It looks like a LERX, but if its a CAESAR test rig it might well be a small side looking array (smart skin), I can’t think of anything else remotely sensible!!.

Anyone want to hazard a guess?, any more info? is it on both sides?

Cheers

Just how many bombs are usually required for a mission?, its seems to be over the top to have that many bombs!!

and heres another tidbit the UK MoD are trying to reduce the typhoon tranche 3 order..!

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article2441602.ece

Cheers

Interesting tidbit here http://www.mfgdigital.co.uk/Deal-rumour-as-BAE-adds-jobs_2282.aspx

Rumour of two orders??..

The company is thought to have clinched a deal to supply 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, a £20 billion deal reported to have been signed this week.

They are also expecting an announcement by the UK government of an order for 88.

who are they for? or just the tranche 3.. (IIRC i thought it was 89 for tranche 3??)..

Repeating my questions again, could someone pleease shed some light:
1) The Pirate IRST is supposed to detect targets @ 145 km. are these afterburning targets or non afterburning?
Does anyone know? Thanks in advance.
USS.

OK take this for what its worth… an off the record comment –

Pirate has detected and tracked a F117 at ~100 nautical miles.

No other parametersinformation were supplied, but you would suppose this was under very good to ideal circumstances, F117’s are not fitted with an Afterburner, and would be fairly cool to an IRST, I’m think I’m happy with the comment with the above caveats, the range is heavily dependent on conditions.

Cheers

Re the Italians and a cut in tranche 3

It sounds like the usual posturing before each tranche is signed, with partners grumbling about price and value for money, why? because its not a good negotiating position to say they are cheap and really really needed.

Lots of things can of course happen before tranche 3 signatures, I don’t absolutely exclude a reduction, but Industry has quoted on a 620 production run and will penalize any reductions in orders, and you would have to get each partner country to realign work share and required numbers… that would be a a bl00dy nightmare, your more likely to see the full compliment of jets delivered but politicians hamstringing tranche 3 capability to save some money or on the upgrades to previous tranches… (It all sounds too familiar).

The Saudi order may fast track some additional capability, and export requirements may push things a bit quicker (Don’t hold your breath for success the Indian order, as its a remote possibility at present), there are positive things happening in Norway and Turkey and maybe later Japan that Eurofighter GmbH etc are taking seriously, which is a nice change from previously.

BTW The price quoted by the Italians would have to include R&D and possibly the all the alleged BAE Bribes thrown in for good measure :diablo: you have to love politics…

Re Pirate range – it has tracked Venus, so range is good :rolleyes: but there are rumours of 100’s of nm in the right circumstances against ‘cool’ aircraft.. make of that what you will:D

Cheers

Hmm you may be right there are some details in “The Gray threat” by rand source from 1996 this would be an early test, and support the AMRAAM only assertion.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1996/0296grayt.asp

Simulation scores registered in this table assume beyond-visual-range aerial combat against threat aircraft possessing the capabilities of the Russian Su-35 fighter equipped with missiles similar to AMRAAM.

In 1993 and 1994, British Aerospace (BAe) and the DRA conducted extensive computer simulations to examine the effectiveness of the various versions of EF-2000 and compare them to future Russian aircraft as well as other fighters. Both studies focused on beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air combat and assumed threat aircraft having the capabilities of an upgraded Russian Su-27 (Su-35) equipped with a missile similar to AMRAAM. BAe’s simulations apparently were limited to small engagements of two fighters vs. two fighters, or smaller. DRA’s simulations seem to have been more sophisticated; DRA went as high as eight vs. eight engagements.

Both studies used an overall effectiveness outcome scale that ranks fighters from zero to 1.0. The higher the number earned, the greater the probability that the fighter wins in a specific mission. Thus, a score of zero means the fighter will always lose, and a score of 1.0 means it will always win. A score of .5 means a fighter will have a one-to-one exchange ratio. Some of the results of the BAe simulations are shown in Figure 2, along with Rand’s own calculations of how the scores translate into more traditional exchange ratios (enemy losses vs. friendly losses).

F-22 Has Advantage, But . . .

The scores from both studies indicate that EF-2000 is superior to all fighters examined, with the exception of the F-22. Furthermore, BAe proudly notes that the F-22 is only about ten percent higher on BAe’s effectiveness scale but costs about twice as much as EF-2000. However, when one uses exchange ratios–the traditional way of measuring combat effectiveness–the F-22 comes out much better, with more than double the effectiveness of EF-2000.

BAe and DRA analysts reported that all existing US fighters, with the exception of the F-15, performed relatively poorly. Even the F-15 barely exceeded a one-to-one exchange ratio and placed well below EF-2000. Rafale does not do particularly well, but it is shown to be competitive with the F-15 and superior to other US fighters. Because of limitations in radar range, speed, and acceleration, Gripen does not fare as well as the other European fighters do, but DRA found that it performed about as well as the F/A-18E/F did, the heavily modified and upgraded version of the US Navy Hornet.

French spokesmen insist that, with similar scenario assumptions, tactics, equipment, and munitions, Rafale performs about the same as EF-2000 does, and Sweden claims new-generation BVR missiles used with a ground air defense radar net and combined with Gripen’s small signature and rapid turnaround rates make their fighter a highly effective weapon system.

The F-22 would perform effectively against the European fighters in BVR combat because of its stealth, supercruise, and radar capabilities. If a “leaker” ever managed to get close, the F-22 would be at least a match and probably superior.

The F-15 and F-16, however, would confront something close to an even match, especially against EF-2000 and Rafale. This is not to say that current US aircraft would be outclassed, but they may confront rough parity in exchange ratios. Many planners would argue that such an outcome is politically unacceptable.

and a little bit more where the evaluation is undermined by Mr. Donald Stevens, a senior defense analyst of the RAND Corporation.

http://www.whitebase.pe.kr/board/zboard.php?id=text&page=2&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=174&PHPSESSID=cdefef483eddfc9b9ea79a82049a4882

bear in mind who RAND is paid by and what the results of the publication could have done to the Korean FX competiton at the time.
ie their mission statement is

To further and promote scientific, educational, and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare and security of the United States of America.

Cheers