JwcookWhile I have stated the caveat there are large enough holes in those figures to drive a truck through, I do trust those figures from Starstreak, because I’m an admin there and I know where the figures came from, so please excuse that one little vanity, I know details of whats been verified and what shouldn’t be on that site, the head of Eurofighter communiocation told me over lunch at the Paris airshow that he was quite jealous of the freedom over the information we published as he was constrained by 4 separate security arrangements. and while I cannot tell you outright ranges from that meeting I am authorised to tell you the Cheese and Wine were very nice.
I’ll try to find some nice open sources for range but I’m a bit pressed for time at the moment.
cheers
JwcookYou might want to take a look at the submissions for the JSF for Australia inquiry located here :-Joint_fighter Submissions
Read #35 Sorensen, #7 Name withheld.
Wow…
JwcookTo use terrain masking, invariable the terrain is found at or near ground level :-), stealth only means your detected at a shorter range, its not an invisibility cloak and you may wish to keep your ingress path secret, not use a detectable path several times (F117 shoot down).
But its not really about the JSF flying low, its was more about comparing useful ranges of both aircraft, admittedly there are holes large enough to drive a truck through comparing in this way as FBW states.
The rough figures point to a longer than stated 750nm range for the Typhoon, the two data points are affected by the fuel used in climb out so its not linear, it favours a longer than 750nm range, (in fact it states there is 10mins of combat at 750nm in AtoA role) however the figures for strike and air combat are published same? usually a strike range includes a % for a dogleg approach so the figures are nothing if not a little suspect.
re the JSF ferry ranges – If you look at ferry ranges for Typhoon (2000nm with 2 x 1000 litre tanks) then the Typhoon can be very frugal with fuel.
The JSF program has range trouble even if you were to include end of life engines 5% margins (BTW that would only be a 30nm reduction) If you reduce a KPP like bring back load, then this could effect range calculations if you were so inclined to do so, I suggest the JSF program have used every trick in the book and a few not yet discovered to make it look like an out and out successful program, the fact it doesn’t look like that is a testament to its real life performance.
JwcookAs for a comparison with the Typhoon, I don’t know what the range for a similar mission profile would be for it. I would just state that the powerpoint for Eurofighter does not give any indication of profile (only ranges with different load outs) which is to say charitably….worthless.
Not saying the Typhoon is not comparable in range, but the source your using for comparison is lacking.
Stated in Typhoon briefing:-
250nm in 30 mins with 6xAmraam, 2xSraam, 3 1000 tanks, with 120mins on cap.
500nm in 60 mins with 6xAmraam, 2xSraam, 3 1000 tanks, with 60mins on cap.
Therefore:-
750nm in 90 mins 6xAmraam, 2xSraam, 3 1000 tanks, with 0 mins on cap.
This gives you a rough Typhoon range with external loads comparable to the two JSF profiles which are between 390nm or 728nm.
Note it has been written the Lo lo lo range of Typhoon is 325 nm with appropriate weapons, none of the profiles for the JSF are lo lo lo, so you can get a ballpark figure for the Typhoon profiles in relation to the stated JSF mission profiles.
JwcookI thought the JSF range was ~728nm from that briefing
http://s9.postimg.org/cq3o12cbj/New_Bitmap_Image_4.jpg
But page 11 here is the shorter distance 590nm combat distance.
http://forskning.tekna.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Norway-and-F-35-7-nov-2013.pdf
Eurofighter can be calculated here on page 53:-
Eurofighter_Capability.pdf
Briefing are both from the Norwegian competition so are from the same time frame, note that since then some JSF KPP’s have been reduced.
JwcookYou do banter with friends. Otherwise it’s just insults, not banter.
Aren’t you my friend?
JwcookSome people take this Anglo -French Banter far too seriously… Please just look up Banter before frothing at the mouth..
I for one enjoy a bit of Banter, and hope that the French find their sense of humour – which they also seem to have lost at Agincourt 🙂
(See what I did there – Banter)
JwcookI think you are right about the 6,000 hours if I’m understanding this link correctly:
Don’t think its talking about life time, its talking about 6000 hours of real combat operation in Libya without any aborted flights due to engines.
But there is this from original 1999 specs…
The engine specification calls for an overall life of 6,000h with a 4,500h limitation for some control parts. This is expected to translate into an average 25-year service life. The maintainability target is set at less than 0.5 maintenance hours per engine flight hour, while the scheduled maintenance interval is above 400h.
Found this too..
According to latest briefing held by Eurojet in bid to secure orders for AMCA engine requirements, Eurojet has repeatedly highlighted that rather than following conventional overhaul schedule like most contemporary engines EJ200 scores high on Advanced maintenance methods which allows the operation and life of the engine components been actively monitored through a sophisticated engine health monitoring system which measures actual rather than perceived usage which can result into savings up to 50 % savings in life cycle costs of the engine.
Sources close to idrw.org also said that Eurojet pointed out that EJ-200 engines which have total 15 different modules, as many as 7 can be exchanged while under repair without need for engine to undergo a bench test before been reinstalled back into aircrafts thus saving time and effort and also reducing downtime of the aircraft .
And this quite recent too.
we have achieved some very impressive numbers. In addition to the flying hour figure I already mentioned, the EJ200 has an average on-wing time of 1100 EFH and the fleet leader in the RAF has achieved over 1800 flying hours. The in-flight shut down rates are alsofar belowthe challenging specification target. Added to that, the mean time between engine removals is significantlybetter than specification and the reliability figures are close on 100%. That makes for pretty impressive results.
JwcookPretty sure the surrender would have been quicker 😉
JwcookI couldn’t find any information on MTBO
Some quite old info from Indian MMRCA and some old info from many various sources.:-
Typhoon brings numerous advantages which some were shown during the testing. On the technical side, high degree of reliability, really low number of in flight failures, relatively simple first degree maintenance achieved thru high degree of modularity in changing parts and index of maintenance of 6.5 hours of work for 1 hour of flight. The bigger inspections are required after every 400 hours of flying accumulated.
For now the service life of the aircraft is 6000 flying hours, “cold parts” between 4000-6000 hours and “hot” parts between 1700-3000 hours.The special advantage of the Typhoon are his engines EJ200 that give him excellent performance thry flight envelope, high climb rate, even with a load.
During Indian testing only Typhoon and MIG-35 managed to achieve a thrust/to weight ratios of 1 with a load ( 60 % internal fuel, short range and medium range missiles, two bombs and an add-on tank).
At heights above 12 000 meters these engines and specific aerodynamics give Typhoon advantage over Rafale: better acceleration, turn radius, instantaneous turn rate, and higher service ceiling.
With full air to air load Typhoon can with no problems achieve supercruise. During the testing on Leh airfield Typhoon was able to show the required landing approach with one engine and with full load ( air to air load)
In 2007 it was ~2000 hours MTBO for EJ200, then there were ‘upgrades’ these could be used for either more thrust or more life, the peacetime setting is for more life.
Then the methodology changed from a set time to on demand maintenance, ISTR 6000 hours is still the design lifetime of engine before full overhaul, but would need citation.
The EJ200 has ~15 changeable modules, M88 = ~21,
The Rafale M88 was quoted as 3000 hours some time ago, with 800h inspections.
Ej200 does have a good reputation for reliability, but how it directly compares to M88 is unknown to me.
Jwcooki agree air superiority enable strikes, not that it is normally contested these days,
but on the Falklands, it was the incompetence of the commander in chief that failed to prepare a runway on the island,
the argentines were flying on fumes in combat zone
Can only agree to the extent that the range issue for Argentina was a minor contributing factor, The runway extension would have been a massive job and easy to put out of action, and from what I gather the cream of the Argentine fighter force was held in reserve to protect the mainland from Vulcan attack, consider also the Mirage III possibly ran out of drop tanks too… That and the fact the Mirage III were outclassed in the initial clashes on the first of May.
I’m pretty sure the Aim 9L wasn’t used in any frontal aspect shots, (willing to be corrected) so RN missile technology on paper wasn’t too far apart from Magic 1 and Shafrir 2 missiles, but they proved to be very ineffective for Argentina.
I’ll state it once again that a small difference can make a very lopsided exchange ratio in a real conflict.
JwcookHow does the Eurofighter(latest variants) compare to the Rafale?
if one plane fires a missile, and the other fires, both have to do evasive maneuvers to avoid getting killed, leading to a seeker battle.
Hmmm..The swash plate design of the Captor-E can have an effect here, with a much greater off bore capability and subsequent range, meaning the Rafale would have to break off sooner and stop any missile correction updates, you could argue that the greater range of the Captor would also give it a decisive edge (usual caveats apply regarding TyphoonRafales frontal rcs).
Plus these fighters are designed to fight at different altitudes, the Rafale will be shooting uphill, with the subsequent reduction in range.
The Typhoon still gets its advantage in acceleration of the missile plus acceleration due to its thrust/weight to dodge the missile, however the Rafale can jam the seeker much better.
Once the battle has reached the NEZ(no-escape zone) of the Meteor, evasion becomes counterproductive and you are relying purely on jamming. The Typhoon’s jamming pods are located in front, while the Rafale is in the rear. Plus the Typhoon has 2 way data link giving it better knowledge to know if its missiles are jammed.
Agree….Disagree?
Not sure I get you with the jamming, Rafale jams “much better”, The Typhoon has front and rear hemisphere jammer in one wing tip and a couple of TRD’s in the other tip, one thing I have not looked into is the Typhoons “last ditch maneuver”, I haven’t got a clue as to how effective it could be, it must be somewhat effective as its been provisioned, love to know if anyone knows any details.
JwcookHave to agree with OPIT, without air superiority your AtoG is going to be severely curtailed.
Once you have ensured that your assets are not going to be molested then the permissive environment will allow you to prosecute an airwar that we are all familiar with, i.e. total air dominance, aircraft loitering allowing time critical targets to be dealt with.
Now if your aircraft is designed more to AtG then the AtoA parameters wont be so good, that doesn’t mean that the AtoA mission isn’t possible, it just means the combat edge has been eroded in that arena. that probably wouldn’t matter in the majority of conflicts you might come across. (note:- all design involves compromises somewhere)
but there’s the rub, if you do come across it with a near peer adversary then the difference between 40k and 60k fighting altitude, an extra few G’s at supersonic, better turn rate while supersonic etc , may prove to be the edge required to come out on top.
Look at the Falklands war where if you compared the Harriers on paper to the Argentine aircraft you would assume an Argentine advantage, the difference in capability was small but better application of the aircrafts operational designs proved to be a decisive factor.
The difference was only a few percent but that translated into a very lopsided result in combat.
Same with these two aircraft, the Rafale is a great workhorse, the Typhoon is more of a thoroughbred. So much depends on if your racing or ploughing a field… :-), my opinion has always been you could just possibly plough a field after winning a race, but you’ll never win a race after ploughing a field.
Cheers
JwcookActually this is unlikely because the F-35 has the best assembly line in the world (Palmdale). That’s the one part of the program that they got right and that makes me kinda like the plane! 🙂
Guess which assembly line the F-35 was modelled on!, lol
JwcookI am million miles from anywhere here :-)..
New Mag available from Eurofighter!! http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Eurofighter_World.pdf
Still waiting for Typhoon to fly in Australia and show them what they missed out on when they went with the be ready real soon now JSF
The RUSI report is being used as a lever for the Partner meeting as a sort of helpful guide for decision makers.
Always remember the people who make the decisions are not necessarily the people who know anything about the subject.:stupid:
Look forward to Typhoons and JSF playing against each other and as part of a package…..
So how long before a Typhoon actually lands in Australia??, I’ll buy a bottle of red for the first pilot!;)
Sign In
