Starfish PrimeSee page 8-28.
It’s M1.9 on combat power with Mk101 engines. We are now on Mk105 engines and that version of Tornado is no longer flying.
http://www.panavia.de/aircraft/rb-199-power-plant/
The Mk101 had only 14,840lbf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Union_RB199
The latest derivative has 17,270lbf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado#Specifications_.28Tornado_GR4.29
Starfish PrimeThe Tornados are limited to ~ M1.3 not because of Hindenburger tanks but because the intakes are fixed. Get over it. The Hindenburgers are subsonic iirc but I can’t be bothered to check.
The Tornado had variable ramp intakes because there was a requirement for M 2+ capability. But that was always on paper. As far as I know, even on check flights i.e. with a completely clean aircraft (no pylons), pilots reached M 1.6, 1.7 tops. Like the data from the manual suggests, surprise surprise.The difference is air intakes. The Su-24 similar to the Tornado and B-1 was a (in theory) M 2+ aircraft, M 1.35 after they changed the intakes to fixed ones.
It is for an Italian PA 200. I’ll let you figure out what that is. I know it says estimated but that is a hell of a lot better than useless glossy brochure “data”.
Drag index 20 is with 7 pylons only – with Sidewinders and ECM/dispenser pods, drag index is 40, top speed less than M 1.3So? Speed limit is M 2.2 just like the manual says.
I’ve just given you evidence directly from Panavia that they aren’t. WTF is wrong with people on this forum? It’s getting to the stage where I can show someone something black and someone here will tell me it’s white. Also, what bearing this has on the Typhoon I don’t know.
http://www.panavia.de/aircraft/overview/
Performance IDS/Recce/ECR ADV
Max speed (hi/clean) Mach 2.2 Mach 2.27
Max speed (lo/clean) Mach 1.2 Mach 1.2
Max speed (lo/external stores) Mach 0.9 Mach 0.9
The intakes are not fixed on a Tornado at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado#Engine
To provide the desired performance, several features were used in the RB.199. To operate efficiently across a wide range of conditions and speeds up to Mach 2, the RB.199 and several other engines make use of variable intake ramps to control the air flow.
Go tell a Tornado pilot that their aircraft can’t fly above 35,000ft.
Secondly, do you seriously think going from a variable ramp to fixed would drop Vmax from M2.27 to M1.3? You do realise that a fixed ramp would lose hardly anything against variable ramps at M1.3, and even a pitot intake would only lose ~6%, which is not enough to drop speed from M2.27 to M1.3.
What you’re claiming is pure mathematical nonsense.
Starfish PrimeWell that looks like a summary not an actual report. The report should contain the evidence itself, not merely reference to it.
However, take this Ukrainian intercept on the 16th July, the day before the incident, and tell me the Ukrainians had no evidence of a BUK possibly operating in the area. Yet they still chose to allow an airliner to divert over it at the last minute.
Starfish PrimeI don’t think anyone here is trying to reach bottoms. That was reached with this post right here:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137768-ECM-pod-can-reduce-RCS&p=2343808#post2343808
French Sputnik.
Starfish Prime“some sources suggest that it will be capable”… now that’s serious…
my little toe suggest me not to take anything you say seriously.. and it is just as a reliable source as what you posted
Of course, you keep telling yourself that.
Royal United Services Institute
Justin BronkUnlocking the Eurofighter’s Full Potential
WHITEHALL REPORT 1-15
The source is also cited in the footer and it actually derives from a radar expert on the project.
Starfish PrimeI said “HMD can’t lock anything by itself, it needs aircraft sensors to do so”
he came by and said “wrong, PIRATE can do it as well”
You actually said that you needed radar or a laser to lock an aircraft. That’s what I corrected you on.
Starfish PrimeI said “HMD can’t lock anything by itself, it needs aircraft sensors to do so”
Partially correct. HMD can cue an ASRAAM’s seeker, or it can create a INS reference for the ASRAAM to follow in a LOAL launch. Indeed, this is the exact way HMD works in Flankers too, except they lack LOAL and have less HOBS capability so far.
Starfish PrimeOr maybe the IAF has long terms plans. In which the Mig-29UPG and MK1 will stay in service and will slowly be phased out as more Rafale and/or New MKI and a large MLU’ish program for existing MKI fleet takes place?
Its very tempting to downtalk the IAF future, I have done it my self a few times, but perhaps they do have a good procurement plan after all. You know sinse they are proffecial and we are merly Internet worriors..
Well I think if they were fully committed to the Rafale, they wouldn’t have cut the order at 36 and included a clause stating specifically that the contract doesn’t oblige them to make future purchases and that such purchases would be the result of further discussions if they happen.
That seems like a very distinct clause to allow them to cut things right there.
Starfish PrimeUnder a different alias perhaps?
Anyway my point was you post the same crap, like EF can do M2.3 when the Manufactor state otherwise.
EADS always used to state M2+. BAE used to state 1,522mph at altitude. Austrian air force states M2.35.
Why do you so adamantly suppose it can only do M2.0? An F-16 with pitot intake manages M2.05 and that’s nowhere near as well optimised for supersonic flight as a Typhoon. There’s a Typhoon pilot over on Eagle Dynamics, you can ask his opinion if you like.
M2.0 was the minimum design requirement but in terms of T-D they exceeded all design requirements by a country mile. It wasn’t even expressly designed to supercruise but it ended up being the fastest supercruiser about (M1.5) except for the F-22.
Starfish Primething is, I doubt they add another type of fighter.
You wouldn’t think so, but I have a feeling they’re not that organised as regards minimising fighter types.
Starfish PrimeFor the record I’ve tried view the report but every link to it seems to be dead.
Starfish PrimeMercurius, doesn’t have to prove anything, the JIT already did that, but if you refuse to read, any discussion is pointless.
Ans yes there is video, photo’s audio from tapped phones and animation of the entire journey. Eyewitness reports even from first hand.
What more do you want?
The JIT is not a rapport on how to prevent incidents like this. That is not their job. It is to make a case, to be used in a criminal court.
It is up the the judge what happens next.
Bear in mind that they haven’t disclosed all of it yet and that the investigation will continue.
For a criminal prosecution as a war crime they would have to prove it was deliberate and even the Ukrainian-supplied radio intercept (assuming genuine) exonerates them of that.
So basically it was all a pointless waste of time. No learning from mistakes, some blatant falsehoods and whitewashing, and an attempt to build an impossible criminal case that nobody will ever stand trial for and would be acquitted if they did, unless the court was corrupt.
Starfish Prime“usually”? usually everybody does what he wants to… there’s no absolute rule about it
There are other subtle clues that it’s GaN.
https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/whr_1-15_maximising_european_combat_air_power_0.pdf
Against LO designs such as the T-50, J-20 and export-focused
FC-31, the Eurofighter will struggle in the air-superiority role without
CAPTOR-E, since CAPTOR-M cannot reliably detect and target such designs.
Some sources have suggested the CAPTOR-E will be capable of detecting
LO designs such as the F-35 out to around 60 km and PIRATE IRST has
great potential for detecting stealth designs which are, by nature, large
and hot with a correspondingly strong infrared (IR) signature.7Progressive
enhancements to PIRATE and the accuracy of passive location and electronic
warfare capabilities through the DASS, coupled with the radar 2 CAPTOR-E
being developed for the RAF, together offer a boost to situational awareness
and detection capabilities, which should make RAF Typhoons formidable
opponents against even LO designs from the early 2020s.8
So a 0.0001-0.001m^2 target at 60km. Does that sound like any Captor-sized GaAs radar to you?;)
Starfish PrimeYou need to show me where they produce 45000Ib thrust then. Its has been mentioned by several of the usual suspect in the past.
Not by me.
Starfish Primeok, it’s official, you can’t read… no need to go further troll…
Since when is PIRATE mounted on the head of the pilot??? it is part of the aircraft, you troll… or lukos, or whatever your prvious nicknames were…
Where did I say it was mounted on the head of the pilot?
My only argument in this was that you didn’t need radar to gain lock WVR in a Typhoon. I think you may have confused what someone else said with what I said. That said, if a pilot can visually see an aircraft, then the HMCS can be used to cue a missile.
Sign In
