SatorianThe Eurofighter originallly was designed to neutralizing Soviet superior jet like Su-27 counter-air fighter. The foreplan was put on for hi-maneuver. But from Video I searched in Youtube, the Eurofighter just did mediocre demo. in each airshow compare with the SHE/F which developed from 70’s F-18C/D did some impressive actions. Why Typhoon only did sth like a donkey run around a mill?
Wow, you posted the very same thing on pprune.org. At least you didn’t start your own thread with that here. Then again you hijacked a 4-year-old one. Fishing for responses?
SatorianIn that type of situation the aircraft means very little. Even an F-104 with a HMS and a modern WVR missile such as Python 5, AIM-9X, or ASRAAM could knock down either the Typhoon or Raptor in visual range. In those circumstances the aircraft is merely the launcher and is almost irrelevant.
Which reminds us that fighter jets truly are “weapons platforms”. While the aircrafts are designed to optimize launch parameters, the weapon matters.
SatorianWhat? The Rafale is rather elegant, in my opinion the best looking of the current crop of European fighters, & in a completely different league from the F-18 & F-18E.
Rafale versus Suberbug? No contest. In fact, I think the Bug looks dated, especially in the forward fuselage and nose section.
The Rafale’s lines are very pleasing, but I think they got the proportions just slightly wrong by the smallest amount. It’s just a wee bit too short and looks a bit too portly, like a weight lifter stunted in length.
SatorianThe aerospace inspection standard for humans using unaided vision is 90% probability of detecting a defect 0.050 inches in diameter at 12 inch distance from the eye. (That’s a 90% probability of detecting a 1.27mm defect at 305mm from the eye for those who use the French measurement system). Simple math ratios scale the same 99% standard of visual acuity to a 270 ft (82.3m) diameter object at 65,000 ft (19,812m) altitude.
But F-22 is only 62 ft (18.9m) diameter object when viewed from below. This is 1/19th of the area of the 270 ft (82.3M) diameter object that can be easily detected with the naked eye. Someone, somewhere probably has a statistical distribution for human unaided visual acuity. I suspect that detecting an F-22 at 65,000 ft is well beyond the ability of an average human. It’s simply too small and too far away.
On one hand side, people can use binoculars and contrast between a single dot and an otherwise uniformly colored sky might help detection. On the other hand side, the atmospheric layers and distance through air might distort the findings and introduce other problems.
It’d be really interesting to get some first-hand experience from some spotter.
Lmraptor, you must remember that the radar signal is not absorbed by the airframe (at least not most of it), the return tries to go away from the radar source
I really dont see too hard to arrange a fighter/radar formation to catch the signals and by info networking (data link) tell where are the stealthy planes, so some planes will get the data that others arent recieving, especially when you look the raptor/35’s geometry (which don’t send the signals upwards), so a formation with a distance of 50-30 km of 2 planes, one working as the receptor of the other should do the job, when u get a RCS of 0.XXX, it does not mean is the RCS of the plane, it means it true RCS went to another place..remember that even the 22’s engine fans are optically visible at certain angle…and im not talking about the RF visibility
One radar to pick up the scatterings of another radar in a network? Is that possible? Aren’t their accuracy and latency issues? I don’t know much about radars, but I have trouble imagining that this really works, with all the different refractions, waveform issues and angular resolution. Hmmm….
Perhaps if radars were in fact not blindly and at random sending radar waves, but had some UDP-like packet data modulated onto its radar signals and frequencies that could be cross-referenced with traditionally networked data about the radar’s operation. Anyone know whether something like that is in action or whether it has been attempted/designed/planned/thought about?
Satorian🙂 Can you see tactical fighters at alts of 65000 ft and up :)?
I honestly don’t know. Which is also why I appended the smiley and intended to not have the claim sound too serious. 🙂
I live less than a mile away from Dortmund Airport (my running route is alongside its runway, and just two hours ago an Easyjet flight took off as I ran along), but all I see there are civil airliners. There are lots of high-altitude routes (should be ~30k feet) around, due to the population and airport density in the Ruhrgebiet, with Köln-Bonn and Düsseldorf fairly close, and at least those are easily seen on a clear day.
I wish I had a pair of binoculars and some fighter jet regularly crossing my area at 60k feet to make the test.
But we surely have some spotters here, don’t we? What’s the professional verdict on fighter visibility at altitude? 🙂
SatorianWorse, if a trap is set and the VLO takes the bait – flying within a SAMs engagement zone without realising it’s there. Tactics are far more deadly than the systems themselves. Thus the very mobile shooter radars with good tactics are probably much more effective against VLO than any combination of strategic LW/Optical ‘data-fused’ air defense systems.
Isn’t that the point of IADS? I think I recall about some systems actually employing a strategy like that, using several search radars to approximately triangulate an objects position to only activate the fire control radar once the object should be within its acquisition and solution boundaries.
Hell, you probably could do that with human spotters and SMS on a clear day. :p
SatorianAgainst a supercruising F-22 at 65 000 ft launching 8 SDBs from 113 km away?
Picking up on this in general, there’s one thing I’ve been wondering about as far as the F-22 is concerned:
1. We ‘know’ it can supercruise at about M1.7-M1.8.
2. It can/will operate at heights of 70k feet.
But the question is: Does it supercruise at M1.7 at 70k feet? All around the internet I’ve seen people compound (or rather, conflate) the two tidbits, but I’m not sure how the metrics really work out.
Aren’t most speed/cruise records (at least in terms of mach numbers) set at 36k feet, which provides the best compromise between lift, thrust, fuel, speed of sound, etc? If the Raptor does M1.7 at 36k feet, how fast does it supercruise at 70k feet? I wouldn’t be surprised if it still supercruised at those heights, but is it really M1.7?
SatorianThx for the link!
Still don’t like how the EF2k comes out of a loop, never did. Doesn’t “bite” – lots of AoA, long time to come around.
I’m not completely sure, but to me it looks like the pilot is trying to intercept a specific height, instead of doing a full stick deflection pitch up at speeds that provide maximum turn rate after the pushover.
Anyone here have Typhoon videos with more aggressive loops?
SatorianI wouldn’t quote Flightglobal and call it official, either.
Perhaps not, but having the journalist’s and magazine’s name introduces a kind of accountability to it that a simple forum identity lacks. 🙂
But if a particular poster on PPRuNe (who I know to be an Av Week staffer) said something, I’d take it more seriously than I’d take some stories in (say) JDW.
Yes, which is why I said that one might very well consider the information presented on a forum, but without knowing the true identity it’s not as unproblematic to propagate the bit. Also, do you know his exact identity? If so, he isn’t just some forum poster or some AV staffer, but a definite source you know by name and person. Opposite to that, we don’t know your true identity. 😉
And like everyone, I’m allowed to post while sozzled…..
Yes, but only if you tell us what drink you enjoyed. (I think there’s always room for an off-topic discussion about alcohol in any thread.) :diablo:
SatorianJacko is pi$$ed at being disbelieved “until someone more credible” confirms what he says.
Oh, come on. 🙂
Would you quote a poster from a message board in your articles, no matter how reliable his info has been in the past? You might consider the information he provides, but would you quote him and call it something “official”? :p
I think you are slightly misinterpreting the intention and importance of Scorpion’s turn of phrase. 🙂
SatorianScorpion,
I found the link.
Eurofighter CEO Ays Rauen has announced the formation of a new team to implement development activities.
“In the past, enhanced capabilities tended to be undertaken in large and unwieldy packages that were difficult to implement,” says Rauen, “but now we will take more incremental steps.”
The ‘development transformation’ team was formed as a result of the ‘project foundation’ study, and will be led by former chief operating officer programmes, Brian Phillipson. He told Flight Daily News that, under the new approach, capability could be added more quickly and more responsively.
He pointed to the UK’s CP193 programme, which saw Litening designator pods quickly integrated on the Typhoon to give an early precision attack capability, as an example of how equipment could be integrated quickly and cheaply, given the right culture and processes, and “if you are willing to change the way you work”.
Phillipson revealed that the second phase of capability enhancements planned for Tranche 2 Typhoons – a ‘big bang’ step change known as P2E – would now disappear to be replaced by an incremental programme, with many smaller steps.
SatorianBrimstone and other weapons are planned for P2E, though the package hasn’t been fully defined yet.
Hasn’t P2E been abandoned a few days ago in favour of quicker and more incremental updates?
SatorianWe see Europeans choose LO feautres for their 4+ gen designs and clearly they market and highlight that aswell . We see Russians choosing LO features on their 4+(+) design as well some reportedly serious LO features on the 5th gen design . All of this points to one direction , that most of the countries with the know how (interms of developing LO aircraft , having the Air defences to test them against both live and simulated etc etc) have come to the conclusion that LO is worth the effort , i dont think even a single 4+-5th gen aircraft designed or in planning exists without LO features , this goes to show something !!!
Considering today’s radars, I think the LO features on 4+ designs aren’t primarily intended to decrease detection ranges, but to increase jamming efficiency. The smaller the signal in all the ECM noise, the harder it should be for the ECCM/burnthrough.
The 4+ jet with better LO enhancement probably won’t be seen much later than one with lesser LO treatment (or late enough to really make a difference with the radars and missile we’ve got today), but it might be that bit harder to lock up and fire at.
The way I understand things, I think that’s the difference in LO philosophies between the generations:
5th gen: escape detection
4th gen: contribute to ECM
(BTW, I’m not arguing against you in any way. Just picking up on a point you raised.)
SatorianEver since Russia has purchased that influential German politician and put him on gas board. Germans i think feel in some kind of bondage to Russia. No wonder they are selling best of there industrial machinery.
I don’t think that’s quite right.
Ex-chancellor Schröder is an advisor to Gazprom and heads the shareholder committee for a subgroup concerned with a gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, for which he gets as much criticism as he gets ridicule. Some people grudgingly acknowledge the geopolitical benefits to it. His influence is Germany is pretty low now though, largely excluded from the current political machinery and his political achievements still being scrutinized all the time.
Russia is generally considered an ally and there’s nothing wrong with fostering relations between countries in close proximity that still have a lot to learn about each other. That didn’t start with Schröder joining Gazprom though, but way before.
SatorianPratt & Whitney F-35 Engine Over Cost Estimate
Pratt & Whitney estimates it has a cost overrun of as much as $850 million in developing engines for the F-35 Joint Strike fighter, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program, according to the U.S. Navy. The overrun, equal to about 14.7 percent of the company’s $5.8 billion development contract, would be the largest on the engine since the company won the contract in October 2001.
The estimate by East Hartford-based Pratt & Whitney, a unit of Hartford’s United Technologies Corp., is “significantly” higher than the Pentagon’s, Navy Deputy Assistant Secretary William Balderson wrote in a June 26 memo alerting Navy Secretary Donald Winter to the problem. The Pentagon program office estimates the overrun is between $600 million and $700 million, Balderson wrote. The difference matters because the contract requires the Pentagon to reimburse most expenses, including any overruns.
Because of its cost — $298 billion — the F-35 program is under intense scrutiny from the Pentagon and Congress. The U.S. Government Accountability Office in March estimated the program is now projected to cost as much as $38 billion more. The engine overrun is scheduled to be discussed today at a meeting between Pratt & Whitney officials, Winter and Pentagon Undersecretary for Acquisition John Young.
The F-35’s 12-year development is entering its most challenging phase. It includes starting test flights, proving out millions of lines of software code, finishing design of the three different models and refining manufacturing processes at Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp. and its subcontractors.
Pratt & Whitney, at its plant in Palm Beach, Fla., is developing three engine models for the F-35, one for each version of the plane. Development of the one for the most advanced model — the short-takeoff and vertical-landing version — has been slowed by vibrations that caused two major engine failures. Young and Winter will review Pratt & Whitney’s proposal to fix that flaw today, and Young will decide whether to proceed with a production contract worth as much as $1.6 billion for the first six of the planes, which will go to the U.S. Marine Corps and the British Royal Navy.
According to Balderson’s memo, Pratt & Whitney in March told Young the engine overrun could be as much as $600 million. The company’s estimate now “exceeds $850 million,” he wrote. Pratt & Whitney Vice President Bill Gostic said all cost figures are “premature.” “We are working hand-in-hand” with the government, he said in an interview. “We are analyzing the program task by task and we are jointly deciding how much it is going to cost.” Gostic said the overrun is driven by “a variety of factors — not one thing we can point to.”
Pentagon program manager Maj. General Charles Davis, in an e-mail, said he has been working with Pratt & Whitney for more than a year “to ensure all work to complete F-35 engine development is adequately funded.” He said he has kept the U.S. defense secretary, military services and congressional staffs “briefed on all aspects of this issue for over six months and they are all comfortable with the approach.”
According to Balderson, the program office said the “preponderance” of the projected overrun stems from Pratt & Whitney’s “failure to control” its own costs and those of its sub-vendors. The failure includes “high and poorly negotiated vendor quotes, increased engineering hours beyond that required to build the propulsion system” and excessive “pass-through” or administrative rates that Pratt & Whitney charges the Pentagon for handling sub-contractor components, Balderson wrote.
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-jointstrike0722.artjul22,0,3759944.story
Sign In
