First (and to make things clearer) , when I say that the long coupled canard design is a mistake , I should rather say that the Typhoon is a mistake .
Surely enough , a high altitude and fast interceptor has a good time with long coupled canard , we know that . So , to design the Eurofighter with long coupled canard is NOT a mistake as per say . It is just that nobody in Europe needs a fighter primarely AtoA orientated , period .
Makes you wonder why many airforces have fighters, but nonetheless lack aircraft with an AG capability. Of course it’s true for nations which are going to get themselves involved in out of area operations or which expect to strike enemy ground targets.
Nobody is rich enough to afford to have a fleet made of various and different aircraft designed with one main task in mind (a la F-22 , A-10 , B2 , etc ) .
While the Eurofighter can indeed undertake some (not very few) AtoG tasks , it doesn ‘t do it very well because it ‘s not made for !
A lot of fighters which evolved into multirole strike fighters are doing rather well, despite not being designed for AG. F-15s, F-16s, Su-27s, Mirage 2000s… An aircraft more optimised for AG will certainly enjoy some advantages over an aircraft not or less optimised for that role, but that doesn’t mean that the aircraft won’t be able to do such tasks well. Certainly depends on how you define “well”.
-1) at very low level , the EJ-200s don ‘t perform well wrt power , acceleration and fuel consumption .
It’s true that the EJ200 wasn’t specifically designed and optmised for low level performance, but which modern jet engine is? Most modern engines powering multirole fighters ave to meet the requirement of adequate performance and economy across the flight envelope, whether at low altitudes and high subsonic speeds or at high altitudes and supersonic speeds. Advanced engine designs and controls can do a lot for you to optmise performance across the envelope, albeit you’ll always be forced to accept some trade offs. That’s true for the EJ200 as it is true for the M88. Feel free to back your assertions with any credible data concerning “power”, acceleration and consumption. If you can’t then the entire point is moot and mere speculation as part of the usual attempt to trash talk Typhoon and hype Rafale.
-2) the airframe (long coupled canard , delta sweep angle , wing loading , body lift) is not optimised for and only provide a hard and bumpy ride .
The long coupled canard isn’t a particular problem, neither is wing sweep angle. Low level optimised swing wings have a sweep angle between 60° and 70°! Low wing load is problematic as the aircraft will be more responsive to gusts and turbolences. Advanced FCS can compensate for this to a certain extend. The very same is true for the Rafale as well, but yet you use it as an argument against the Typhoon which is dubious.
-3) the low level cruising speed is not good/fast enough (A Tornado pisses on a Typhoon when flying belly on the ground) .
What’s the cruise speed of various types at this altitude and at what thrust setting? A Tornado is pissing on virtually any fighter at that altitude, including your beloved Rafale.
-4) instability during heavy weapon delivery is a problem , still unsolved . The Typhoon ‘s instability comes from the fact that its a$$ is heavy and its nose light to give more authority to the canards at high speed . Delivering Storm Shadows at low level is still un unknown quantity to the Typhoon Team because they are “affraid” (worried I should say) that the nose would suddently go downwards then upwards so fast that the FCS would not be able to compensate in high density air conditions
.
The change in CG is in the first place affecting the Y-axis and not the X-axis. The point is subsequently moot. That release of such heavy stores haven’t been tested (spare the 2000 lb GBU-10) is true however. Everything else is mere speculation once again!
All of this to say that the Eurofighter will never be a true good multirole fighter . I can sign and rest my case , no doubt .
Like the F-15, F-16, M2k or Su-27 never became true good multirole fighters right?:rolleyes:
I also forgot to speak about the pylons emplacement and their interaction on the overall RCS .
Can’t see too much of a difference to make such a big fuzz about it.
They should have asked Dassault in the 80s …
I have been told of the beautifull minds and beatifull tools behind the Eurofighter design but what I see is a basic lack of knowledge wrt delta canard fighters .
It took them more than 20 years (!) of flying the Typhoon to see that LERXs (a la Mig-29 , SH , Rafale , etc) are good for lift and stability at high AoA !?
Wonderfull ! They are learning …
Eurofighter partners studied LEX configurations well in the 70s already and initial cranked delta wing designs provided a very similar effect. They ultimately opted for a more simple straight wing and one of the likely reasons why the don’t opted for LEX was the concern that they might interfere with the gun, something which could only be truly verified in actual flight tests. The idea to add LEX to the Typhoon design is much older than you actually believe and the Rafale A had no LEX itself, it was introduced on the real prototypes only. The benefits are undeniable and Eurofighter should have opted for them in the first place, hwever, retrofitting them is possible without much effort and it’s most likely one of the lowest concerns and priorities they have.
To fulfill this important and rather special role , the entire aircraft has to be designed for , including the avionics and the RCS .
There were generations of combat aircraft performing that very role long before the Rafale. The Mirage 2000 was hardly specifically designed for that role either, yet they develope the N variant to perform that very mission. It’s also foolish to believe that the Rafale was specifically designed for that mission only, otherwise “omni-role” is a pure marketing gag.
Sign In
