Scorpion82Thanks, this is apparently something else the Germans didn’t fund for their Eurofighter fleet. To continue this, I thought the CFTs were not funded yet and if so is it a case of when and not if?
I was talking about CFT provisions which were part of the T3A contract. However, only the UK opted for them as well as the Arab export customers. There is no firm contract for full CFT development or integration, but there is an interest in pursuing it.
Scorpion82Why did the F-4F not equipped with AIM-7 esp given the fact that the Mig-23MF/ML had BVR weapons and in the 80s
Because the US didn’t approve the Sparrow for the Germans back then. IIRC the radar was downgraded as well and lacked the ability to illuminate targets. A PGM capability was initially not implemented either.
Scorpion82To be more exact here, the MoD simply intends to avoid collaborative programs structured the way as the Eurofighter or A400M program. They want a single lead nation to lead the program as is the case with the F-35 or Neuron for example.
Scorpion82Don’t confuse the German MoDs FCAS with what the UK calls FCAS. For the Germans FCAS is the entirety of its future combat air system comprising the Typhoon, a MALE UAV and whatever the result of the NGWS will look like.
Scorpion82The question has pretty much been answered by the German MoD. The recently published report available here, http://www.bmvg.de/portal/a/bmvg/en has plenty of detail on the Tornado and what will replace it.
All suitabily vague but the plan is mid 2020s Tornado retirement but they will be conducting a study to determine the cost effectiveness of extending the life of the Tornado fleet until NextGenWS arrives. It will then be a Typhoon/NextGenWS fleet with the possibility of an additional FCAS UAV. Also pretty clear that unless the mission is SEAD or GBU-24/cruise missile delivery the Typhoon will be the platform of choice.
NextGenWS is completely undefined so even a mid 2030 retirement of the Tornado is ambitious unless FCAS delivers what they need earlier…
As an aside, anyone know if there is a specific reason Germany won’t use GBU-24 or TAURUS with the Eurofighter or is it just related to the Tornado airframe being available?
We’ll see how this pans out.
Various options are possible.
IMO it’s not the best solution to opt for a dedicated Tornado replacement. IMO the NGWS should aim for a Eurofighter replacement giving it more time to materialize. In the meantime the Eurofighter should be kept up to speed and an UCAV i.e. the outcome of the joint program between France and the UK could be introduced to complement the EF and fullfil at least some of the Tornados missions. If the Tornado service life extension shouldn’t be viable them the F-35 would be a possible option. Thus far the GAF and MoD have not made up their mind on the FCAS composition.
Concerning the question about the GBU-24/TAURUS, the GAF wasn’t farsighted enough to provision its T3s for CFTs and that limits their effective combat radius when carrying such stores. I suppose that’s the primary reason why they don’t bother to integrate heavy weapons at this point. Other operators haven’t constrained themselves here and will opt for appropriate heaby weapons as well.
Scorpion82In the eighties we are not talking of replacing the F-4F, they were almost brand new, for that particular job, at best, the Luftwaffe would acquire new fighters in the late nineties, we are talking of the F-104G replacement, the MRCA program, the Panavia Tornado.
Day only, iron bombs, maverick, AIM-9´s.
Not quote so, when the F-4F was imtroduced it was well known that it wouldn’t be a viable long term solution, though it became one in the end. The F-4F was regarded as a stop gap solution by the time it was introduced and its planned service time was 15 years. The Luftwaffe requirement was for a new fighter to enter service in the timeframe between 1990 and 1994. This however was in the 1970s. In the 80s this shifted further to the right and by the time the Eurofighter development contract was signed the targeted entry into service was 1999.
The F-4F fully replaced the F-104G in the airdefence role, the RF-4E replaced it in the reconnaisance role, while the Tornado IDS replaced it in the tactical and strategic attack and strike roles. Complementary there was the Alpha Jet which replaced the G.91 in the attack/CAS roles.
Scorpion82Look at 2016 ACC doc I posted above. What does it say about runway weight bearing requirements for the F-22, what does it say about fuel requirements?
Seriously, 2+ pages of people trying to parse what is clearly stated in documents because it doesn’t fit what they want to believe. It’s funny, if I posted a document that stated “Water is wet”, it’s like there would be people arguing “well, it can be damp, what about water vapor?”. I don’t know about other air forces, but in the US, if you deviate from the standard procedure, you better have good reason and be able to support it. Bottom line, the F-22 starts a display with 18,000lbs of fuel unless runway restrictions, altitude/airspace, safety concerns, curtails or leads to deviation of the display.
Which itself isn’t too unusual anyway. The F-22’s fuel fraction on internal fuel matches that of other types. With the F-35 it’s somewhat different as is with the Flanker. Both have a higher than usual fuel fraction close to 0.4 instead of 0.3.
Scorpion82I’m just about to head off to Eurosatory, so must be brief.
There is no way that the precision of a ‘dumb’ bomb can be “just slightly worse” than that of a guided munition. Once an unguided bomb or rocket is released, its accuracy of its impact point is degraded by factors such as the inevitable aiming errors, any unpredictable velocity increment created by the release process and the airflow around the weapon at the moment of separation, the variations in weapon weight, balance and drag created during manufacturing, and local wind conditions.
Press reports about the alleged capabilities of the SVP-24 must have caused some amusement to persons around the world who are engaged in interdiction and close-support tasks.
I’m certain it will fall on deaf ears. As usual fanboy idiocy prevails over common sense thanks to critical mass. So be.
Scorpion82A couple of flights with 6 dumb bombs is a serious investment now?
Also can you not quote JSR please? It bypasses my block.
It’s not the question whether it’s overly expensive or not to integrate such bombs, but whether it makes any sense in the first place. Even if it’s comparably cheap, where cheap is really just a relative term, it looks like burning rubles with no benefit and every rubel spent on this is one too much. What weighs even more however is that test flights are wasted for this and I think there are many more important point on the flight test schedule which are worth it to be pushed.
And before the typical fanboy defensive response comes, yes there is quite a lot of money burned elsewhere is well, but that’s not the subject of this thread!
Scorpion82Got it, finally…
МиГ-29М/М2 и МиГ-29К станет МиГ-35 ?
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/607559.htmlOnline translation:
Is it possible to resolve the question of whether the MiG-29M2 aircraft other type on with respect to the MiG-35. Or is it actually a plane? There is a lot of debate about this.MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 the same aircraft by weight, size, radar, engines, planned avionics and electronics, on a suspension weapons, on weapons, appearance. No there is no difference. However, we It has a single option, which we have called the MiG-29M, while the two-seater version is referred to as the MiG-29M2. In fact, the MiG-29M2 is the export version of combat aircraft MiG-35 to the Russian Air Force. Here, let me tell you that at this year’s Salon MAKS 2013 we gave the name of MiG-29M2 and took the name of the MiG-35. In order not to confuse many of our customers, as our opponents . Thus, only the MiG-35 will be in the future, it will really vary depending on the equipment, depending on the wishes of the customer. For example, India is developing its electronics for the aircraft and we will set .
Thanks. Missed that “news”. The Russians and their mind boggling designation bingo.
Scorpion82Russia can certainly afford several thousands T-50. Currently all three Sukhois factories in operations along with MIG factory. Ruaf bombing already very accurate. Not many instance of friendly fire despite bombing from high altitude. PGMs only necessary to avoid Sam envelope.
The expected response. You are just as predictable as…
Scorpion82Philosophies might be debatable in general. What you guys are argueing here, however, is that integrating dumb bombs on a 5th gen state of the art combat aircraft is a wise investment.
Scorpion82Deleted. Pending for reviewing some stuff.
Scorpion82I’m not saying it is a typical role or mission for T-50(obviously). But you can’t claim it will never do such mission.
As i pointed out, even as they operate Su-24 and Su-25 down in Syria, they are also using fresh Su-34 and Su-30SM and possibly even the Su-35S for dumb bombing Bierdies..
Which demonstrates the lack of appropriate stocks of PGMs and the fact that the Russians don’t really care about precision and avoiding collateral damage. The evident lack of proper targeting systems apart.
There is no intelligent argument that could seriously justify such a move, unless you don’t trust your PGMs/targeting systems, you have a real shortage of these and in addition no other platforms to deliver them. The Russians won’t rely on the T-50 alone as their sole tactical combat aircraft, even if they wanted it, they can’t afford it. Spare in JSR’s wet Russia strong dreams perhaps.
Scorpion82Good grief, they won’t be using T-50 for low altitude dumb bombing, is this discussion even remotely serious?
I wouldn’t even be shocked if they strapped on unguided rockets in the future so T-50 can take part in Aviadarts competitions.
And you complain about forum posters being smarter than Sukhoi… So what’s the purpose of integrating/test flying dumb bombs on a 5th generation high performance fighter aircraft? Participating in a fun exercise called Avia Darts? What’s the actual operational benefit of it? And on top of that who says Sukhoi is doing it on their own? Industry provides solutions to the problems raised by the prospective customer(s). Sukhoi does what’s contracted for, it’s certainly a RuAF requirement for whatever reason. It’s about as rational as buying a 500.000$ Ferrari living in the wilderness with no streets around.
Sign In
