Scorpion82First Tranche 2 Capability Enhancements in Flight Test
24 October 2008
Flight tests for the advanced capabilities covered by the Phase 1 Enhancement (P1E) programme for Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 2 weapon systems have commenced with today’s first flight of a Paveway IV on Instrumented Production Aircraft IPA2 at Alenia Aeronautica’s facility in Turin, Italy.
First phase aeromechanical integration tests (Flutter, Vibration) of this new 500lb precision guided store are to be conducted at Alenia Aeronautica. Further trials will follow on IPA1 at BAE Systems and IPA4 at EADS CASA in configurations of up to six air-to-surface stores in order to prove the safe release of the new P1E weapons from the aircraft. This flight test phase will also include the 1000lb dual mode precision guided EGBU-16 bomb. The test data gained in these trials will allow the air vehicle aspects of the P1E capability development to be progressed.
IPA7 at EADS Deutschland will also join the P1E air vehicle trials in 2009 to prove handling qualities and carefree handling with the Paveway IV weapon.
Avionics flight trials involving all four Tranche 2 standard Instrumented Production Aircraft are to follow this first test campaign, leading to service release of P1E(a) Capabilities in 2011.
The start of P1E flight trials marks a significant step towards the availability of an Enhanced Multi-Role Capability on Eurofighter Typhoon which is being developed under the First Batch of Enhancements Contract, agreed with the Core Nations in March 2007.
Scorpion82Total AAMs configuration proposed by GIE to AdA/MN is 8 not 4.
The two external underwing pylons are WIRED and only need to be cleared for MICAs, it is a customer choice not a technical issue.
The question was about the number of Meteors not AAMs in general and that number is 4 as I said and which is also written in Foxthree passage you posted.
Scorpion82According to this press release from 2006,
“R2 is scheduled to upgrade all Tranche 1 aircraft to the Block 5 FOC standard by early 2012.”
http://www.eurofighter.com/news/article258.asp
Why do they need that long ? How many of Italy’s old Tranche 1 jets is Block 5 ? Those restrictions should probably apply to the old ones.
It takes that long as the upgrade is more or less complex depending on the standard and as the aircraft has still to be used.
The restrictions are not just dependent on older aircraft, but also on clearances.
Scorpion82a nice rafale video from swisszerland.
damocles trials included.
BTW Reco-NG was also flown on the Rafale during the evaluation. Is it known of B307 is already F3 standard?
Scorpion82Hi,
do these restrictions still apply to the Italian Typhoons:
No.
Is it correct that Typhoon has a warning indicator that is flashing if both hydraulic systems stop working? What is the Standard Operating Procedure in such cases, to eject? What happens if the indicator malfunctions and starts to flash even if the hydralics is working, does the pilot still eject, “just in case”, or will he wait and see what happens to the airplane?
Never heared about that and there is no dedicated hydraulics warning indicator. You will quickly realise if both hydraulic systems fail and you can check the status in the MHDD and on the DWP. With no hydraulic power you can easily say good by to any aircraft.
Scorpion82Some? the eurofighter manufacturer himself?
Zhe same manufacturer which states 11000 kg on the same website as well.
oh pls, the rafale B “if we takes a close plane exemple” is 350kgs heavier!
Do you believe it your self? I thought the Rafale is so much more advanced and better designed that it just adds 220 kg to the twinseat while Typhoon needs more. Honestly you obviously have never seen a Typhoon twinseat, if so you would know where the difference is. For twinseaters a large spine segment has been added and this also adds more weight. And what you think is irrelevant.
the eurofighter wiki “snapshot in 2004” page is the most upgraded for years, i
can get tons of revue websites fitting the eurofighter at 9.750t, and after year 2000…
There’re a lot of people “working” with dated data, because they don’t know it better, though they could if they inform them self.
and we are talking about the tranche 1 bird, the lighter AoA one…
AoA differed between different T1 example depending on the FCS.
Iknow scorp, your fanboyism about this plane, but i would like to ask something, do you think that the T/W ratio of a 11.5t plane is better than a 9.7t one?
You can safe your stupid accusations of fanboyism. The performance achieved was with aircraft which nver weighted 9.75 t. But to be honest think what you want ignorant chap.
because performances didn’t change at all! curious isn’t it?[/QUOTE]
Scorpion8222/10/2008
Exclusif: sérieux coup de frein sur les commandes de RafaleLe ministère de la Défense pourrait ne commander que cinquante avions de combat Rafale, au cours des six prochaines années. Selon nos informations, la loi de programmation militaire (2009-14), qui a été approuvée le 10 octobre lors d’un Conseil de défense à l’Elysée – et qui sera à l’ordre du jour du Conseil des ministres du mercredi 29 octobre, prévoit l’acquisition d’environ cinquante Rafale, soit un peu plus de huit par an. Il s’agit toutefois d’un chiffre plancher, car la loi de programmation laisse la porte ouverte à des commandes plus importantes, jusqu’à soixante-six avions, soit onze par an. Le rythme actuel de livraison est d’une quinzaine par an.
L’ajustement se fera, sans doute en 2010, en fonction des succès de l’appareil à l’exportation. Deux contrats sont en cours de discussion, l’un avec les Emirats arabes unis (60), l’autre avec la Libye (14). Si ces contrats sont signés, la commande de l’Etat français sera plus faible – pouvant descendre donc jusqu’à 50. En revanche, si le Rafale enregistre de nouveaux échecs à l’export [ce qui est aujourd’hui peu probable], l’Etat français augmentera ses commandes afin de maintenir les cadences de production. Celles-ci baisseront, quoi qu’il advienne, passant de 14 avions construits par an actuellement à 11 au maximum.
La baisse prévue du rythme de livraison de cet avion de combat provoque de sérieuses tensions entre l’Armée de l’air et la Marine nationale, qui en sont, toutes les deux, équipées. La Marine fait valoir que ses Super-Etendard arriveront en fin de vie en 2015, et qu’il faudra alors une quarantaine de Rafale Marine, afin de pouvoir armer un Groupe aérien embarqué de trente avions. Dans le même temps, l’Armée de l’air transforme ses escadrons sur Rafale. Si les appareils ne sont livrés qu’au compte-gouttes, il faut plusieurs années pour mettre sur pied un escadron opérationnel de 20 appareils.
Pour en débattre, le forum de Secret Défense sur liberation.fr
http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2008/10/exclusif-srieux.html
And in english?
Scorpion82BTW BS039/40 both arrived at Coningsby yesterday as the first block 8/T2 standard aircraft.
Scorpion82well here is a snapshot of 2004 wiki datas,
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Eurofighter_Typhoon
so the datas are always moving on this aircraft, can’t get a real picture of the truth..
And you want to blame others when they use an article where this or that is written? Sorry but your “sources” are mainly based on outdated articles and “sources” with no proofable reliability.
i’ve find out the 2002 “factbook” about tests and datas that comercial web site deleted since they claims about a 10990kg eurofighter!
http://rapidshare.com/files/64021210/2002.1.FactBook.pdf
its for the T1 version in 2002, bet that real weight is 11.400t today, but cormercials just shut up the manufacturers since… exepted to the Bi place at 11.700t, though that a B place is 300kg heavier than the single seat model!
what’s the weight of the T2? over 11.5t would be a close picture!
so Scorpion, never claim that my datas are from the 80’s…
cheers
The 9.75 t figure is indeed from the 80s and as written before it was a compromised value chosen to form a base for further discussions keeping all participitiant aboard, including France. When France left the party there was no reason to design an aircraft with that empty weight. Germany and Italy wanted a weight of ~10 t, while the UK opted for 11-12 t. The current figure is a compromise to meet the specifications of the remaining partners. The weight figures weren’t updated in the public for many years and it was not before 1998/1999 when a value of 10995 kg was released to public. Most sources now claim 11000 kg (wow 5 kg difference) and some 11150 kg (not such a huge difference either). What a pilot told me the weight difference between the single and twin seater is ~700 kg and 11700 kg is the figure which was also claimed by an EADS official.
Scorpion82Has it been established on what stations METEOR will be available on Rafale?
(since it’s longer, thicker and heavier than MICA)
Rear fuselage stations and centre wing stations, mwaning a total of 4 missiles.
Scorpion82Interferometry allows for ANY emitor to do ECMS, THIS is your SPIN and TWIST revisited.
Interferometry is used to measure the angle of arrival RF energy
! That is basically a receiver function, hence RWR. This allows the ECM to be accurately cued to the source of radiation. DBEMs direction finding accuracy is given with <1°. A similar value is given for Typhoons ESM/RWR system so there’re two possibilities:
1.) Typhoons ESM/RWR uses interferometry
or
2.) Typhoon uses another method to achieve this
So before you blame me for twisting start to inform yourself!
Your problem is you DONT know Rafale and knows Typhoon too little too.
Bla bla. Me knows nothing and you are the one and all super duper expert on everything…
Funny you can pretend to know about it when any PC goof would understand what multithreading is about = YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG AGAIN.
Fact is the available processor in the Typhoon are sufficient for the current purposes. You claim the opposite by bringing up comparisons which are completely irrelevant!
Because you’re the predending Typhoon specialist with the webpage and all.
1.) Show me exactly where I pretend to be a specialist!
2.) Where is my web site?
Would Eurofighter development phase director Martin Friemer be GOOD ENOUGH for you?
-Eurofighter designers wanted as much instability as possible, for minimum drag and maximum agility. “We aimed for 15% early on, but settled for 8%,” says Friemer.-
The question is what values are there for other aircraft?
LOL I’m sure you look at the vids with a chrono in hand.
Not really, but even if you do it like that you can easily see that the rollrate is well above 200°/sec. There is no upper difficult science behind that.
270*/sec is the French/Dassault standard AdA MN doesnt consider more */sec useful for their average squadron pilots, you got some more to learn.
The point is that you hype your super duper roll rates which are basically irrelevant. There is no reason for a 300°/sec roll rate or something like that.
Realy So according to YOU there is only sustained turn rates which are as a matter of FACT resultant of the Simultaneous turn rate and SUSTAINED thanks to thrust (vs drag).
I knew you were a newbie.
There are instant and sustained turn rates! And me is the newbie :rolleyes:
Neither CAN you with all your superioricist claims you still cant tell which one will out turn the other in a sustained turn, but I can tell YOU that everyone who flew Rafale told that its INSTANTANEOUS turn rate is WAY superior to anything they flew before. = Close coupled canard.
So does tell Typhoon pilots that the aircraft makes the tightest 180° turn at 200 kts or that its g-onset is 15 g/sec. Yet this doesn’t tell about every other aircraft.
Neither CAN you with all your superioricist claims you still cant tell which one will out turn the other in a sustained turn, but I can tell YOU that everyone who flew Rafale told that its INSTANTANEOUS turn rate is WAY superior to anything they flew before. = Close coupled canard.
Quote me directly. You accuse me for things I have not even said, confuse me with other people and want to blame me because you have a problem with me.
They know way better than you about what you write but still can get a few thing wrong
.
What a surprise:rolleyes:
Trying to patch them up with add-on LEX says it all, integration of the main wing to the canards have its known advantages and one is damping.
These are apex strakes mr. smartass aimed to improve low speed manoeuvrability. Unlike you I can be critical, I don’t pretend to know all or that the Typhoon is superior, better… at everything. You just try to drag me in that direction to create you an enemy on which you can shed your frustration.
EADS published a very informative PDF on Typhon Supersonic Pitch-up mitigation due no doubt to the lack of damping, it also contains some very good stuff on low speed recovery characteristics saying that at <> 5kt there were NO guarantees of preventing departure, which is precisely what Rafale pilots werent caapable of getting it to do.
The guarantee isn’t there because the AoA sensors are not accurate enough at that speed. And 5 kts is very low:diablo: (it were 50 kts). So if you quote something quote the whole thing and don’t take out the relevant things.
Scorpion82Are you doing it in purpose or are you realy blind?
F-22 active systems uses interferometry and therefore are useable as ECMS.
Enough of your usual twist and spin exercise please!
There is no twist and spin. Did I say the F-22 has no inferometry? NO! Did I say the F-22 has no ECM? YES! Doesn’t matter for that topic anyway.
Sorry WRONG again, they ARE and tell me WHAT Typhoon posseses that Rafale doesn’t please a laser designation pod?
I have done so above, if you cna’t read it’s your problem not mine.
Just like AGP 1 and 8 are different graphic buses, data transfert and computing power are directly related to DATA FUSION as well as the ease and transfert/volume SPEED at which these datas are processed and then presented to the pilot = MMI.
There is a difference between having just one AGP1 and 1 AGP8 or between having 8 AGP1s with each one taking over different tasks and 1 AGP8. That is what makes out the difference of the modular and federated concept. In the Rafale you have one computer (with 18 processor boards by the way) which takes over most of the tasks. In the Typhoon you many more dedicated computers. While in the Rafale the superior processing power of a single computer is used for many purposes, in the Typhoon you have multiple dedicated processors. The single computers in the Typhoon are slower, but as there are many of them the processing power for individual tasks is not necessarily lower in sum. As said the modular approach is better and I hope it will be adopted for the Typhoon in the future. The processing power is sufficient in the current form however, let alone that the new mission computers based on PowerPC processors in T2 aircraft are much more powerful than the old tech processors in T1 (which aren’t even used to their full potential and which have great reserves).
Of your Eyesight specialist? You tell US. 😀
Why should I, you made the claim so you have to prove it not me.
Based on a Danish pilot REPORT saying it WAS 200* and IMPRECISE enough to make him miss his F-16.
When, in which aircraft, with which FCS revision? In this case a simple look at an airshow video unveils you that the roll rate is more than 200°/sec. 240-250°/sec is the least the aircraft can reach and that is sufficient. Rafales typical roll rate is 270°/sec, while the max is 290°/sec and that is the best performance. Different conditions are another topic.
[/QUOTE]
Mister Scorpion: When one canot READ the difference between Simultaneous and Sustained one get himself a good aerodynamic book and LEARN.
Simultaneous turn performance? I doubt I will find anything in any book :-p.
As for the figures you’re expecting us to give to you, they should have been given by Dassault if they had been made available to public, all you got is that of the underpowered and STEALTHIER Rafale C01 with early M-88-E1 and more discreet air intakes.
If Dassault doesn’t give any data, no problem. My problem is that you claim something you can not backup.
Now: Rafale was optimised for speeds of M 0.9 to M 1.6 Typhoon for higher Machs; at M 0.9 to 1.5 i’d have a Rafale ANY time because 90% of all engagements takes place at these speeds and their corner speed is IDENTICAL.
Lol.
Apparently you’re not up to comprehend the conceipt of transcient maneuvrability as defind by DRYDEN and the USAF either, just a hint, before pulling Gs aircrafts have to bank, to bank they have to initiate and terminate a roll moment with precision IF possible at all. :diablo:
My tip: TRY Dryden and SAAB aerodynamicists they know what they’re talking about.
Ah yes and the Typhoon is such a crappy aircraft that it can’t terminate roll moment with precision. It must be such a crappy aircraft and all those guys at BAE or EADS are complete idiots which have no idea what they are doing… :rolleyes:
A wonder that the Typhoon flys at all its such a bad, useless crappy design and inferior at everything to everything ever created :rolleyes:
Scorpion82Scorpion82
So according to YOU, a 4th generation core avionic system offers the same advantages as that of the F-22/F-35 etc. Good going.
To oyur information even the YF-23 was supposed to used a federated concept like the Typhoon. As said the modular approach has its advantages and is bascially more advanced. Already said that, never the opposite so what’s your point?
If it was the case, the rest of the world would know and YES you keep ignoring other posters documents, only F-22/F-35/Mirage 2000 Mk2/9 and Rafale are equiped with interferometric ECMS.
Which document says only these aircraft feature interferometry? BTW the F-22 does not even have ECM!
More TWIST and SPIN? We all KNOW that there is NOTHING to validate claims of better MMI or anything else in Typhoon advantage but pure earsays and “I’ve been told” stories actualy counterdicted by some SENIOR RAF officers and BAe test-pilots in very officials ways.
The technologies mentioned are not all related to MMI and where just an example that there are also technologies/capabilities in the Typhoon which can’t be found on the Rafale. It’s the same the other way round.
The so-called “Superior” instability of the Typhoon is also a forum legend, at 8% it is merely superior to that of F-16.
Source data?
-Rafale roll rate is consistantly 90*/sec HIGHER.-
Based on the fact that Rafales rollrate has been reported with 290°/sec, while for Eurofighter nothing has been disclosed except >200°/sec? Lol
An increase of up to 25% of vortex lift was also observed, as well as increased DAMPING and Dynamic instability, allowing for a reduction of supersonic trim drag.
This increase in DYNAMIC instability due to the effect of the canard integration means that at supersonic speed the aircraft cL shifts is more limited that is the case for Typhoon for example.
This is only possible with fully integrated (or close coupled) canards configuration, NOT with the long moment harm canard configuration.
Bliblablub what is the sustained and max g of the Rafale at ~mach 1.6 at 40k ft+?
Scorpion82Sorry, does Typhoon posseses a 5th generation core system architecture comparible to that of F-22 or F-35?
As far as the rest of the world knows the answer is NO.
True, but does it mean the avionics are less good integrated or less good interacting with each other? NO! The modular architecture mainly provides the advantage of being easier to upgrade and it might save some cost in terms of operating costs.
It doesn’t fare much better than the latest model of 5F and certainly less than the 2000 Mk2/9 or Rafale and its ECMs doesnt use interferometry.
Don’t know if its ECM uses interferometry or not, has it been explicitely stated anywhere that there is no interferometry? Or is it just that you haven’t heared/read about it so you assume it’s not present?
The other way round where are TRD, DVI in the Rafale for example? Are all checklists in an complete electronic format availabe? Is there a helmet with display including FLIR/NVE imagery etc.?
BTW I know that DVI and a helmet has been tested for the Rafale, but where rejected on cost grounds. Yet you can also find technologies/capabilities on operational Typhoons, which you can’t find on the Rafale. As said both aircraft have their stronger and weaker points.
Scorpion82It is alot harder to achieve this with heavy fighter that can carry combine 20 tons of internal and external loads. compare F-22 with F-16.
Sukhoi clearly knows what supersonic agility and they are going to use TVC for BVR avoidance. Haven u seen the Su-35 video where it avioids EF missiles.
EF currently is not designed for 600 to 700 kg AAM missile but Su-35 is along with long range strike weopons. It is in different league.
You mean the animated marketing video? LOL Honestly you are so long here on the forums with so much posts, yet you still don’t even understand most very basics.
Sign In
