eagleWhy? Because it’s the shortest, & therefore cheapest, route between certain airports. Governments know the routes & schedules, as do professional forces, & as long as you stay high enough, nobody who has any understanding of what they see on their screens will mistake you for a hostile aircraft that might be about to bomb them. Lots of airlines have been overflying that region, relying on all that.
Of course, they didn’t factor in the possibility of half-trained nutters with no C&C to speak of getting their hands on high-performance SAMs.
I’m sorry would you want to fly over a war zone where planes have been shot down on a daily basis? Mabye its international standard or whatever, I think its just really stupid and an accident waiting to happen. “Yeah we’re pretty confident those nutters haven’t obtained high performance SAMs yet. At least according to our latest intel. So lets all save a few bucks.” :applause:
eagleLike someone said: why in gods name would civilian a/c use East Ukraine air space ?
the rebels has absolutely no means of verifying what they are shooting at,
they will simply shoot at any flying object, and claim victory, since they got no air assets of their own
That’s what I thought aswell but apparently everyone was flying over eastern Ukraine until a few hours ago. Cynically you could say only when the insurance companies announced they wouldn’t cover for any losses there, they stopped.
Also showing the charred bodies in various media outlets is really distasteful.
RIP.
eagleM-345 and L-39NG are in the same weight class.
L-159A competes against Hawk trainers and somewhat against M-346.
The ALCA with its straight wings is at a disadvantage compared to all other LIFTs. But it is fully mission capable, it’s called ALCA for a reason. Market outlook isn’t bright for that class of aircraft though so it might make sense to offer a new medium level trainer. If it weren’t for those turboprop trainers everyone is buying… the M-345 hasn’t seen much success as well. Singapore f.e. replaced its S-211 trainers with the PC-21.
eagleTextron AirLand Scorpion makes debut in the UK:
This new US aircraft actually made it to the UK. :applause:
Interesting selection of stores under the wings too. From left to right: Hellfire, Lockheed DAGR, Paveway IV, SDB I and II (?), unknown, laser JDAM, AGM-176 Griffin.
eagleThe landing gear looks like it’s borrowed from the T-2/F-1 which doesn’t have rough field capability (unlike the Jaguar).
The blurred areas around the nose gear and above the intakes are supposed to hide canted doors and panels it seems.
Overall, it is a good looking bird imho. The nose is actually pretty big considering the size of the plane. I also like that it has two seats or at least space for two, a first for 5th gen. projects.
eagleAlso, CFTs were always going to have an impact on stability, they would for any other aeroplane. Pick up an Orange 4×12 cab that weighs 100lb and it’s going to have an impact on your stability. Where there’s an action, there is a reaction. Pretty obvious really, isn’t it.
Of course there is always an impact. The problem is it seems the impact is too severe for the EF to handle without mods. None of the other CFT equipped jets had to undergo aerodynamic mods. F-15, F-16, F-18, Rafale, F-CK-1. If true, its probably only a question of a relatively small amount of money to make it work. But still, not what has been communicated.
Re Brimstone, I’d say 12 missiles is enough so unless someone specifically asks for it, a waste of money to integrate 18.
eagleThe ‘R’ in JSR really does stand for Retard.
Sorry I couldn’t resist.
eagle2x1000L + 1x1500L = 3200 kg IIRC
Anyway, correct my calculation for those numbers; 4810 kg fuel. 96,2% assuming 5000kg internal capacity is right. Can you source it?
wiki isn’t good enough I assume? But it’s no secret 😉
There is no other external fuel tank except the 1000l supersonic tank.
eagleBut why choose the F100 over the already established F110 production line by TEI in Eskisehir? Why not standardize on the F110 for financial benefits on an already strained economy.
My guess is the F100 is better suited for the air superiority mission thanks to its lower bypass ratio of 0.36 for the F100-229.
It’s 0.76 for the F110-129 and 0.68 for the F110-132.
eagleEurofighter has 4630 kg internal plus 3280 kg external fuel capacity, totaling at 7910 kg
It’s 5000kg internal plus 3000l or 2400kg external, 7400kg total.
eagleWasn’t the RB199 designed for the specific job of low flying? Tornado pilots told to me, that they have to switch on afterburner while refueling in the air, to keep pace with the refueling aircraft.
Reason for that is at typical air refuelling speed and altitude, Tornados inlet/engine combo is not very effective. The jet simply doesn’t produce enough thrust at low speeds and medium altitude. If the tanker would fly faster, Tornado could keep up without burners easily.
eagleUntil 1500L drop tanks. I’m glad you feel 4 LRAAMs are enough because current statistics suggest longer range missiles have poor Pk. So they can ‘feel’ what they like.
There are only the 1000l drop tanks just as Rafale is limited to 4 Meteors. Fictional loadouts are possible for everything.
The manufacturer doesn’t state which pylons, and given proximity, I’d say left and right. That doesn’t allow for drop tanks. Have you ever seen a Rafale with two 1000lb bombs on multiple ejectors? No. Probably a reason for that hmmm’kay.
The French mostly use 250kg bombs and 1000kg when needed. I don’t remember seeing any 450kg bomb on Rafale.
eagleIt doesn’t answer anything. As “they” in this case, could be an undergraduate or work experience student assigned web design duties because everyone else was busy, who then pulled the information from wikipedia. Yeah, it’s a common task assigned to undergraduates. There also isn’t anything to back this figure up from the manufacturers. All we have officially is that the EJ200 aimed to achieve the same rated SFC but was optimised for high altitude, where longer range is best achieved. Then you’ve got the fact the Typhoon is more than 7,000lbs lighter dry and has a whole amalgamation of aerodynamic attributes that reduce drag, as well as just being smaller.
As you discredit data that doesn’t fit your agenda but instead come up with obscure screenshots that do, there is no point in arguing.
Just one more thing:
The fact that the 2,000lb bomb is being qualified last should tell you something about how urgent it is anyway.
RAF, Luftwaffe and AM operate Tornados which as you probably know are very well cabable of delivering the heavy stuff even with enough fuel tanks :dev2:
Spain has Hornets.
eagleRight so you can have 4 long range AAMs and 6 short range ones, vs 10 long range ones on a Typhoon for the same 4000L load. It’s clear you definitely can’t have Meteors on the Rafale centreline because they’re too long in that configuration. I’ve also never seen one with AAMs on the centreline anymore than I’ve seen a Typhoon with AAMs on the centreline.
More than 4 long range AAMs are not required by any Rafale and Eurofighter user.
The French don’t use the centerline AAMs because they feel 6 missiles are enough.
Max. external fuel for EF is 3000l.
Yes but you only need them for stationary targets that require pre-programmed GPS guidance only. Nobody needs to shine a laser on a moving vehicle for a 1000lb bomb, that’s what Brimstones are for.
Sure thats why there are 1000lbs and 2000lbs LGBs in the first place. Because no one ever needs them.
There’s no valid reason why a TGP couldn’t go on a Meteor station, or a wing station for that matter. The centreline has just been chosen as a primary position to allow carriage of an extra AAM, which was seen as more important. If you look how tight 2 AASM 250s are with fuel tanks, there’s no way 2 AASM 500s would fit, and certainly not GBU-16/48s. Two of those would only work if you carry them in the left and right ejector points (not bottom), which would require flying without wing drop tanks. The GBU-16/48 fin span is 1.6m, the clearance distance would be prohibitive, assuming there even is a distance.
There is a valid reason and that is the pod is only integrated at the centerline. Period.
Why they decided so, I don’t know, but field of view was a major issue.
The manufacturer clearly states 2 1000lbs stores work and lukos says they don’t. Really?
Did I say that? I said the difference is nowhere near enough to permit carrying 1000L less fuel without range penalty. The Typhoon’s canard placement partially offsets its weight detriment by reducing drag relative to the Rafale (especially at transonic and supersonic speeds) and the greater instability margin also reduces drag. The trade-off is that the Rafale has better maximum lift, with the closer wing-canard distance, and therefore better STR at low altitudes and better ITR at all altitudes.
Transonic and supersonic are not cruise speeds. At subsonic speeds and on an unstable aircraft, doesn’t the canard need to produce negative lift? EF is more unstable. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rafale outranges EF with 1000l less fuel.
eagleYes but that option is a dead certainty in terms of realisation in well-defended airspace before air superiority has been established and a more lightly loaded aircraft has better performance. After air-superiority has been establish, mid-air refuelling becomes an option. In the Libyan situation, if you wanted to attack Southern Libya with a cruise missile, it’s only 1200km from North to South at the widest point, so you just fire a TLAM-E from up to 500km out in the Med, as several were. The same would apply to Iraq too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#Operators
That’s far safer than flying inland if it were a high threat environment. You may think I’m playing devil’s advocate but I just can’t envisage a situation where all this extra fuel would be paramount except for long CAP, where it’s provided for.
An aircraft with afterburners lit has better performance. More fuel = more afterburner. As long as your carrying all those A/G stores and tanks, performance is not an issue.
Launching cruise missiles is nice except when you run out of missiles or are after mobile targets.
Why do you think CFTs are coming? Because EF needs them, not just too show them to some rich customers.
The question is, for this and the other SFC figures for the RB199, where did they get that figure? Is it valid? Given that the Tornado was optimised for low level flight, was it measured (if it was) at low altitude, where the air is denser and the engines run more efficiently, which isn’t great for range because of extra drag, meaning you need to produce more thrust. You also have to realise that this is only part of the equation, because you’re dealing with a smaller, lighter aircraft with relaxed stability and a very sophisticated FCS. All reports are that the Typhoon gets on point quicker and can stay for longer than a Tornado.
As “they” in this case is Panavia, take a guess where they got that figure. As with all such figures, its most likely static, uninstalled at sea level. Just like that for the EJ200.
Obviously, that doesn’t answer which SFC figure goes down faster with altitude.
Not for the RB199 but the figures for the EJ200 are widely available from RR and MTU and they’re better than the equivalent figures for all other fighters in that class. The Rafale’s M88-2s get the closest to equalling it with the only other SFC that seems to fall below 0.8lb/lbfhr.
SFC numbers are available, but not where it matters, thats what I meant.
Empty weight increase is no surprise. Basically it’s because the aircraft isn’t empty anymore. I believe the YF-22 was a full 10,000lb lighter than the production version. The engine has a class-leading thrust-to-weight ratio and whilst the ratio didn’t achieve targeted 10:1 in production form, the target weight was 900-1000kg:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EJ200
and that was met:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/combat_jets/ej200/
I believe they now have a 12:1 engine just waiting in the wings to be fitted.
Yes that’s great.
But there’s still the possibility the very ambitious SFC goals were not met. Very ambitious because the RB199 with high BPR is in another class. But actually, we don’t even know if it was really a requirement to have lower SFC at cruise conditions. I guess it was more of a ballpark figure.
That’s what I mean. Low altitude has been binned as a tactic due to lessons learned – it’s not even safe against less-sophisticated ADS threats. I don’t think it needs CFTs to match the Tornado, they’ll just provide an added aerodynamic benefits (drag reduction) over carrying 2 1500L drop tanks. Recce – yes, that’s due. I think AREOS and DB110 are currently under consideration.
I’m sure 2 seat is already an option, unless it’s just for trainers???
The RAF along with many other air forces train low level flight. One reason might be that in a high threat environment, a triple A gun is probably less scary than a double digit SAM.
CFTs are absolutely needed for heavy strike configurations, as has been mentioned about a million times. Try 2000lbs bombs and targeting pod ie no tanks. Not good.
As with targeting pods at AAM station, there is no such thing as a 1500l drop tank.
Recce they will work out the only problem is the RAPTOR pod doesn’t fit.
2 seaters currently are only used for training afaik. Thing is, all aircraft are already ordered and there aren’t many twin seaters.
Sign In
