SchorschI certainly have no first hand knowledge but I have not read or heard anything that confirms that a eurofighter would have any advantage at all against an F22 in WVR. I really think that the F-22 is underestimated by some on this forum because its larger and is smoother in its maneuvers. I do not think at low speeds or transonic region that a eurofighter is even close to an F-22. Just my opinion though.
I don’t see why a Eurofighter is not at eyesight with an F-22 in transonic performance (stealth aside of course), basic indicators like wing loading, installed thrust or design decisions do not point so.
SchorschNot really, both can be fitted with ETs, despite air-refuelling capability. :diablo:
While especially the Flanker apparently rarely uses them.
I always wondered why they put the missiles so cluelessly on pylons instead of looking at semi-recessed solutions, like done on the F-14 for example (which has some similarities in underbelly characteristics).
SchorschI believe the question was aircraft that never or rarely carry drop tanks……Clearly, both the Raptor and Flanker fit the bill.
While both actually have their shortcomings in terms of ferry range. The Flanker, at least from my perspective, is clearly a good example that is makes more sense to make the basic airframe smaller and carry drop tanks, than to put it all internal and increase the airframe’s size. An F-15C with three large drop tanks achieves similar overall performance (in terms of range, time on station, missiles carried and supersonic or maneuver performance), but is in terms of OEW about on third lighter.
The F-22 needs to be stealthy, which is a different optimization criteria and requires different solutions.
SchorschAre there any modern jet fighters that don’t ever/rarely use drop tanks?
I have always wondered why aircraft aren’t designed from the offset with the capability to carry sufficient fuel internally thus freeing up pylons enabling it to carry more stores.
The only jet I can think of that I have never seen with external tanks is the American A10 Thunderbolt II.
Drop tanks are a great thing.
Stealth considerations aside, they make a good trade between subsonic cruise performance and supersonic or maneuvering performance. The additional drag normally not hurts that bad in subsonic cruise. Of course, internally carried fuel is less draggy, but you can greatly extend the reach of an otherwise incapable aircraft.
If you want an aircraft to have a specified range with a specified payload and don’t need any performance above that, than they are of course crap, as you can design the aircraft without droptanks from the beginning (like with any Boeing or Airbus). But aircraft with afterburning engines normally have quite a margin.
SchorschDepends on the quality of the weapons and the pilots. We’re not talking about Vietnam-era F-4s here. An F-4 with a modern radar, AIM-120, and AIM-9X (or their Japanese equivalents), is nothing to be laughed at.
While the Japanese F-4E have neither of it, nor do the F-15 (which are basically A versions). Theoretically you can fit an F-105 with AIM-120, AIM-9X and radar, datalink and all the stuff. But don’t expect it to be cost effective.
SchorschIt depends on just how upgraded a version of the F-15 the Japanese buy though. If they’re willing to spend the $$$ there are a lot of performance upgrades that could be added.
If the F-15 comes, it needs to come fast and affordable. There is no point in procuring an advanced F-15, that you have to develop first, and which will be trashed immediately afterwards. A dead end development (reminds a bit of this Super Phantom stuff in the late 80ies).
Then you can take the Eurofighter, A2A capabilities are ready by now. Without paying additional cash you may even profit from upgrades done by the lead nations.
Do not bring Rafale in again, It is not being considered so far.
Excuse him, he does that by reflex.
But thanks for the info, I couldn’t believe Dassault left the competition already.
Or did they never participate?
Schorsch“… and as fuel prices have nicely settled a 40 bucks a bucket, we don’t see any reason until we get the golden handshake and leave the mess called Delta-Northwest to someone else.”
SchorschWhereas it would be realistic with Eurofighter. I think. What about Dassault – would local assembly be acceptable to them?
Would Japan not want to move onto a more modern frame than the F-15?
Advantage for the Eurofighter is the mounting number of export customers, although one might debate how representative these deals are. However, the Eurofighter is essentially designed to be assembled anywhere, due to its workshare. If you make up the final line in Japan or Bavaria is ultimately pretty irrelevant.
As the Japanese focus primarily on a2a performance, they will be more attracted to the Eurofighter and the Rafale has a harder time playing its advantages (more a2g integration).
Finally, Japan uses US missile hardware (AMRAAM, Sidewinder), which is to some extent compatible to the Eurofighter.
The F-15 is a strong contender however, it offers a local assembly, commonality to former aircraft and possibly a good price. But the F-15 was sold as fighterbomber recently, questionable if it can convince in a2a. Remember, the assumed enemy is the Chinese Flanker and J-10, so performance is a huge issue. Somebody who actually wants an F-22 will hardly be satisfied with its predecessor.
SchorschThat would be ironic at best when Japan replaces its FJ-15A with F-15FX.
The F-22 would need quite a substantial work-over for export, I think it wasn’t build with export in mind (different to the F-35). Even if the F-22 may be released for export, it is dubious if the ends really meet. Japan will want to have final assembly in Japan, and will have some workshare. Quite unrealistic with the F-22.
SchorschSome aircraft, especially F-22 and Eurofighter, suffer from exaggerated performance promises and unrealistic thinking in the general public. The F-22 is invisible to radar, that seems to be common thinking. However, there is always the chance of making a contact (even if no real firing solution can be computed), and the super-agile über-performer Eurofighter might get his butt kicked by an old F-4F.
In the end, the results that matter must be averaged over a variety of simulated engagements (and taking those out that are by all means unrealistic).
If we take the thread title, I am pretty sure that the Eurofighter will in average turn out to win more a2a engagements.
SchorschRead up every dogfight exercise with Typhoon so far, everytime they were beaten (at least once) by the other side.
I guess a 100-0 exchange ratio is something fictional. The question is how often they got beaten, under which rules of engagement and if the pilots in questions performed above or below expectations.
When the F-15A entered service in the mid 1970ies, it got regularly beaten by F-5s in mocked dogfights. The F-16C can beat the hell out of an F-22A if engaging in a dogfight, so the fact that “new” aircraft get smashed by “old” ones is nothing too strange. In fact, it is helpful for refinement of tactics.
That the Eurofighter has a clear edge in performance is something nobody questioned so far I guess. What the pilot makes out of it, his job.
A good screwdriver doesn’t automatically make each repair a success.
SchorschNot acording to a reputable source (AFA). They said the sust. manoevrability was important during Vietnam era, when the WVR missiles were only useful againts hot tragets (engine exhaust). Back then it was important to overturn your oponent in order to get in his tail, in order to have a chance to fire. hence, sust. maneuvrability was a must.
When the firts IR missiles became all-aspect with the advent of Sidewider 9L, the inst. maneuvrabilityy sudden become more relevant, because it was no longer necessary to position behind the enemmy. So, inst. maneuvrabilty matters was more important.
However, nowadays, with the introdduction of HMD/HBOS the sust. maneuvrability once again is more relevant than inst. one. A few deg./sec. for the first 2-3 seconds, would not bring you such a big adantage when both have these items. On the contrary, sust. man. would allow you to conserve energy. In the end, an F 16 could be more interesting.
I doubt that, actually if turning is of any relevance at all is something we don’t really know. Maybe the next conflict shows us, that the F-22 is the total winner. Maybe not.
Differences between aircraft are not that huge, at relevant speeds and altitudes Rafale, F-16 and Eurofighter will be in a small band. Supersonic things may look different, and below 350 KIAS another reality may kick in.
On the other hand Typhoons got their ass whipped by F-16s, F-15s and F-18 regularly.
As the F-4F whipped the tail of the MiG-29. All my remarks aim on flight performance, and in this regard the Eurofighter is a class of its own, with some areas of parity or disadvantage (F-15: top speed, F-18: low speed performance, F-16: subsonic sustained turn).
By the way: my remark concerning the cup holder was purely fiction (sometimes I funny, but not often), this is what is normally called a cup holder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_holder
[ATTACH]168010[/ATTACH]
So, anyone who took my comment serious either have some holes in his English vocabulary or a mental issue when it comes to Rafale to Eurofighter (this reflex-like defense very much proves that people fear the shortcomings of their favorite aircraft).
SchorschI would like to have a reliable source, but certainly ce typhoon is more maneuvrable at supersonic flight regime although the rafale is also a highly instable design.The Rafale close couple canard configuration makes it certainly more maneuvrable at slow speeds/ pre stall speeds due to controlled airflow over the wing. In fact these are the traduction of different design philosophies.
The only first hand comment about canard I have is from Dassault’s most famous engineer and historical figure of the firm, but I will be glad to enrich my database on this subject.
about slow speed and rafale against F16 in WVR dogfight tactics :
That may result in better sustained turn rates for especially subsonic speeds as energy spillage is not that huge. However, today the instantaneous turn rates are more important and nobody really optimizes for best LoD at higher G-loads any more. In the end, the F-16 represents a more or less perfect design solution for the sustained turner.
SchorschI heard that the Eurofighter has a 7.5G rated supersonic cup holder, totally surpassing the subsonic one the Rafale has.
SchorschThe 2008 B-58A Christmas Post – Go Hustler Go!
Wasn’t the tank a intergral part of the nuclear bomb. So, by dropping the bomb you dropped the tank? :confused:
The tank was dropped and left the nuclear payload, which was inside the tank before. The nuclear payload was somewhat smaller and less draggy. You needed to drop the tank in order to drop the bomb, but the B-58 could also carry smaller weapons at additional stores.
Subsonic the big tank didn’t hurt that bad, it caused that instead of .052 it could only go .049 nm/lbs fuel at M0.91, or roughly 6.5% more drag (considering that partial power SFC has marginal influence).
For a similar weight we talk of .018 nm/lbs at M1.8 with big tank, and .021 with only the upper pod, and appr. .0225 completely clean. So, roughly 16% more drag with big tank compared to upper pod, again not considering partial power SFC characteristics of the four General Electric fuel-to-noise converters podded under the wing.
Note the 60% drop in specific range for speed increase from M0.9 to M1.8, and understand why the B-58A hit the desert before the fugly B-52D.
The double pod.
[ATTACH]168002[/ATTACH]
The small weapons.
[ATTACH]168003[/ATTACH]
The flight manual doesn’t even bother to mention a conventional weapon.
All nuclear.
“So much can go wrong so fast in a B-58.”
Sign In
