Simulated A/A kills from other exercises?
What “other” exercises? That’s actually a Luftwaffe Eurofighter from JG 74, the shot was taken at Albacete Spain in the current TLP course.;) The aircraft left Neuburg without stars thus you can expect that this Typhoon scored some 12 simulated kills during the TLP at the time that photograph was made. I think I already posted this picture in the Typhoon thread where it belongs too, as this is the Libyan thread.;)
Whats this really all about then: http://www.baesystems.com/japan Just came across it & its the first time I’ve seen of it, how long has this been up on the BAE Systems website? Obviously BAE Systems are confident and fancy their chances in Japan.
Saw this site not to long ago, but missed that there are a lot of pdfs on that side. Some of them contain nice images, albeit I understand no word. I expect nothing new to be included however.
I like the part about the “reco ng targeting pod”.:dev2:
Additionally, it is not a matter of ‘actual drag’. This method calculates the drag required to equate the acceleration of both jets. Therefore in straight and level flight – IF the reference aircraft undergoes X drag, the competitor needs to undergo exactly Y drag to have the same acceleration. The only thing that is variable and based on public data is the thrust produced by each jet.
I know;) I just pointed out some limitations wrt the accuracy, but in absence of some relevant data it’s the closest you can get, to get an overview on which you can built on.
So the Rafale performs below the EF all the way?
😮
Wrt acceleration performance the Rafale does according this graph, but that’s not really surprising is it? It demonstrates the drag required to achieve similar performance for the given engine thrust. That means in order to match Typhoon’s acceleration the Rafale would require 20% less drag.;)
But as stated this calculation is simplified and doesn’t take actual drag into account and the thrust values are static only, not compensating for changes in thrust at altitude and with speed.
One has to bear in mind that the NTOW figure for Flankers includes just 60% of internal fuel. It’s 5270 kg for the Su-27 or in other words just about 300 kg more than that of the Typhoon, whereas the basic airframe is >50% heavier and much larger as well.
With only 60% of internal fuel the single seat Flankers compare very favourably, the Su-35S even more so with 14500 kg reheat thrust and an NTOW of 25300 kg.
@TMor,
is there a larger version of that image available somewhere? 🙂
@Snowmonkey,
the Eurofighter press release spoke about:
“…The objective of the testing was to fire the AMRAAM missile from a Eurofighter Typhoon whilst its radar was in passive mode…”
There are additional sources available hinting at the passive radar mode including the Eurofighter capability pdf from a presentation to Norway from 2007:
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c285/Scorpion82/EF%20technical/EF-passive_detection.jpg
Such a third party targeting capability isn’t that special these days, you can expect most if not all MIDS equipped fighters to offer such a capability, albeit it has only been reported for the Rafale and Typhoon thus far, but I may have missed related announcements for other types like the F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 all of which use MIDS or the similar FDL.
Such an AMRAAM firing using third party targeting data has been conducted by Eurofighter in 2009.
http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/unique-amraam-firing-with-eurofighter-typhoon.html
“…The objective of the testing was to fire the AMRAAM missile from a Eurofighter Typhoon whilst its radar was in passive mode and thus “invisible” for Electronic Support Measures (ESM) Systems. The necessary target data for the missile was acquired by the radar of a second Eurofighter Typhoon and transmitted using the Multi Functional Information Distribution System (MIDS). Both aircraft were separated by quite a distance in range…”
There was also a report of a Rafale doing this engaging a target flying behind the shooter, using a MICA IR, but I have no link readily available. IIRC that test was conducted somewhen in 2007.
Up to date neither customer has expressed its interest in TVC. Everything so far was industry driven only.
@Mildave,
all that sounds nice, but the EM part of the Spectra is attributed to the passive detection of electromagnetic waves with the radar warning receivers. As stated before bear in mind that this could be possible in theory, but don’t bet your rear on it being a present capability of any aircraft. Thus far there isn’t even the slightest evidence that modern fighters use their EW receiving antennas as antennas for detecting and processing the emissions of the aircraft’s own radar.
It is stated that some kind of passive radar capability is provided by the Captor radar of the Typhoon, indicating that one aircraft can transmit and the other aircraft will receive the reflections and process it, but this doesn’t involve DASS except for cancelling out its own emissions in order to blank out false signals.
That’s of course true, a good management is crucial, otherwise you will have to face escalating costs. I nonetheless see no need to bring the Typhoon programme up here, it’s offtopic and if you have any related questions ask them in the appropriate thread.;)
IIRC:
Thrust vectoring is a possibility for Tranche 3, if it ever gets ordered.
The UK will be fitting the BK27, but will not be purchasing ammunition for it.
Standard load for A2A for UK Typhoons is 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM and 2 fuel tanks.
That’s not correct, TVC is already a possibility for T2, but as of now there appears to be little interest besides current customers, so we may not see it, except future customers request it.
The Bk27 is fitted to ALL RAF Typhoons and ammunition is available as well. The temporary plans to not fit the gun and not support it were abandoned many years ago. It’s interesting that a lot of people are still not aware of this fact and it’s not exactly a new one either!
The RAF’s standard QRA outfit is 4 x ASRAAM, 4 x AMRAAM and 2 x tanks. A combination of 2 x ASRAAM and 6 x AMRAAM is possible.
Anyway anyone would have hard time to lecture Dassault on production and cost management: just look at Catia from Dassault System and how far they go here.
If there are only marginal orders it is difficult to drive down costs, irrespective of production and cost management. The Rafale could be cheaper with a more healthy order book. Consider this, many aviation specific parts are extremely expensive for the reason that they are built in very small quantities. On top of that you need certain personal on the production line irrespective of the number of aircraft being built, thus the higher the production output the more profitable is it. Otherwise you have to charge higher costs for the uneconomically small quantities.
An interesting image from a Luftwaffe Eurofighter at TLP
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timmziegenthaler/5738289564/
The stars below the cockpit are the interesting part.
As a background 3 Eurofighter from JG 74 participate(d?) in the current TLP course at Albacete where they arrived on 2 May. This is actually the first participation of Luftwaffe EF in the TLP.