Some examples of high performance aircraft with ETs.

http://www.aviationpictureweb.com/MuseumPieces/Hustler.jpg
http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/mirage4_1.jpg
http://www.sergib.agava.ru/russia/mikoyan/mig/25/r/mig25r_e.htm

If I remember correctly the tank of the Hustler was supposed to be drop at supersonic dash. That was a huge improvement over the initial idea to entire parts of the airframe (something like a wing with tank).
The B-58 was another candidate of the start light and top up later.

The Alert F-22’s don’t HAVE to carry the tanks, but they do in order to purposefully compromise their L/O signature. If they were to intercept a bear clean, then it’s possible for them to extrapolate the true RCS of the raptor in different aspects from the tail gun radar. In a shooting war, the raptors would either launch clean or punch the takes to be clean well before they get within range of any of the bear’s sensors.

The F-22 also has huge performance reserves. Drop tanks always mean additional safety margin versus weather or operational issues, so using them means less chance of an operational loss. Intercepting bears means operations over open water and only few friendly bases in reach.
The USAF sure isn’t clueless.

It has a lot of store but their disposition is not ideal, in a LGB config it can “only” bring 2*1000 l drop tanks which is not that much considering the two powerful EJ2000 to feed. In practise it will suffer from a lack of “play time” over a combat zone, especially like in afghanisan where aircrafts have to circle waiting for targets. Here the “play time” is a critical performance factor.
In the storm shadow config it has only one 1000l drop tank. Not ideal for long range penetration.
It would be great if the typhoon could get CFTs. That would be a big improvement.

I would choose the SH block 2 with AESA EW capability for BVR over a typhoon.

It is true that the EF currently is dominantly A2A with a secondary A2G option. With basic capability I meant that the airframe has the theoretical ability, kind of the Mirage 200 which was made a bomber although starting as pure fighter.
But it would need dedication and specification to make a real fighter-bomber out of it, then smart with heavier stores and larger external fuel tanks, possibly conformal ones.

For long loitering no fighter is basically useful. Actually, what is done in Afghanistan is total misuse of aircraft. The ideal aircraft for that environment is a Douglas A-26 Invader. If we make Afghanistan the benchmark, Rafale, EF and SH turn out to be over-engineered crap.

[ATTACH]167903[/ATTACH]

I still think LM needs to come up with an export version of the F-22 and give it a new designation so that it is exportable. A few things I would recommend to make it worthwhile:

* only offer it as a two-seater
* only offer Pratt & Whitney F135/General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 versions without tvc
* use the AN/APG-81 AESA-radar rather than the AN/APG-77 AESA of the original F-22A
* retain 20mm M61A2
* add extra pair of under-wing pylon stations capable of holding fuel, bringing its maximum to six over the current four
* push for an FB designation (i.e. FB-118) so that there is no confusion to its mission not being about air superiority

Then let’s buy the F-35!

The F-22 is good because of its combination of flight performance, stealth and avionics. Taking away any makes the F-22 a dubious platform.
Take away flight performance -> have F-35
Take away stealth -> have Typhoon

Taking a closer look at the specifications of the F-22, it becomes obvious that it can’t be formed into anything else than it is, except someone puts out the big money or the USA exports the F-22 without limitations.

…

I would see it similar. If both have similar weapons and information, the Typhoon can get to a much better energy height beforehand and after missile launch has a better chance to avoid the enemy missiles. Especially can the Eurofighter enter the arena at supersonic speeds.

Being generally faster and more maneuverable at supersonic speeds it can basically decide if it engages or not. Having this ability (and the correct tactical information of course, which we assume present) it will deny disadvantageous situations.
A WVR engagement would normally be denied. That would be an issue for the SH: it cannot deny the fight, it if turns 15nm before merge, it will be caught. So, the SH must accept the fight!
The SH has good instantaneous turn rate and can pull quite a turn. When for the unlikely case the aircraft drop to <400 KCAS the SH actually becomes the better aircraft.

In BVR I would doubt that any aircraft is stealthy enough to avoid detection.

A2G: From the basic performance the Eurofighter can be very effective, it just needs more black boxes stuffed with nice software code. The Eurofighter lifts the same payload and has some pylons to spare. With current capabilities the SH is of course far ahead.

It is entirely plausible that most airlines who wanted A380-800 have already bought it (and are owed compensation) so the new customers Airbus could make profit from are those who only want derivatives.

Let’s say it this way: all airlines that believe in the A380 have already bought a number their current outlook justifies. There are on the one hand hand options for follow-on orders, and some airlines still don’t know if they want A380. That is nothing strange.
That is the good thing with the B787: you never walk alone. It fits basically in any network that operates widebody aircraft.

While B787-9 has formal orders, as has 787-3, A380-800Passenger is the sole A380 model with orders. A380F is offered, but currently with orderbook of zero. A380-900, A380-800R, A380-700 and A380-1000 are not now on offer.

I rather see it as advantage. Promise exact specifications to a customer of a derivative aircraft before the basic aircraft is really solid is a dangerous game. And Boeing lost it.
A380 derivatives are loosely defined, but when they are taken to the customer the specification will be redone and adapted to the reality. Such a design is then much more reliable than the stretch of a paper aircraft.

If B787-9 is more important than B787-8, how important is A380-900?

The -900 is important, on the long run. There is no competition for the A380, and the -900 would only tackle the -800. Currently, demand for A380 is not excessive, so pumping out a derivative doesn’t make sense before the whole A380 business case becomes better (apart from any B787 critic I do, I do not deny reality: the A380 is currently a financial catastrophe). Pitting the A380 versus the B787 makes only sense in some areas, for example design and schedule decision by senior management.

I wouldn’t put too much weight (no pun intended) on the argument about the OEW.

Boeing have historically had two figures to work on for OEW. Their own internal target and the publicly announced target, with the internal one always tighter.

I’m not sure if the 787 is over the internal target or the public one. I’ve not read anything that gives us a definitive answer to that.

We will learn when the first B787 are handed over, better when a dozen or so are in service (so in about two years). Any statements I do before are based on the facts on the table. If Boeing has internal reserves that cancel a 6t OEW growth, OK, I’m impressed.

The issue is that Boeing never failed like this before. So we have to ask if 2008 Boeing still is the Boeing of the 1990ies. Looking at what blatant mistakes were done in planning the B787 and how badly technical challenge and available resource were matched, I starting to think we need to change our image of Boeing, unfortunately, as it was a rather engineering-driven company up to now.

Times past, had I posted of a delay for Airbus with such blatant glee and bias, I would have been reprimanded possibly even banned 😡

I seriously doubt that.
There is a difference between making fun of something without actually having either stake or clue in the issue, or expressing a serious opinion.

Back on topic:

Boeing have pretty much dropped the ball on this one, there is no denying that. I always had my doubts about the schedule, it seemed more pie in the sky than Airbus’ “The A380 will like hotcakes” PR bullturd.

The Boeing decision takers messed this one up even harder than Airbus, although they have (at the moment) not stacked up the same delays yet. However, current planning will see A380-like delays, possibly even more.

I guess Boeing could have evaded the blame if they had moved forward more aggressively, and by that showing more control about their own program (now it seems that if you want to know about the B787, you either ask Airbus or your glass sphere). This quarterly delay announcement is now getting kind of familiar, let’s look what we’ll hear end of 1st quarter ’09.

Theres no denying, the Airlines will get a great plane, when it finally flies. All these delays bring the A350 more and more into play.

The “greatness” is already sold and marketed, so Boeing has to live up to its own high promises. Current estimates on empty weight speak a different language. The real issue will be the -9, and its schedule will tell us if problems are bad or generally manageable.

To really make an assessment of an aircraft, it needs some time in service. With the A380, we are now getting closer to have a real picture. However, I wouldn’t really finalize it before at least a dozen operate on a regular basis.