Jackonicko,
None questions the tendency towards smaller bombs, the 500lb and less class bombs are much more suitable for most missions.
I was just saying the configuration with 2 2000lb bombs plus tanks is more suitable. Why? Sure, its not needed often, but the configuration with 6 1000lb bombs is flown even less, i.e. never – in real world ops.
4 of those bombs however is a much more realistic loadout, as you said.
The demonstration with 6 bombs is just that, a demonstration, albeit an impressive one. Call it a milestone, but its not a realistic loadout. 🙂

sealordlawrence,
No, it isnt, no I have not, no I dont, no I am not.

You think very big. With one external tank the EF can take-off and climb. 300nm out of the target it can top-off its fuel and go to its target. Last 60nm low-level dash, drop tank when empty. On the way back the aircraft can top off again if needed. The carriage of so many external loads like the Rafale in the picture restricts performance quite a bit. Although a higher range is possible, the possibility of encountering unfreindly aircraft and the need to “drop ’em all” will call for a refueling aircraft anyways. When loaded with so many big stores, I expect the altitude and speed at cruise power severly restricted.

To put it short: The pure amount of external fuel does not necessarily dictate the actual range. As deep strikers both aircraft lack the necessary low observability features of a JSF or an F-117.

So basically you are saying with tanker support everything is possible. OK, why not. If you want you can do that with any other plane, but other planes offer the option to rely on less tanker support. Also, do you think the EF can fly 300nm to target and back with some low level flight in A/G configuration?
Depends on the actual load out and so far, none of this is possible anyway. Lets wait and see what the users are willing to pay for.

What do you mean it dosnt shine? I carries them dosnt it?:rolleyes: At the same time it carrys 4 MAAM’s and 2 SRAAM’s. One thing that sticks out in this thread is your constant search for things to bash the EF for.

According to Jackonicko, it does carry them. Thats good for the EF customers.
Im not searching for things to bash the EF, Im just saying it has its shortcomings in roles it wasnt designed to perform. Same could be said about most other fighters like the F-22.

No gun?

Every fighter has a gun. 🙂
The gun will certainly be used, its important to fire warning shots.
I dont know however how many rounds of ammo the Austrian AF will get.

I forgot about the pictures posted above by Jacko. In fact you can see DA2 carrying 2 2000 lb LGBs there on the INNER under wing pylons.As mentioned stores such as Storm Shadow are simply to large to fit there, weight is a secondary problem there.

I can see 1000lb bombs, the only 2000lb bombs are shown in the third pic along 1000lb bombs on the inner pylons.
But I can see a brown 1500l Tornado fuel tank there, havent noticed that before.

Out of curiosity what weapons package is Austria buying for their Typhoon? I’m sure I read somewhere that IRIS-T was the chosen short range missile but is Austria going to buy a BVR type like AMRAAM?

The weapon package includes 25 IRIS-T.
And I think the plan is to buy a handful of AMRAAMs to get an idea about BVR.
So basically, the QRA Typhoons have a pair of IRIS-T, but in general Austrian Typhoons can be considered unarmed. :rolleyes:

AFAIK Charles De Gaules is cleared for the Rafales current MTOW which is 24.5 t. And even a 6500 kg payload is impressive look at the aircraft’s size and look at typical configurations. The 9500 kg is more a theoretical value it might be achieved but it isn’t common praxis. The heaviest typical configuration is 3 2000 l tanks, 4 MICA and 2 Scalp. Theretically you could carry additionally 2 pods and 2 MICAs in that configuration. Rafales fuel load externally is 5 1250 l tanks and 3 2000 l tanks. You can mix it and 8500 l of fuel, but you will only see such or similar configurations for ferry flights and refueling missions.
A relative up to date french source suggests that Rafale M’s empty weight is 10130 kg.

Thanks for the info.
I had the configuration of AdlA Rafales in Afghanistan in mind when talking about 6500kg payload. 3 large tanks plus 6 bombs is more than that.
So is 5* 2000l tank not possible, only 3* 2000l plus 2* 1250l?

The F-35 and F-22 will be formidable strike-fighters wiith a weaponsöoad of no more than 2 tons effective. That weaponsload is more than enough to destroy ~ 90 % of all possible targets.
Against high value and well defended targets, even a sophisticated strike-fighter is limited to a a single run only or rises manyfold the risc to be shot-down.
So practical warload seldom exceeds 2 tons in reality.
Even with dumb-bombs it rarly exceeded 3 tons of external loads last century.

True, but the Eurofighter struggles to carry a load of 2 tons i.e. 2 1000kg bombs, because those occupy the heavy stations while the targeting pod is mounted on the centerline so theres no place left for fuel tanks.
OK, smaller A/G stores are no problem, but the EF in its current form is not the best solution for deep strike etc. but probably enough for most missions I agree.

Even in air-superiority missions no more than 2 AAMs were fired most of the time. In the crowded skies of a former full scale high intensity “Cold War” warfire, that may have been different, but most of the time a fighter had to disengage due Bingo-fuel, to utilise more than two true firing opportunities, when preoccupied to dogde AAMs from hostile fighters most of the time.
The number of weapon-stations looks more important, than it is in reality.
Someone who does not believe it can looks into the statistics of the last Iraqi Wars. Number of smart weapons dropped compared to the number of missions with that. The number of AAMs fired to the number of missions.

Yep, thats why I said CFTs are not needed for fighter missions as the EF can carry enough of those and still carry external tanks.
Bottom line is, the emphasis on A/A is quite obvious. 🙂