Scorpion82You should primarily be looking at what speed it travel/supercruise,
to find range. (s=v*t)
Your calculation is the most basic form and ignores a number of factors. What you are looking at is the max internal fuel load, static dry thrust and associated SFC. but what power settings are required for a given speed and altitude with a specific load out… These are factors which you need to take into account and the Gripen NG by the virtue of being smaller and lighter will suffer more from an equivalent load than the large twin engined fighters. The relative impact on weight and drag of, let’s say a CL drop tank and 4-6 AAMs would be larger on the Gripen than on the Rafale or Typhoon. This must be taken into account.
Scorpion82Some minor corrections and additions:
1) LGB integration was always slatted for F3 Rafales, but has been accelerated for Afghanistan (GBU-12/22 PW II/III) were qualified on what was called the F2+ standard. GBU-24 was scheduled for 2011 and might be fully integrated by now.
2.) You make the same mistake as many and confuse M88-2E4 with M88-4E! The former has been introduced on F1s already with existing E1s being upgraded. M88-4E is a new engine so to speak.
3.) The TV camera of the new OSF-IT is working close to the IR spectrum to improve performance at night (a major limitation of the current unit).
4.) SBU-64 is the IR variant of AASM already in service. The laser variant is the SBU-54. if it helps you to remember take the equivalent of JDAM/LJDAM. GBU-38 equivalent to SBU-38 (INS/GPS). GBU-54 equivalent to SBU-54 (INS/GPS+laser).
Scorpion82A homogenous fleet of F/A-18E/F would be more cost effective than a mixed fleet of Tornado GR.4 and Typhoon FGR.4. but at the end of the day the RAF is going to retire its GR.4s around 2018 anyway, while the Typhoon will be upgraded to take on additional roles. The SH would be superfluous. By the time the SH would be operational the Tornado is already close to be retired and the Typhoon will be more capable. There wouldn’t be a serious gain by introducing the SH.
Scorpion82Well in the opinion of this author the UK should pay for themore expensive carriers, wait for the F-35C and acquire the F-18 as a stop gap. That guy appears to suggest the legacy Hornet with all his babbling and even if it’s the SH it would come on top of Tornado and Typhoon. If the SH should have been purchased as an Tornado IDS/ ADV replacement this should have been done a decade ago. Whether it makes much sense these days is rather questionable. Better spent that money on the Typhoon to boost its capabilities to a new level.
Scorpion82TMor
Lewis Page is for the RAF and the Typhoon what a JL is in your eyes for the Rafale or a Bill Sweetman is for the F-35.;)
Scorpion82Please do. The UAE would have had no problem asking for a different pod for their Mirage-2000-9 if they felt it was not up to the latest standards.
The requires the US to approve integration of their weapons, stores etc. on a foreign (in this case French) combat aircraft and the UAE would likely be charged with the costs of integration as well, a bill that they might not be willed to pay for.
The AASM can also use its booster in the terminal phase. Still, in the end the accuracy of the AASM will vary. There is a video on youtube where you can see the AASM laser guidance test. The goal is to make sure the weapon strike as close as possible from where it’s supposed to strike. But no amount of guidance can guarantee 100% accuracy and it’s always a bit of a guess work each time to know for sure what amount of accuracy you’re going to get. Maybe you haven’t heard about “acceptable margin” or “acceptable risks”…
The discussion was not centred around the accuracy per se, but the ability to change the angle of impact and I see no reason why an unpowered weapon wouldn’t be able to do this within a certain range. Of course you’ll have to drop the weapon at a range that still allows the weapon to strike the target at the desired impact angle, that’s not going to happen if you drop too far away.
Scorpion82I’ve already provided the specs of the three systems on this very thread, with pictures, manufacturer sources, prices etc.
Israeli technologies are been exported to SA, and so are US technologies. They still selected Damocles, as did the UAE.
I’ll check out the LDPs latter, don’t have the time yet. Which Israeli technologies are being sold to SA? The UAE has selected the Damcles for their M2ks, not for the F-16. That’s a non-issue.
That was a jest, and I’m only saying, the RAF and other air forces showed a preference for GPS guided weapons, but that doesn’t mean laser-guided weapons were less relevant (unless either of you can provide us with clear intel on that subject).
In bad visibility employment of LGBs is restricted or even prohibited. A GPS guided weapon isn’t prone to weather, but is less accurate and most weapons are currently limited to engage fixed targets. A dual-mode bomb offers both. Unless you are a brain dead monkey some logical thinking and common sense could answer many questions you are asking.
Because I’m aware of the laws of physics, and I’ve done two years of engineering and mechanics, and I’m fairly confident when I say that with only gravity and fins as guiding system, you may improve your guess work on where a bomb will hit and how, but little more.
After the initial boost phase the AASM is very much a gravity bomb as well, so according your logic it can “guess a bit better” only too. :rolleyes: Appears you never heard about trajectories, adjusting flight profiles…
Scorpion82Typhoon’s LDP isn’t better than Rafale’s Damocles. It’s a “cheap” pod whose only advantage over Damocles right now is the TV channel which is only relevant in urban and counter insurgency operations. Damocles XF is around the corner and will negate that advantage in due time. It would be better to compare Damocles and Sniper which are in the same class.
And BTW SA seems to like Damocles quite a lot…
And these claims are justified in which way exactly? SA has selected Damcoles as Israeli technology is not going to be exported to SA anyway.
Maybe Typhoon’s LDP laser designator wasn’t powerful enough to provide accurate targeting in clear sky condition ? Maybe having to remove a fuel tank wasn’t the right thing to do given Typhoon’s range. Maybe… Maybe.
Ah Litening isn’t “powerful” enough in clear sky conditions.:rolleyes: And maybe Typhoons were virtually always flying with two drop tanks irrespective of whether they carried a LDP or not.
Without self propulsion that “wider choice of impact angles” look to me more like marketing than anything.
Because you are the expert and say so?
Scorpion82the article says 12000ft (3660m)
if it’s 12000m, that would sound more logical (and would be around 36000ft), but doesn’t shed a very positive light on that journalists professionalism 😉
Stuff like this easily happens. We are all just humans and humans tend to make errors. Wouldn’t be the first time that something like this happened, especially in the anglo-saxon press as the British and Americans are used to the imperial system, not the metric system in the first place.
Scorpion82I suppose it was 12000 m not ft.
Scorpion82To cut it short we are running around circles as usual with the same claims being repeated over and over again and people talking pass each other.
The original question was whether the Typhoon offers any AG capabilities not present on the Rafale and the answer is yes. Does it mean that the Typhoon is a better strike/attack aircraft? No it doesn’t overall the Rafale is more mature, capable and versatile in that field and I don’t think that even the greatest Typhoon enthusiast would disagree with this assessment.
Wrt PW IV it offers some capabilities not found on other weapons of this kind and a realistic and factual assessment is actually required. Cockput selectable fuses aren’t available on PW IV only, albeit this is not solely dependent on the weapon and its fuse, but on its integration on the aircraft. Some bombs offer ground programmable fuses only. EPW II variants can offer cockpit selectable fuses, the GBU-48 EPW II does so for example, so it’s not to far stretched to assume that the GBU-49 does so as well. Whether the Rafale is offering that option yet or whether it’s planned is something I’m not aware off.
As far as proportional guidance is concerned it was first introduced with the PW III family and is thus not unique to the PW IV, whether EPW II offers this is something I’m not aware about, might be or not, I haven’t found any evidence for this yet.
Wrt the “greater manoeuvrability” it’s claied by the manufacturer itself, albeit I think it’s owed to the control laws of the guidance unit in the first place. The older PW II/EPW II might be equally manoeuvrable, but lack the control laws to exploit an off bore sight target engagement capability. PW IV does according to the manufacturer so it’s somewhat inappropriate to call it a lie.
At the end of the day PW IV is a more capable weapon than the EPW II such as the GBU-49, but not every EPW II is the same (fuses might differ for example). Whether it could be considered as a “seismic shift” or the like may depend on the view point and isn’t really worth wasting pages for it.
Scorpion82As said engaging multiple targets within a single pass is neither new, nor unique and in fact a decade or so old capability. Cockpit selectable fuses might be rare, but GBU-48 is said to offer this option as well. Programmable impact angles or even directions are certainly even more rare and not a given for other members of the PW family.
Scorpion82I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. PW IV doesn’t reflect a huge quantum leap in capabilities in comparison to EPW II, but offers advantages. GBU-48 definitely offers cockpit selectable fuze options as well, so it’s not to far strethed that GBU-49 offers it as well. Whether fuzes are cockpit selectable might not be a given in any case and PW IV may offer a serious range advantage due to its improve aerodynamics and flight profiles plus variable angle of impact (like AASM).
I don’t think anyone is denying that the Rafale was more useful and contributed more to the Libyan campain than Typhoon did. Albeit Typhoons were engagig other targets as well, not just tanks and pick ups and they have been self designating targets as well as they have designated targets for the Tornados and the other way round. One of the premier advantages Typhoon offered to the packages was SA, but also protection through DASS.
Scorpion82@Nic
I suppose you mean US supplied AMRAAM… There have been claims to the contrary by the Greek as far as range performance is concerned, but it also depends on which AMRAAM variants we are talking about. Excluding the launch parameters which may differ from platform to platform the MICA might enjoy an edge over the earlier AMRAAM variants (A-C4). However, the C5 is a different beast with longer range and better electronics as opposed to older AMRAAMs and was said to be a longer ranging weapon than MICA in an article. IIRC this was acknowledged by the French themselves. The C6/C7 are yet even better, albeit these variants aren’t available to the Typhoon as You obviously are comparing the BVR missiles of the two types.
Scorpion82@haavarla
You are talking much but you say nothing here. You just re-inforced my point about the Su-34 being in a less advanced operational state than RAAF F/A-18Fs and it wasn’t me who brought up that subject and made stupid claims about it. That this ultimately hasn’t anything to do with the capability and Performance of the platforms is true, but that wasn’t my argument either amd I in fact pointed out before you that the Super Hornet amd Fullback are two entirely different designs. I didn’t even compare them at all. I just asked you to back your claims with some more substantial facts rather than claims based on nothing.
Wrt the “most” weapons I don’t know, but you are talking about some weapons being intgrated or slatted for integtation that compares to countless weapons being integrated on an F-15E or F/A-18E/F many of which are combat proven as well. You have a point that there is no equivalent to the Yachont/Brahmos and that no equally large and heavy weapon is integrated on any western fighter. The Su-34 is by its nature an almost unique platform these days, with heavier emphasis on strike and sacrifising AA performance to a larger extend than many multirole fighters which are typically a fair deal smaller and lighter, that even includes other Flanker derivatives. At the end of the day there isn’t too much know about the Su-34 when it comes to more specific data/information. Many information are rather basic than conclusive and comparisons are subsrquently moot.
Sign In
