How do you work that out. It has 12 stations that it can use for weapons and 2 for pods. 2 of those 12 are taken up by a centre drop tank, leaving 3 on each wing, one where each wing meets the fuselage and one on each wing-tip. So that’s one drop and 10 AAMs.

See Nicolas10 reply about that (thanks).
Something like this, only with Meteors, which have been tested at 4 of those stations: http://nancyetroland.free.fr/public/PhotosMilitaires/rafaleAA-Mica.jpg

One the Typhoon 5 and 6 are cleared for 1,450kg, 7 and 8 are cleared for 1,300kg, 3 and 4 I forget, and the outer AA stations (1 and 2) are cleared for 600kg. It would be unlikely to see Meteors on 1 and 2 but then seeing MRAAMs on F-16 wing-tips used to be rare too and still is to some degree.

Since EF can carry 4 MRAAMs all the time, there is no need to carry 2 more all the time but rather go for the 4+2 mix. Thats why I think no one bothered to test and spend money on integrating BVR missiles there.
The F-16 carries AMRAAMs on wingtips because iirc they act as flutter weight and increase lift area.
Those 1450kg btw, they seem awfully close for a Taurus missile plus pylon. The once planned 2000l tanks are out of the question.

Is there a target that moves that requires a 1,000lb bomb? No.

It is you who mentioned 1000lbs bombs.

^Quite sufficient for the stationary targets that 1,000lb class weapons will be used on. Need a TGP? Swap out a Meteor station. A twin rack on Rafale? Only just fits with AASM-250, wouldn’t fit anything bigger.

Targeting pod only goes at the centerline station. The cgi images with pods at the forward missile stations are just artists impressions.
Have you compared Rafales triple rack and the BRU-55/69 rack? Hint: the triple rack is bulkier. So if anyone wants it, the American rack fits.
But as I’ve just learned, it doesn’t matter because the AT730 triple rack is actually capable of carrying 2 1000lbs class stores: http://www.rafaut.fr/wp/portfolio-items/at730/
So todays Rafale can carry 6 1000lbs bombs, targeting pod plus 2000l of external fuel.

Rafale is lighter but the canard positioning is worse as regards drag:

So Typhoon has more range according to you than Tornado because its lighter, but Rafale, which is lighter than Typhoon, doesn’t.
Rafale wasn’t mentioned in that paper, but If I got that right, it basically says EF configuration better @ supersonic speed, Rafale configuration better at subsonic cruise. That would be old news. But just a general comparison, no hard data.

More so on the Rafale because the side intakes mean that the body has to bulge outwards to hold them clear of the intakes so that they don’t interfere with airflow to the engine. The resulting increase in cross-section is worse for drag and RCS.

If you say so…
Isn’t Rafale credited with the lower RCS though? And while we’re guessing drag from looks, those twisted wings sure look like they’re increasing frontal area quite a bit.

Good look out-running a missile on afterburner or out-manoeuvring it with drop tanks attached. If you drop the tanks then you fail the mission anyway, if you were planning on requiring them to fulfill it. Fire the missiles from outside defended airspace, that’s what Storm Shadows were designed for, that’s mission planning in action. The only time you need 3 drop tanks is CAP, Reconnaisance, CAS and non-stand-off ground attack and that’s catered for (or it will be when Typhoon gets AREOS or DB110 for recon).

Entering enemy air space with full tanks gives you the option to drop fuel tanks when under fire and still have lots of gas to turn and burn. Way better than facing SAMs with something like 50% internal fuel. Its a mission kill either way.

Well that exemplifies the problem with wikipedia. You stated that it came from wiki de. It says 25mg/Ns. Neither is a figure I can find cited at any independent reputable source.

You must have a different version of the internet then. No really, thats strange. :confused: Anyway, try this: http://www.panavia.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=54

The only respectable source says that they maintained the low dry SFC going from RB199 to EJ200 and lowered the wet SFC significantly, whilst optimising for 30,000-40,000ft rather than low altitide, which is clearly better for long range.

That was the goal yes. No actual numbers are available though.

Your evidence for that?

Evidence for what? EF wasn’t operational in the 90ies, I think that’s safe to say. As for other goals that haven’t been met, here’s a few. Empty weight increase from 10 to 11 tons, engine did get heavier too (it’s mentioned here somewhere). So I assumed there might be a chance SFC is higher than originally planed. I didn’t state that as fact.
Whatever the actual numbers are, I have no problem admitting Typhoon has better range than Tornado, provided that there is some actual data. Design goals and marketing don’t count imho.

It’s true that the focus was more on air superiority and less on low altitude interdiction (hence the improvement in high altitude range), mainly due to lessons learned in Desert Storm, but as of 2020, the Typhoon will be able to perform any role currently performed by the Tornado to a better standard.

AFAIK, there was never any intention to compromise the design by adding low level air to ground characteristics. An 11 ton air superiority fighter surely would be able to do what a 7 ton Jaguar does, that was the idea. Minus the low level part of course, and rough field capacity.
Re 2020 Tyhpoon, probably mostly, if you dont require the low level bit. Needs CFTs of course, lots of new weapons and pods (recce!). Even a 2nd seat would be available which is nice to have for some missions imho.
If we want to include Germany and Italy, ECR replacement is still an issue. But who knows what they’re planning.

Don’t understand…

It shows drop tanks are carried even when not necessarily needed. Fuel = flexibility, or in pilots words: the only time you have too much fuel is when you’re on fire.

Well wiki.de seems to say 25mg/Ns, not that I would believe that horse**** anyway.

Not sure how I can help here…

Sue we do, it’s the Typhoon.

Well you seem to be fairly certain. Still a source would be nice.

It wasn’t. F-35B will do that role.

You said Typhoon must have longer legs than Tornado because it’s more modern. I replied just because Typhoon is more modern doesn’t imply it has longer legs as it was not designed to replace Tornado. Now you say F-35 will replace Tornado. Well, yes?
(note: I know F-35B has less range but it wasn’t designed to replace Tornado either)

I think you’ve gone off on a tangent. What does this have to do with range? Or anything?

It was an example how design choices are good at certain conditions and worse at others. Like Tornados original low level optimising. But Typhoon isn’t without compromise either. Or do you think large delta wings and low BPR turbofans are the best choice throughout the envelope incl. cruise? That must be why all modern airliners look like Concorde. :eagerness:

I can think of a more cynical explanation for why Eurofighter might want to promote this configuration as being possible, but the CFD work seems to suggest that EADS were seriously considering the idea.

My cynical explanation would be they tried to rip off some customers, existing or potential, to gain development money or sales and after having spent millions, they would say “sorry, we tried but it doesn’t work”. But surely, that is unthinkable…

If either Storm Shadow or Taurus was mounted on the inboard wing stations, using the existing pylons, they will obstruct the main gear. No arguments there.

This should have been obvious to somebody at Eurofighter, and yet official literature, mock-ups, and promotional artwork all showed Stormshadow/Taurus being carried on the inboard wing stations.

Now in the past, I had assumed that this was just a blunder on Eurofighter’s part, but the image I previously posted comes from a presentation by the German National Aerospace Centre (DLR) where it was shown as an example (alongside other serious applications) to illustrate uses of their proprietary CFD code. So it would seem that the configuration was given enough consideration by EADS to warrant carrying out this CFD analysis ?

They even did wind tunnel testing. There is a pic showing a Typhoon model in a wind tunnel carrying 2 Storm Shadows on inner wing pylons. Can’t find it though.

Well in the image above the tail end seems to be clear of the MLG, but that much weight, that far ahead of the hard point would generate a strong moment load, in addition to the aero and CG issues already mentioned.

I also agree that clearance by missiles launched from the fuselage stations would seem to be an issue, so missiles carried on forward stations could only be used after weapons on the inboard stations had been dropped.

Taurus is a very large weapon, but ignoring other obvious issues to mounting it this far forward, there seems to be enough clearance laterally.

We know that configuration is not possible. But lets assume it was. I wonder if the nose gear could take all that weight? The way the weapon is mounted, most of the additional weight of 2800kg will be carried by the tiny nose gear. Take-off performance could be an issue. What about downwash from the canard?

The heaviest load I’ve seen on the real thing was 2 cluster bombs on a twin rack btw. BL755 I think or about 530kg.

JSR, what the hell are you talking about?

F-15C has 14,370 kg empty weight, and 2*105.7 kN thrust. It’s loaded weight is 21,090 kg with full fuel and 4 AMRAAMs. This gives a T/W of 1.022.

F-15C operating empty weight is 29500 pounds or 13393kg according to the manual I have. I don’t know if thats up to date though.
Take-off weight at full internal fuel is 43000lbs, 4 AMRAAMs add around 1400lbs so that’s 44000lbs or 20160kg.

Thrust of F-22s F119 engines is classified btw.

I don’t think another 5th gen project that is just a few tons less than PAK-FA will attract many customers… Unless they aim for the low end non stealth market. In which case what they already have ie MiG-35/Su-35 is all they need.
The ideal PAK-FA complement would be a single engined light weight fighter imho…

Say what ? did the government actually say this ?

No, neither did the government say this nor did they cut anything. In fact, federal spending on education is growing.