SchorschI hope you following the SU-35 development and its capability. Do you honestly believe Typhoon would be capable of same kind of improvement in its life time?
The slightly overhyped Suchoi 35 is nothing else than putting all that was used here and there on several variants of the Suchoi 27 legacy basis into one comprehensive aircraft with additional avionics. Any increase in thrust is basically to arrive at the same performance as the Suchoi 27 has been in the mid 80ies. Some advances are achieved by thrust vectoring. It will be a very powerful aircraft, but no step change in (relevant) maneuverability over the Suchoi 27.
Seriously, what kind of comparison do you want?? How do you judge the manuverability, if not by its performance on dispaly??
Are you serious?
Airshow display really doesn’t tell you anything.
Aircraft don’t fight at 1000ft and 250 KIAS.
Sometimes you’ll find evidence, of course only if one actually tries to look for it. From the stuff you have written so far I hardly doubt you have any serious idea about the issue.
[ATTACH]166279[/ATTACH]
SchorschSo, the Typhoon is highly highly maneuverable at supersonic speed, what flankers does at subsonic ??? on a massive scale:rolleyes:
You also probably meant up high beyond anyone can see except fanboys don’t you:D
Where as flanker manuverablity is watched by one and all, but Typhoon’s !! well it is stealthy next only to F-22, it is hard luck we could not witness its manuverability in air shows.
Maneuverability beyond corner speed (which is around 300 KIAS for the aircraft in question) is defined by thrust (function of Mach), drag (as function of Mach number and lift), airframe capability (G-limit) and control authority.
Every self-respecting aviation insider should be able to tell that a Suchoi 27 derivative will have serious problems to compete versus an Eurofighter here. The Su-27 didn’t really enjoy any big advantages over the F-15 beyond corner speed (below it benefited from higher lift and better stability).
The claims concerning the superior maneuverability of the Suchoi 27 (and derivatives) are based on its airshow performance and I never saw any real life comparisons, except from a Russian source that put the Suchoi 27 well below the F-15C.
SchorschThat’s the kind of answer I was looking for 😉 FWIW the way they got the thrust up to those figures was by increasing the temp and pressure (higher exhaust velocity) rather than increasing airflow/sec. Thing that got me wondering about the possiblities of the Eagle is that the Tomcat-21 was suppose to have been good for Mach 1.3 or so dry with those engines.
The Tomcat 21 did not demonstrate it, and drag calculations from a preliminary (not truly defined) wind tunnel model at transonic speeds (if they conducted those at all) … not very substantial.
SchorschNor is it something prohibited by the laws of physics just because an airframe wasn’t specifically designed for it. See the plethora of aircraft that can cruise above Mach 1 clean without afterburners that weren’t designed specifically to do that. Specifically, what is the Eagle lacking that makes it impossible to supercruise?
What’s more thrust going to do, slow it down?
First of all, like I point out regularly, installed thrust at Mach 1 is a total different kettle of fish than uninstalled dry thrust, the figure you’re are hinging your argument on.
Second, you have to understand physics of aircraft performance. The Eagle is no statically unstable (like Eurofighter) or “relaxed stability” (like F-16) airframe. That causes a considerable trim drag beyond Mach 1.
And having the ability to fly supersonic without reheat in clean config does not help the issue. You want to have a robust supercruise capability in a tactically relevant configuration. I hardly doubt that is possible, especially given the draggy wing pylons. The intakes of the Eagle will also be problematic, as these are designed for best pressure recovery in pure supersonic regime (M1.5+).
The Eurofighter demonstrated the ability to fly Mach 1.3 with missiles and an external tank.
So, more thrust overcomes the weight growth of the later Eagle variants, in terms of thrust to weight the enhanced E is not much better than the vintage A model.
By the way, for an aircraft primarily advertised as fighter bomber too much thrust only hurts as it is paid with fuel penalties in other regimes.
SchorschI agree, in a SEAD role and bomb strike role its as good as anything really out there. One bone to pic is the combination of two taurus/storm shadow, and this only leaves room for one tank. But then you could argue the point of the weapon permits IFR upto the threat zone, then the missile does the rest of the mission.
Do you know if there are any bomb (mainly “dumb”) target systems borrowed from the Tornado and implemented onto the typhoon?, giving it a very accurate low level precision strike ability.
A system that calculates bomb impact point should be integrated. I mean given today’s array of sensors (GPS, INS) and processing power it shouldn’t be a big deal.
SchorschA possible config we could see on the rafale according to colonel moussez : 3*GBU12 (250 kg) + 3*AASM (250kg)+ 1 GBU24 (1000kg) 2*2000L drp tanks 4 micas and two unguided rocket pods and a damocles laser designator. This is something absolutely amazing performance for a 9,5 t class fighter. Again gripen’s performance is honorable but it comes nowhere close to that !
It is correct that a Rafale can lift much more payload and actually excels in its weight class. But what if you don’t need that?
Honestly, no conceivable conflict for Brazil would see a huge number of interdiction targets. If you think of a border skirmish with Venezuela, where to drop all the bombs? Identifying targets is the real challenge.
Important for a small air force is the maximum sortie rate over a certain time period, the assumed downtime for maintenance and the training requirements. Even with 36 aircraft Brazil will have problems covering its airspace, even when we cut out the large north-eastern jungle regions.
SchorschFor me the eurofighter problems are two fold :
1) The design philosophy which is too cold war orientated. The EF performs greatly for what it has been designed for but it compromized its performance as a multirole aicraft. You can’t hang enough drop tanks and bombs at the same time… Indeed there are some fundamentals caracteristics which you can’t change.
2) the lack of support of the governements which leads to a slow pace of improvements introductions. this is a shame when you see how many aircrafts are produced.
Agree on 2, disagree on 1.
You can hang 3 tanks, 4 bombs (2 of them 2000lbs) and 6 AAMs on the Eurofighter at one time. Correct is the F-15E has more capability in this point, but for a real life mission no F-15 would fly with 12x 500lbs GPS bombs. Using a supersonic fighter-bomber for close air support is not exactly the benchmark.
SchorschEF has already secured future. Even if there were no more sales than they are in present order book… For European conditions a very successful type so far.
Agree on this point, we must consider where we have come from.
Most previous European models never came anywhere close, especially when we deduct the Cold War bonus they enjoyed. The Typhoon is able to compete versus all other aircraft.
I think it will score a few more orders, although I don’t think it will outsell the F-35 or hit the 1000 aircraft mark. When we put non recurring cost per airframe, I think the Eurofighter is one of the better designs of the last 20 years.
SchorschLatest F100/110s produce over 21,000lbs dry. Should be able to supercruise with pair of those.
That is pure guessing. Supercruise is something you don’t retrofit.
the Eagle lacks all premises for supercruise. More thrust will not help.
The missile carriage is too draggy, too.
Modern WVR missiles don’t care.
Correct is that “super agility” doesn’t really help, but the Eurofighter is able to do real life maneuvering at speeds in excess of Mach 1. That is something noteworthy.
What difference does that make?
The Eurofighter is carefree handling, a very advanced system. the Eagle isn’t bad, but pretty much still 1970ies legacy.
The Typhoon has more range than an Eagle with CFTs and 3 600 gallon tanks?
Your 21klbs dry engine will eat away the extra fuel.
SchorschWell, I certainly got a learned response to my query! Thanks lads.
OK, so the planes have to be multi-role now. And of course you can’t reduce the size of the pilot and his ejection seat (well, the Folland seat was smaller). But the points I was trying to raise are still valid.
As all electronics systems are now digital, using micro-chips, and easily re-programmable for different roles, the systems should be a lot smaller. Less wiring, too, if you include opto-electronics. And numbers of instruments have been reduced to a few MFDs.
Fly by wire must be more compact too. The engines of today are far more fuel efficient, so not so much fuel is required.
Sorry, but I still think they are too huge and heavy!
Can’t accept the criticism of the Gnat and Lightning. The IAF liked the Gnat so much, they developed it into the Ajeet.
Bri 🙂
If network solutions are getting more attractive, it might be possible that future aircraft see less capability put in one airframe, means a fighter is reduced to a small aircraft having just a small radar, a single engine and limited weapons. When all have stealth, the individual fighter’s radar becomes less and less practical and WVR combat will see its renaissance.
So Sprey is not completely wrong, although his points sometimes seem long in the tooth.
SchorschWell seeing as the Su-35 currently only exists as two prototypes that are a long way from completing their flight tests the answer has to be yes.:D
And the avionics are often not even prototypes. The final avionics suite depends on the individual customer, and currently I would question if any nation is willing to become risk share partner in the project.
The Suchoi 35 impresses the layman due to size, but has no real performance advantage over any Eurocanard, except maybe for missions that require lots of AAMs.
SchorschSaudi Arabia would have bought, “even if” it would have lemon. Remember the $40 Billion Tornado:D,
Austria, if not for BAE “effort” to subvert, Gripen would have walked away with it.
While American aircraft are often preferred due to the political background. Not always, but quite often. Korea for example does not buy the F-15 for the pure technical superiority of the aircraft.
Same is with Russian aircraft: quite often they are bought for financial reasons or because the procuring nation wouldn’t get any aircraft from the West.
So, winning a fighter competition is often more a political than a technical thing.
What would a Typhoon give them that an F-15 with an APG-63V3/4 AESA, IRST, HMCS, and 36k engines wouldn’t give them? What about the Typhoon is a clear cut advantage over any easily implemented upgrade to the Eagle?
– Supercruise performance
– ability to carry more than 8 AAM (versus Chinese threat worth considering)
– much more agile
– much better maneuverability
– modern avionics, not only in radar technology but all aspects
– fly-by-wire controls way beyond the beefed up F-15’s 1970ies tech
So, quite a lot.
I would also consider the Typhoon to hold a practical range advantage, something that needs to be considered for the Japanese.
Generally the Typhoon is technically a very good aircraft, but competition is strong. I think the downside of the Typhoon is the lack of a nation that backs it 100% and demonstrates its will to support and enhance the type. I guess the best proponents are Spain and Germany, but Germany is generally lame in continued investments in its aircraft. See the lack of any real Tornado improvements (although the airframes are young), the tendency to reduce the Eurofighter’s avionics to save cost and some other programs. A potential customer will look very seriously into that.
What would really help the Eurofighter is an ambitious requirement for Tranche 3, including an AESA radar and more multirole, potentially also thinking about developing a true twin-seater (with a WSO in the back).
SchorschCan a MiG-31 become a satellite launcher?
No, not effective. The military has access to supersonic airfcraft for decades, but even the not very cost effective military ever considered it.
Or a Su-25 a crop duster.
Why don’t take a turbo-prop?
A Tu-160 a commercial aircraft
To fly cruise missiles to their holiday destination?
Conclusion:
For unmodified military aircraft there is no use for commercial aspects. Evidence is the total lack of commercial application of military aircraft since the late 1930ies.
SchorschGripen NG is still a paper plane, not necessarily because it uses technology unavailable today, but because nobody signed up for it yet. Interconnecting all these magic black boxes into one working system will require time and money.
Questionable if Brazil wants to become launch customer, while it may if Sweden/SAAB offers something. Let’s not forget that Brazil has an indigenous aircraft industry and might opt for final assembly in its own factories.
Rafale has the advantage, that Brazil can benefit from all advances of the French AF Rafale and it will increase the ties between France and Brazil (also and especially in aerospace).
Schorschisn’t your site itself the very proof fixed sam sites are outdated relics? mobile sam sites such as S-400 is where its at.
In times of tension or war the SAM installations will be moved twice a day. In Germany you’ll find many prepared SAM-sites in one are of ~10-20km diameter (they are not maintained any more and were intended for HAWK). If necessary you can build up a SAM site on a Walmart parking lot.
The satellite pictures SOC talked about are on average several month to sometimes several years old. Not that I disvalue the effort, but it is well possible that the site has been moved since.
Sign In
