Foofoonewhat’s make the eurofighter so special?
Well, it is the sole fighter to crash 2 times before being operational, its the sole “21th” century to have a MCA, and its the sole fighter to takes 20% obesity before being operational
wow euro pouding can load GB10, but how long?
lol
FoofooneHigher thrust level are a marketing argument by several engine producers, but in reality not used in daily operations. The EJ200 surpasses 100 kN, but is kept by ~90 kN. Sometimes you do not feel the extra power, because it is not linear or restricted by other limitations.
false yet, fanboyism
the max output of the EJ200 is 89kN, sources RR!
and its the max operational or not!
M88-3 was ready , on the bench since 1996, and wasn’t 90kN but 86.5kN!
the ECO isn’t a demostrator but a reality , an operational one, is increase the output, but more impressive it reduce comsumption of 5% and twice almost the life time!
FoofooneJust for correction german EADS is working on GaNs as well and I doubt that Selex won’t do this. Selex and EADS Defence Electronics in Ulm produce GaAs and might produce GaNs when they become mature.
CAESAR it self is a demonstrator not the final production radar and the tranche 2 modells MSA Captor-D is already prepared to receive AESA hardware and software wise.Just for info to those who are interested in non subjective information.
Ulm will not produce GaN and aren’t even planing to design anything, they don’t have the budget, and have no regard on DGA program, its like ASMP-A, EADS Germany have no idea about what it is!
in UMS Thales owns 87% of the brevets! so the join venture was financial, germany isn’t exiting for defence budget!
don’t dream, your CAESAR is the cheap way to close the overun galloping euro pouding budget, all is said into the eads pdf beyond!:p
and don’t dream, Japan will never buy something else than US fighter!
at the first day, Dassault stated they will not bid in japan…
FoofooneWhat French modules? Last I heard Thales got its T/R modules from UMS, which is an EADS/Thales 50:50 joint venture. Its main manufacturing plant is in Germany, at Ulm, though some processes are performed at Orsay. So in that sense, France does share the production of its modules, right now.
No, UMS is Thales branch, and EADS is half French too with gov budget, Ulm factory is the tiny part where somes gaas are produced, the GaN is a french program drove by Thales for the DGA and rafale, no technologies will leak to EADS germany! and Selex will not dispose of this technology until they makes developments on it! they only buy UMS actual GAas modules actually!
this mean that CAESAR will be a dead end technology if T3 is produced, here they explan it, a 1000 TR modules and 60cm diameter antena on existing GAas technologies, the cheap way, but to be serious, if Selex think they can only change that MCA and put in GAas AESA without changing all electronic system and software,and rebalancing all datas “fusion”, they are planing very little about new 21th century airborne electronics, anyway with a budget 10 times smaller and 5 years late than RBE2 gallium nitride antenna program, its clear that the tranche 3 isn’t yet packed well from the european pouding club!
http://www.eurofighter.com/documents/general/EFReview02screen.pdf
i like this one
“To achieve this, CAESAR
uses the Receiver and Processor of the CAPTOR
and, in addition, has a new power supply
adapted to the AESA, n o t h i n g c o m e s c l o s e” WOWWWWWWWWWWW
Nico, when i talk about F2 abilities, i’m talking about Rafale systems not weaponry that isn’t yet operational!
FoofooneThe topic it self brought economics because here many say the Russian economy can not afford the PAK FA, then we exposed why that assesment is wrong try to understand the topic itself brought it as a natural need to defend Russia from the Russia bashers
From LADAs
to MiGs
or even Tu-204
Russia still shows resiliance in order to keep her industry and remain a technological power
this looklike a 80’s adds propagada for me!
i know about all this russian patriotic feeling, i don’t blame it, my wife is russian, but all russian economy will need 20 years to catch up the level of high skilled western technologies… when somes do well, its ambryonic.
FoofooneTo bring the discussion back on topic: Can anyone tell me if the new AESA for the Rafale will have GaN based T/R modules or not. I have been hearing different things. Some say, “yes for sure”, some say “perhaps, perhaps not” and some say “GaAs is more likely”, so what can I believe? :confused:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10686/33799/01610051.pdf
log in
try to know about GaN? learn about UMS, SOITEC, etc…
http://ums.openkast.com/ums/corporate_information/technology_roadmap_page.php
cheers
FoofooneZedro,
I’m not complaining about being bashed, only at your characterisation of me as not being impartial.
I look forward to seeing you list as many positives about Typhoon as I have done about Rafale.
Where did I get that the Rafale was present for Austria, Norway or Greece? I’ve spoken to Austrian, Greek, Norwegian, and Saudi pilots and engineers who evaluated Rafale. Not all of them flew the jet, but all evaluated it.
ya we are convinced, you talk to god himself too?
you know so litle about aeronautics stuffs, that tis hard to beleive, dear trolling fan boy!
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
Unproven stories of bribes by BAE on other programmes. ‘Bribes’ which in Saudi Arabia relate to a much earlier procurement (of Tornado), and nothing to do with Typhoon.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=2859cb4d-97f4-494c-a622-d241c75d3eb5
BAE is under curruptions custody into 7 countries!
as eurofighter so superior, explan me why the rafale have a better AtoA T/W ratio, a better range, a superior avionic system, a superior agility, a superior radar and electronic system, a superior look , a superior stealth, a superior MTOW, a superior price/quality ratio, a superior versatility, is full already Ato G abilities etc etc…., and why it was rated superior to all countries he was challenging the european pouding?
and say me why a so modern made by superior engeneers plane took 20% weight and crashed 2 times before being operational! 😮
FoofooneOf course isn’t the detection/tracking range all, but one has to consider the requirements and the entire weapons system too. Of course are MSA emissions easier to detect than ESA, but ESA radars aren’t invincible too. It’s just that they are more difficult to detect. But ESA is not ESA. PESA systems are easier to detect than AESA, though detection depends on defined scanning techniques. For Typhoon a MSA radar was selected as it was more mature at that time and because of the Typhoon’s primary mission of air defence and air superiority. The Typhoon was required to defeat enemy bombers, strike and attack aircraft therefore range was more important for its mission than LPI. It was felt that a late MSA radar would outperform early ESAs and this is especially true for similar sized systems. The PESA has more draw backs in comparison to the MSA than an AESA system.
For the Rafale the priorities were interleaved operations and reduced LPI. Both radars fullfil their purposes and have their finer points.
The Typhoon does not soley rely on its radar for target detection, tracking and identification he can you passive systems such as PIRATE, DASS and MIDS as well in combination with sensor fusion which vastly increases the single systems effectivness. And before some want to start a discussion, yes such capabilities are available as well for other new generation platforms especially for the Rafale. AESA isn’t however far away from introduction into Typhoon and that was an aim from the very beginning. Same for Rafale.
false, untrue fanboyims and bias!
an PESA isn’t easier to detect than a AESA, the doppler in ESA systems are scan quicker than a machanical one, an ESA system is 10 times more sensitive than a MCA, to reach the range of sensitiveness a MCA need to emitting lots of ample waves, that any RWR detect without problems!
ESA emition is weaker and can mix waves bands far more easily, RWR will not identify is easily, the diferences between PESA and AESA is the antena modules, Actice ones are more sensitive, but both emiting the same waves lenghts at the same power!
Active antena grow the sensitivity not hte way to scan!
RBE2 is officially rated as capable of tracking up to 40 targets and engaging as many as eight of them at once and simultanously doing SAR bombing with help of the complex OSF including two TV cams of over 40kms range, it show what is all about the meanings of words as “sensors fusion”!
Eurofighter????
lol
FoofooneIt is no more a paper aircraft it is now being build, it is a real aircraft what happens it has not been displayed to the Media, neither presented to the public like once were the MiG 1.44 or S-37
Well Russians aren’t able to produce a new laucher than 60’s Soyuz, unable to build a better car than a volga, half of his population want to come in western countries, and the press is so gov corrupted than any inforation sound like propaganda, the worst is that rather putting money into their slugish university they would plan the build a cold war concept stealth fighter, in 2007, they really needs to change their minds rather than speaking rubbish about aeronautics, for years that they don’t have USSR budgets, thier aviation inductry is keener to buy stake into Boeing or Airbus than creating something “new” in the next 50 years!
PAK your FA into you pocket, and get a happy life!
FoofooneYou are rather bad on basic aeronautics. Especially do you lack any understanding of engine performance, and your view on transonic drag is also fishy. But don’t be discouraged, you are here in best company when you argue with static thrust to weight ratios.
Engines performances? dry Max mean the eurofighter lose speed by his mass only, as simple as that, the TWR under 1 mean your mama will never pass Mach 1 without AB! and a supercruise isn’t a plane stoping his AB the Dry at Mach 2 to claim supercruise!
supercruise is sustaining on dry output supersonic speed ,over Mach 1, not going there somes times, its taking off, going to top level 60.000 feets and accelerating till going to Mach 1, when a TW ratio is under 1, the plane don’t have enough acceleration to pass supersonic speed , its just basic physic!
Fuel franction is important too, lots of plane get AB to try sustain a supersonic speed, but its not really supercruise!
the F22 have dry enough power acceleration to supercruise a mission distance without lighting one time the AB, eurofighter and Rafale can’t do this!
all the rest is lies and propaganda.. and dreams!
no need drag factor here, all planes have drag factor to negate acceleration!
Now if the pilot changes the thrust of the engine, the thrust and drag are no longer in balance. If the thrust is increased, the aircraft accelerates and the velocity increases. This is the second part sited in Newton’s first law; a net external force changes the velocity of the object. The drag of the aircraft depends on the square of the velocity. So the drag increases with increased velocity. Eventually, the new drag equals the new thrust level and at that point, the forces again balance out, and the acceleration stops. The airplane continues to fly at a new constant velocity that is higher than the initial velocity. We are again back to the first part of the law with the aircraft traveling at a constant velocity.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton1.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/fwrat.html
Cheers
FoofooneFoolFoone
It has demonstrated Mach 1.21 in Singapore in less than ideal conditions, So its not a dream.
Unless you mean it can’t supercruise vertically :confused: you can’t mean that can you???, because that would make you look a little foolish!:eek:
let’s prove it, i bring you basics aeronautic rules, and you the dreams from no where!
Prove it, i will bring you all aeronautics physics knowledges you need from the best universities datas bases on it around the world!
a plane that is under 1 on T/W ratio can’t physicly supercruise, supercruise isn’t reaching Mach 1, it’s sustaining supersonics speed along mission on dry THRUSH!
11.3t + half fuel 2.5t= 13.8t so with 12t Trush it makes 12/13.8 = 0.86 ratio
even rafale is better with more range!
9.2t + half fuel 2t= 11.2t with 10t trush it makes 10/11.2 = 0.89 ratio
Get a life!
FoofooneThat’s interesting, and it goes against what my notes say.
DeDefensa.org is a French source, and not necessarily a neutral one.
My notes come from interviews with a senior Dutch air force officer and an opposition politician (the latter was very anti-JSF, and, I thought, very pro-Rafale).
From my notes, I believe that there was one evaluation ONLY and that it was conducted by the CBP, that it was primarily or exclusively economic, that the aircraft were not flown, that the manufacturers did not supply operational and technical data, and that the “CPB ratings” were 6.79 for the JSF (I obviously scribbled down the figure wrongly), 6.95 for Rafale, and 5.85 for Typhoon.
I may be wrong as to who conducted the evaluation (I have little recollection of the interviews, and I never wrote an article from them, so never went back to challenge or clarify any points, and I therefore rely solely on the notes) but it’s clear that whatever it was, it wasn’t a rigorous evaluation, and that subsequent Dutch examination of both types has resulted in a different conclusion.
Separate interviews with EF GmbH revealed that they were surprised at the perceptions of, misconceptions about and ignorance of Typhoon, and made efforts to educate the Dutch about Typhoon AFTER the evaluation.
It’s clear, in any case, that this 2000-2001 evaluation has been superseded, and that Typhoon is now considered to be the best fall back option in the event of a withdrawal from JSF.
I must look out for my Greek notes next….
“”2 Dutch air force evaluations “placed the F-35 in the lead in terms of both performance and cost …. Dassault Aviation’s Rafale F4-standard fighter was runner-up by a very small margin in performance terms, but would be significantly more expensive to acquire than the JSF.” (Jane’s Defence Weekly 2002a, p. 5).””
http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/monitor/monj02f.html
do you need more?
FoofooneEvaluations where Typhoon was selected or placed ahead of Rafale on technical grounds: Austria, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Norway, Singapore. Competitions where Typhoon is the chosen ‘fall back’ should JSF be cancelled: Netherlands, Turkey, etc.
WOW, this guy is so funny, Rafale was never purposed or technicaly estimated in Noway, Austria, Greece, saudi arabia rated rafale in red shark exercises as the best fighters even seen, and tried to buy it, but BAE corruption machine came back, it’s not yet a deal, no details, no one knows how saudi would get, if they confirm the deal, Greece will never buy the fat mama, the dutch conducted 2 years evaluations, and rated Rafale over the eurofighter, you can find lots of articles on it, Turkey never evaluated the rafale, they want JSF!
Singapore stated timescale on the eurofighter to not anger EADS, as saying this plane didn’t reached the level of french and US standards!
eurofighter is quite easy on production actually, no timescale problems for new buyers
Evaluations where Rafale was selected ahead of Typhoon on technical grounds, Dutch, Singapore, South Korea.
it was the sole ones conducted between rafale and the eurofighter
Evaluations where Rafale was selected or placed ahead of Typhoon on economic grounds: Brazil, Morocco, Libya.
wrong, Brazil will open an international evaluations, as Marocco Greece or Lybia just said they could be interested, but in 1 year they could be interested by russian or others builders planes!
trolling will not help you to get a life!
FoofooneThe information I have –
On the present engines it can super cruise at ~M1.5, clean with half fuel.
With 4 MRAAMS and 2 SRAAMS and a centre tank this is down to ~M1.3
With the growth engines or present engines configured at a war setting its obviously more.
It doesent need AB to break mach, but it sometimes it may be better to do so. for the same reasons as all aircraft, tactical or operational.
lol
Eurofighter is still on kind of “F1” and is already 11.350t, it was planed at 9.7t!
dream on aussie, with 11.3t +2t fuel and 12t THRUSH and a T/W ratio under 1 it can’t supercruise clean!
use your head, not yours dreams!
FoofooneNic/Zedro,
It may be even easier to swap Rafale’s flawed PESA array for an AESA array than it is to swap Captor’s M-Scan antenna for an E-Scan array, but it’s not difficult.
Just because Captor has a mechanically scanned array, people seem to be assuming that it has an old-fashioned ‘back end’ too, and this is far from being the case. In many respects, Captor (aft of the antenna) is one of the world’s most advanced radars – you must remember that most in service AESAs (on the F/A-18E/F and the F-15, for example) use more old fashioned ‘back end’ technology.
Like RBE-2 Captor is already designed to be able to accept an AESA array, and includes the required software and modes.
Plugging in the CAESAR array has already been demonstrated on DA5, which will begin flying with CAESAR in June.
It took roughly five hours to swap out the mechanical array for the AESA antenna.
As to a centre stick versus sidestick – if you can achieve the necessary g tolerance without it, a less steeply raked seat is an advantage, and if you have a less steeply raked seat, there’s little need for a sidestick.
Vector,
You may be incapable of understanding the significance of sensor fusion and MMI, but fortunately the professionals who procure combat aircraft are not. In the real world, only the USA is operating a top-of-the-line Stealth aircraft, which represents a very expensive way of trying to beat a ‘Flanker’ level threat.
Moreover, stealth is not a panacea, except in 1 vs 1 engagements between opponents at co-altitude. Tactics (and especially a displaced wingman) can rapidly negate many of the advantages of radar stealth.
Interestingly, in the recent Av Week reports of the F-22’s experience at Red Flag, the effectiveness of some very old fashioned tactics against F-22 were outlined – dragging the F-22 down to low level, and turning into the Doppler notch proved effective, apparently – to my astonishment.
TMor,
He was talking about how many modules there was space for, not how many are planned to be incorporated.
With 10 millions program, yes it will be easy, really!
Jack, jack jack, you are the most funny “expert” of the planet!
ERC90 or “CAPTOR” on the eurofighter ooppss, the “thyphoon” as brits over arrogance try to recall product with superlative words is a old concept system, kind of at age of semi active acquisition , more the radar emiting more the target will be “lighted” is a has been concept for playstation players! as you!
😮
Sign In
