seahawk:p Try to use the typhoon with storm shadow, anti-ship missile… 😮
The RAF was supposed to deploy Typhoon in afghanistan since 2008, I’m still trying to find evidence they’ve ever been there. So from an operational point of view it’s still semi-operational.Gripen teamed with Thales in 2007 in order to produce a AESA radar, but France was worried specially for Brezil so they asked Thales to stop cooperation. All I was trying to say is that Gripen depends on other country for many of its vital systems. UK could also choose to block the export should Typhoon and Gripen NG compete as finalists (US did it in Norway).
The RAF is not a marketing flying club for the Typhoon, but a real Air Force. And if they retire their current air defence plane in form of the F.3 and do hardly have enough Typhoons ready to cover the air policing duties in the UK and the Falklands, while they have plenty of Harriers and Tornado GR.4s that could do the job in Afghanistan as well, then you do not deploy the Typhoons. The “combat” deployments of Rafale where also not that impressive, when they largely relied on older Mirages to do the actual targeting of the bombs.
seahawkNah!! Had enough of that in 6 years of European time in the F-4 and A-10.
I meant it in a tactical sense. Clear blue sky worked for the the F-104 in the fight against the F-4 as the smoke of the J-79 made the radar kind of less important.
Where did you fly F-4s and A-10?
seahawkIn the US, at Luke AFB, training the GAF pilots.
So you had F-104 weather most of the time 😀
seahawkYes and no.
Better radar, as long as the fight isn’t in the weeds.
More missiles, how good depends on the model.
More fuel…you didn’t allow the F-104 to have external tanks.
Less speed, the tank limits the indicated to 600KIAS.
Less g, the tank limits the g to 5 when empty, 3 when full.
You point would be better if you deleted the centerline tank.
I thought of the HPC centreline tank for the F-4.
seahawkI don’t know what a “typical dogfight” is but Sens has the right idea about fuel load comparisons.
It all depends on weight and configuration…but the point is that the F-104 had one half the fuel capacity of the F-4 and only one J-79…the result is similar consumption rates under the same conditions.
I can remember one situation that was somewhat illustrative…we were ingressing at low altitude with some F-4Ds…I think we had tip tanks and a centerline bomb dispenser, the F-4s had pylon tanks and a dispenser on an inboard pylon. When we pushed it up to enter the target area, the F-4s had to go into burner while we stayed in military power. No big deal but it said something about drag and thrust.
Surely, in the strike mission with a limited load the F-104 was up to the F-4. On the other hand for air-to-air the F-4 with a centreline tank, the recesses AIM-7s and the AIM-9s was at an advantage to the F-104 with 4 AIM-9s.
seahawkYour argument was that because there are 3 fighter AESA radars under development in Europe, they’re bound to be more expensive than a US equivalent. I’ve demolished your argument, so you try to ignore your original claim. Oh dear. 🙁
I said more expensive, than the only AESA in the US that is in widespread series production. Which surely should interest export customers. I did not talk about the cost for the taxpayer, when it comes to that the US is even worse than the Europeans when it comes to wasting money.
If the Europeans would get their act together though, they could field an AESA today that would be as proven and cheaper than the US counterpart.
seahawkBut did he not ask which would win a dog-fight between the two?
Under normal operational conditions GC should vector the F-104 to a position which gives it the advantage and not force it to start the fight from a neutral position. Then many of the problems would be of lesser importance.
And no in a typical dogfight, the F-104 would bingo out before the F-4 did.
seahawkYou are missing the realities of both aircraft. In a 1960 vintage aircraft, you lack the automatic systems of a modern fighter. Engaging the enemy with a AIM-7 requires lots of manual input into the radar system. The F-4 has a WSO, the F-104 does not. German F-104 for example concentrated on the AIM-9 as their primary weapon of choice and even up-graded F-104S ASA-M often did not go for a Aspide launch, when training over Decci. this was down to the tactics they needed. Supersonic the F-104 went bingo quickly and the closure rate towards the enemy fighter is huge, which simply meant that the single pilot was over stressed to fly the plane and set it up for a good merge and engage the enemy with AIM-7/Aspide. The Aspide was mostly the weapon of choice to engage bombers, MPA or other slow moving targets, which did not require the F-104 to go supersonic to engage them.
The 2 crew members in the F-4 had a huge advantage over the F-4, as the WSO could concentrate on firing the AIM-7. History showed that they were able to get a lock-on against supersonic MiG-21 coming in heads-on as well as IrAF MiG-25s. So the F-4 is much more likely to get the first shot, which is equally likely to miss. So in most cases the F-4 will start the WVR with an advantage as the F-104 would have to re-act to the incoming AIM-7.
The high-speed attack of the F-104 was still viable when the heat seekers were rear-aspect only, but once AIM-9L arrived the high flying F-104 with the J-79 in full afterburner was a juicy target for the AIM-9L. Lock-on as far out as 9-12km have been reported. The F-4 would most likely be lower subsonic and not using the afterburner, with then engines shiedled by the stabs. And even if it comes to the merge, F-104 will bingo quickly.
seahawkHow many American AESA fighter radars are there in production & under development? APG-77, APG-79, APG-81, APG-82, RACR, SABR . . .
And before you retort that much of the technology in those radars is shared between models, remember that’s also true of the European radars – and that US organisations with tighter budgets than the USAF & USN (border patrol & coast guard) have bought European AESA radars on the basis of their price/performance ratio – and that orders were placed when the dollar was weaker against sterling & the euro than now.
Well, I would say that just being not worse than the US, is not good enough. US weapons development and procurement has reached an all time low when it comes to execution. Cost over-runs, countless requests for tender, low rate of fielding new planes, etc.
seahawkHistory as far as European co-operation goes. If you think about it, there are currently 3 different AESA radars under development for 3 different European fighter aircraft. Does anybody believe they will ever be able to match an APG-79 in price? Does that make sense if you see that all European nations are cutting their armed forces and spending most of the budgets for Afghanistan?
seahawkIf you come to the conclusion that all contenders are actually good enough for the job, you will soon find 2 points much more important than the aircraft itself.
1. technology Transfer
2. Price
If you look at the technology Transfer I believe that Typhoon is the best offer, as India would reach full partner status and would have a say in future upgrades. Rafale seems to be the second best option. The US offers and Gripen are on an equal level. MiG seems uninteresting, as they work of more advanced projects with the Russians already. If there is a desire to make India ready to built their own jet engines in the future, F414 powered aircraft might be less interesting.
2. Price reverses the results of to MiG, Gripen, US offers, Rafale / Typhoon.
seahawkWhy do you discuss Rafale and Typhoon again? They are history already.
seahawkagreed so when, how and what is it going to be?
I do not believe AI will get advance enough to allow UCAV’s to do Air to air or air to ground work until atleast 7th gen aircraft. So for me the next aircraft will be manned but what will it be?
Will the EU simplify and diversify so that it has a strike, intercept etc aircraft? or will it try and do a all in one ? Will it be multi seat or single, will it have super long range? Will it be adapted with new efficient turbofans similar to civil engines using green fuels? Will it have solar panels to power equipment in flight?
If it goes as it went in the past it would be like so:
By 2015 France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Spain and Sweden decide that they need a new aircraft that can be used in un-manned and manned version. the design studies are started and the project is known as the Future European Armed Conflict Aircraft – manned Unmanned – FEACAMU.
As the design works starts, France and Germany demand 2 engines, France and the UK demand a CTOL carrier capability all nations demand that the experience from their past projects should be used. The design ends up around the size of an F-35 (little larger) with 2 engines, less range but better flight performance. France declares its intention to buy 120 planes, Germany around 80. The UK declares it “might” take 40. Sweden drops out, as they think the design is too expensive and think about a “silent” life extension for the Gripen fleet. Italy commits a shaky 20, Spain 40, Greece declares that it would like to buy it, but only if it gets credits from the other nation for the buy. Meanwhile the Dutch get the F-35.
When it comes to giving work share to the partner nations, France demands that SNECMA should do the engine design, which pisses off MTU and RR and that Dassault should be the design leader as, they make the biggest buy. Spain and Germany say that EADS should be the design leader, as their combined buy is as big. BAe is offered a 15% share. The UK then notices that the work share on the second batch of F-35 would be bigger (F-136 is available) as on the new European project and buys 20 Block 35 F-35s instead. Italy also takes up more F-35. After a new election in Germany a new government comes in, that reduces the budget and declares the FEACAMU to be too expensive and not fitting the global situation. Germany considers quitting. Spain is offered used F-35 for a bargain from the US, meanwhile Poland flies the F-35.
The project is halted, while Germany considers to switch to the PAK-FA instead. France gets tired of waiting and starts the project on its own. Spain takes the used F-35. Germany decides to SLEP the typhoon fleet and buy a UACV that is very loosely based on the EADS Barracuda. They buy 60 by 2035 – Sweden and Spain join them. Meanwhile Dassault continues to work on the new French fighter. Limited by huge cost overruns and a shrinking size of the Armed Forces, the program is continued nevertheless in hope for a big success in the export market. By 2045 the first series production aircraft joins the AdLa. The French claim it to be the first hyper-role optional pilot combat aircraft in the world. After building 20 manned versions and 40 UACVs for the French Air Force production ends.
seahawkYes, the civil aviation indsutry looks indeed healthy. And if you look at the engine industry, it is obvious that the basic capbaility to built a combat aircraft will remain in Europe, what Europe lacks is the political will to pick one project and go ahead with it.
seahawkthe situation is equally bad on both sides of the Atlantic. The US is down to 2 possible suppliers – or maybe 1.5. Europe has more possible suppliers but fails to get them all into the boat, as Europe would need a combined effort with all countries investing in one project, so it ends up with similar but competing projects that take a long time to develop and are more (Typhoon) or less (Rafale) outdated, when they finally enter squadron service.
Sign In
