RAF are constantly expanding its capabilities but it is still under development.
I don’t know how other air forces do things but some think the RAF acceptance proceedures are a little convoluted and overblown. Two weapon systems spring to mind the ALARM (Britains version of the HARM) and the Storm Shadow cruise missile. Both were being used in anger and very successfully months if not years before they were formaly accepted into RAF service. If you compare to a Raptor, a Rafale or even some of the stuff coming out of the CIS at the moment the Typhoon is simply up there with the best of them and ahead of most in many respects. It is competetive, not necesarily special. Perhaps you worded the original question badly. 🙂
Phil FosterChecked Daffy’s prior posts alot of “screw the yanks,” and “Typhoon rules” stuff. I get it now.
Daffy’s what? Who’s Daffy? Chap that ‘Typhoon is the greatest’ crap p!sses in my cornflakes as well. Don’t bait and you won’t get bit. Simple as………..
I can’t think of anything that makes the Typhoon particularly special over any current generation aircraft. Somebody mentioned a lack of system integration so I countered with an explanation of the concept of data fusion in relation to the Typhoon. You make a p!ss poor attempt at shooting that explanation down in flames, I come at you with a pitch fork. Get it? Cause and effect.
Don’t be so dismissive. It has a tendancy to annoy. 🙂
The Typhoon is however, special to the RAF. I am paraphrasing ‘Aircraft Illustrated’ but in short the RAF has been making do for the last 20 years with what can only fairly be described as a makeshift fighter, the Tornado F3 which is a bag of spanners by comparrison with the Typhoon. The Typhoon can cut it in any scenario with pretty much anything else out there, WVR, BVR whatever it will take on all comers including an F22 if the F22 pilot strides into battle thinking nobody can see him. Use that mindset and you’ll get shot down very quickly and any edge stealth gave you is lost because of a basic lack of understanding. Strip away stealth and the F22 is no better than a Typhoon or a Rafale and its radius of action is nothing new either.
Typhoon might not be special to you but it is very special to the RAF and it has been a long time coming.
Phil FosterFoster-
Narrow minded? I started this thread to be sold otherwise????? What the hell is your problem?? All the shakespherian bable and what not? I never said the F-22 was this or that? Where is all this coming from? The F-22 is superior to the Typhoon, but at a great cost I get it! Great move on? Who’s narrow minded here, re read the posts? I am open minded and wanted more info, is this okay?? I am not pushing a viewpoint maybe I should of reposted the title with “The Typhoon is great right?” I dont know what else to say. Just dont post if you dont like the thread!
You are asking what is so special about the Typhoon. Special is a word you used nobody else. The Typhoon is a modern cutting edge combat aircraft, nobody except you in an effort to affront and antagonise used the word special. There is nothing Shakespearian about that it is plain English.
Phil FosterOh hark at the arrogant buffoon trying to defend his pathetically narrow minded point of view.
I have a better question.
“What makes the F22 so special?”
1) Its stealthy
2)………………..erm, oh yes. Its prohibitively expensive no matter how you wrap up its costs but that doesn’t matter because the USA can afford it………just and they ain’t selling it to anybody else.
3)…………….erm, oh ****** thats about it.
4) Its stealthy (sorry I’m just trying to flesh this out a bit).
Sod it I’m bored.
Phil FosterI don’t know why we are bothering anyway. The original post was intended to start a flame war. Why else ask ‘Why is the Typhoon so special’. For a start its not American but that would then explain why everytime sombody says something the original poster comes in to swat it sideways telling us how old fasioned it all is and it really is nothing new afterall. I can almost smell the smugness that only an arrogant trouble starter can exude.
Unfortunately for our American denizens (I truly feel for you when somebody like this comes along) he happens to be one of them thus reinforcing an age old (inacurate) perception that Americans just love to big themselves up and dumb everybody else down by asking ‘what is so special about you then’? Its not very intelligent, its not very mature and we should really have all ignored it.
In this arrogant pissants world if it is not American it is to be scoffed at, it is a non acheivement and so too are the ‘pathetic non American peoples of the the world’. “And if you don’t like I’ll lobby my congressman to have you all invaded.”
Shakes head in utter disbelief, how the hell did I get sucked into this sh!te?
Phil FosterDo we get a run down of every little issue encountered with the F22? Or the Rafale? or the Gripen? Su27? MiG29? Any other aircraft?
Why single out the Typhoon? Most of its problems were political.
Sign In
