If the pilot wants to use IRST to do the jobs of tracking, identifying, and ranging, then it can only handle a single target at one time within a very limited effective range (around 30 ~ 55 km), which is still not good enough when considering that the combination of Raptor + AIM-120C6/C7/D has the BVR capability to attack more than six targets at the range of 80 to 100 km+ away……

And even if the pilot of EF-2000 identifies and locks F-22A successfully with the help of Pirate IRST, then what kind(s) of weapon(s) shall Typhoon be able to use to shoot Raptors down?? The active seekers of BVRAAMs like AIM-120 or Meteor are much less powerful than modern fighters’ radars today, which are highly unlikely to be able to lock Raptor successfully. Modern WVRAAMs with IIR seekers like ASRAAM or IRIS-T may have more chance, but their effective range is much less than AIM-120C6/C7/D, especially when the later is fired from the F-22A with high speed (1.5-1.8 M) supercruising…..

But the heart of PIRATE/IRST is a Quantum Well Infrared Photodetector (QWIP) and not a simple IRST. PIRATE/IRST has a detections range for a subsonic targets of 50nm. A Raptor with 1.7Mach generate a shock cone with a stagnation temperature of 188 deg. F that make it to a very hot target.;)

Disadvantages of a closed coupled Canard is
• Possibility for adverse flow disturbances over the wing from the canard.
• High canard CLmax leads to low efficiency e, and high e leads to low CLmax.
• Generally have a small moment arm to VT, close coupled canard requiring a larger area as a long coupled canard.

The ‘bravest’ way to use canards is the the Typhoon way. Much mounted well forward of the wing which greatly increases the moment arm and minimises the effects of downwash on the inner main wing. The Typhoon is the only fighter to use this form as the Rafale, Flanker, J-10, Gripen et al use the safer, less destabilising ‘close coupled’ arrangement. Computer testing is said to demonstrate that adding TVC to the Typhoon would not enhance agility, despite test engines have been bench run already.

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=778486

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=778487

Actually, it’s just a form/weight matter here. These are free fall bombs, but they act like GBU’s or AASM, as long as they’re not intended to be shot.

PS : Rafale F3 also uses PowerPC.

Videos of early prototypes :
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=9VPEU6GlGUI

Why is the FBW so jittery by the Rafale?
2:06-2:24
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=isg3Jmigux0
I have this often noticed by the Rafale.
The same 0:42 1:28
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=9VPEU6GlGUI

PowerPC is Motorolla (now Freescale Semiconductor) too and PowerPC is not PowerPC it’s depends on the Typ of PowerPC.;)

6800 8bit
————–
Total another technology

68000 16bit intern 32bit
68020 32bit intern 32bit

Wasn’t Kelly Johnson. It was at a seminar on stealth or a next generation fighter (ATF/F-22/23) and it was a Northrop engineer.

The Orginal Kelly Johnson citation: “The best place for a canard is on someone else’s aircraft.”

In BVR, I know which I’d rather be flying in. I’m not arguing that the F3 outperforms the Fulcrum in WVR, or even comes close for that matter.

Come on, this Ford-T MiG-29 Radar with hand crank is always better as the F3 Radar. 😉

Air at 40,000 ft over Afghanistan could be cooler even.
Dry air cools down faster than wet air. 😉

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth’s_atmosphere

But cold air is dry air!:rolleyes:
A better example is a humid hot singapore day.;)
F-15 and Rafale can’t demonstrate supercuise but Typhoon demonstrate this well!:D

EAP weight 9,935 kg and has little to do with the Typhoon.
Why should the difference between EAP 9,935 kg and T1 11,000 kg 20%?
That is a PISA miracle!:confused:
EAP hadn’t BK27 + 102.5 kg
EAP hadn’t Radar.
It’s only ~11%! without BK27 and with BK27 9.7%
But the Typhoon based on the MBB Jäger 90 and not on the EAP.:diablo: