Scorpion82Anyone with a good idea of the stuff carried by Luftwaffe Tonkas?
The two most recognizable stores I can think of are both retired (Kormoran & MW-1)….so what all is left? What does the ASSTA 3 upgrade provide?
Outside of AIM-9, the standard Tonka fuel tanks, BOZ dispensers and the Cerebrus (?) ECM pods, I honestly don’t know what other stuff they carry?
AGM-88 and B61?
IRIS-T?
I think the Kormoran II is still in service, at least it was not that long ago. AIM-9L for self defence is to be replaced with IRIS-T. Most AG munitions were unguided MK80 series GP bombs, Matra 250 retarded bombs, MW1 bomb dispensers and IIRC BLU-755 CBUs. The provisions for the Maverick existed, but it was never integrated. AGM-88B HARM II were and still are used mainly on the ECRs. Tornados also use the GBU-24 PW III, KEPD-350 Taurus and will receive the GBU-54 LJDAM with the ASSTA 3 upgrade. IDS have used Litening I, II and III which are typically called LDP/II/III. The GAFRECCEPOD has been used on modified IDS which are known as Tornado RECCE. Meanwhile the RecceLite pod has been introduced. Luftwaffe Tornados will likely be in service until 2025 at least.
Scorpion82Even if it appears a bit picky. Verification is proving that something works in theory. Validation is the practical test to confirm that something works in praxis as well.
Scorpion82No AMRAAM kills over Iraq. Only AIM-7M / AIM-9M and most of these were WVR.
There was at least one AMRAAM kill during Operation Southern watch by an F-16 against an Iraqi MiG-25 which was the very first AMRAAM kill on record. It wasn’t during Desert Storm which you have in mind with your reply.
Scorpion82There have been more AMRAAM kills than just the 5 or so Serbian MiG-29s. Some occured earlier over the Balkans and some over Iraq.
Scorpion82@MSphere
Is there any public source on this available to read up? If it’s the propulsion of the missile itself I wonder whether that problem isn’t affecting other AMRAAM variants as well. IIRC the C5 is using the same motor as does the C6.
Scorpion82Here is a nice report from the Indian journalist Vishnu Som, who had the opportunutiy to fly the Rafale in France. A short video of the flight is included as well.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/thunder-at-100-feet-flying-france-s-rafale-superfighter-250710
Scorpion82You best let all the companies developing 5th gen fightes, plus the new Gripen varient, with internal bays in on this! Unless of course it is something that can be worked around without any problems. And i’m quite sure you’d change you tune if a varient of the Typhoon was developed that had internal bays.
A somewhat lame attempt to distract from the problems and it isn’t necessarily a problem which will be affecting all aircraft likewise. The structural design of different aircraft types is different and problems concerning vibrations etc. aren’t necessarily the very same for different aircraft types. The envelope of the aircraft might another factors. However if the problem can’t be fixed the solution is to fit missiles only when they are needed and leave them home if they aren’t needed to minimize the impact of the problem.
Scorpion82Ok, first off Jackonicko is NOT an independent journailist, we all know this. Secondly they attended a briefing by the German pilots and simply repeated what they were told by them. How you can claim this as proof is beyond me.
Lake was just one of four journalists and his quotes are identical to those of the other journalists, so it doesn’t really matter whether you consider him to be independent or not and applying double standards by accepting claims you like and dismiss those you dislike isn’t really making your case and just shows your bias here. At the end of the day you are free to believe what you want, so do others. At least those German officers, three in total were all named, all quoted by four different persons and all made coherent claims. That’s more than what you typically get.
Scorpion82Cheers, I consider that good praise coming from you Scorpion.
Actually that’s quite a large mistake on my part as I assumed that the Luftwaffe was still using Libelle alongside the standard AEA after introducing it operationally in 2005 ?
I was also aware that the Luftwaffe had performed an evaluation of AEA and the Libelle suit in 2006-2007, but I had no idea that they eventually chose AEA.
Good posts deserve praise, they are rare today anyway so it’s nice to read such. The subject of the Luftwaffe’snchoice of APA hasn’t been covered in the international press so it’s not surprising that people aren’t aware of it. I didn’t knew it for a while either. I have some more information about it somewhere, but I haven’t access to all my material at this point as it is spread over two locations which are some hundreds of km appart. IIRC the costs were one of the reasons, though I mean to remember that there were some technical and or operational aspects as well. It’s worth noting that the Luftwaffe doesn’t use the anti-g boots due to their tear and wear. But they use the socks and the rest of the suite.
Scorpion82One has got to wonder if the Eurofighter guys are slipping these German pilots a bob or two considering they’re so keen to use the various claims in marketing blurb to help try and sell their jet. I take it all with a very big pinch of salt.
Eurofighter just adopted that story like many others. There were four independent journalists who attended a press briefing by JG 74 at Eielson AFB. among them Dave Majumdar, Jamie Hunter and Jon Lake. All wrote their own articles and cited the pilot claims, sometimes with minor differences, but in total it was fully coherent. Those articles were publisbed at Flight Global and in AFM and CA. Actually the German jocks expressed their admiration for the F-22s BVR capabilities, but all feel that the Typhoon is evenly matched close in at least. It’s not that hard to believe, if you aren’t an ignorant die hard fanboy for whom everything sounds wrong that speaks “against” your prefered/favorite fighter. That some journalists are abusing and misrepresenting this is unfortunate, but that doesn’t mean that the original story is wrong. There are three named officers who made pretty coherent claims and that’s alot by such standards. At the end of the day it was just a training exercise, there are many factors which can influence the results of such WVR DACT, including factors unrelated to the aircraft performance/qualities itself. In the real world both aircraft would fight alongside each other and could complement them well. Let’s be happy that NATO poses somenof the worlds finest and most capable fighters out there.
Scorpion82@Bloodshot
Good post. Just one minor correction German Typhoon jocks wear the APA as well. APA was selected over Libelle following an operational evaluation around 2005/2006.
Scorpion82Hold on a second, do we know this for sure? Did the two jets have a race? Not questioning you personally but where is the proof? Was there an independent observer who can verify this or do we have to take a German pilot and Eurofighters word for it? It’s all very fishy.
Argueably it is claimed by that German pilot, but not that surprising. He actually states “can out climb and out accelerate the F-22” which could indicate that it’s not necessarily the case across the entire envelope, who knows. However by the same token there aren’t really independent sources let alone any data to bolster the claims of the superior performance of the F-22 over other types.
Scorpion82The F-22 is certainly bigger and thus has more absolute drag, but having almost two times the internal fuel of the typhoon it doesn’t have two times the drag hence why the range on internal fuel is very different (1200km vs 3200km). Thus typhoon’s in operational context would have to carry either fuel tanks and/or missiles which would lower the performance (especially sustained rates).
While there is a core of truth in your claims, this figures are incorrect and the fact that the F-22 with significantly more thrust isn’t accelerating any faster than a clean Typhoon is telling you something about the drag. Max range of the Typhoon on internal fuel is about 2500-2600 km. Of course that’s more of a theoretical value than a practical one, but the same might be true for the Raptor where the USAF stated 3000 km with two drop tanks IIRC, though other sources stated 3222 km without mentioning tanks. Considering that the equally heavy, albeit larger Su-30MK with much weaker engines achieves a max range of 3000 km on same internal fuel means that the F-22s max range on internal fuel might indeed be around 3000 km, but most likely not much more and the figure for the Typhoon you have stated is obviously plain wrong and wouldn’t make sense anyway.
Scorpion82I see it’s been revealed by USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz that the F-22 can pull 6G at 50,00 feet.
Quote – “This is a unique airplane: you can pull 6g at 50000ft,” he saysExtremely impressive stuff, though i’ve no doubt some will try and claim otherwise.
Source: Flight International, 31 July-6 August 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/101739658/Flight-International-31-July-06-August-2012
And this proves what exactly mr. “insightful analysis”?
Scorpion82BVR missiles failed abysmally in Vietnam. I don’t have numbers for Gulf I so cannot comment, but did run the numbers for Allied Force years ago, and got Pks of under 10%.
This report may shed some light on missing information about BVR statistics.
Sign In
