The Germans are putting public pressure on the UK to sign up, they say the situation will become critical if a contract isn’t signed by the 15 October 2004.
Looks like a deadline!!!
Cheers
but what exactly makes it look fake?, rivet lines too defined?, canopy reflections?, wing root?, rendering?, Shadowing?.
Just what are the first things you look for? shadowing or what?.
Its hard to describe sometimes, I’m just interested in other peoples opinion.
Cheers
What makes you think its a fake?
Cheers
At the paris airshow the Typhoon took off in the shorter distance in a shorter time, and seemed to be much more agile, the agility assesment is my personal subjective assesment only.
I don’t have any hard evidence, perhaps someone with a movie ripper program can overlay the two demonstrations from brakes off to 500′ and we can see the results.
Cheers
Scooter – All three versions have flown with success, including the STOVL which was too overweight to fulfil its mission goals.
The weight reduction measures are apparently successful too, but lets wait till the design is frozen(again), the aircraft being produced right now are not the aircraft thats being proposed now, while quite a bit of flight testing can be done in certain areas, we will have to wait for the lighter version to complete testing. (the programs already running a little late).
The airframe issue isnt a show stopper by any means, the US really really needs new aircraft, and are willing to compromise a little as there isn’t an alternative for the US.
As for competing with the F-22, its a more political thing, If you read the sales brocures for the South korean and Singaporean competitions the F-15 is unbeatable and will remain so for the forseeable future, but listen to the domestic market in the US and Eurocanards are superior to the F-15 ‘thats why we need the F-22’ chorus the USAF, Now if the JSF is marketed at the Eurocanards/Mig’s etc as a ‘superior Air to Air fighter’, the reason for the expensive f-22 is compromised, ie they might ask ” why do we need an expensive fighter if the JSF can handle them?.” you have to be a bit careful there, there is a hugh budget bow wave coming through in the next 5 years, something will have to be cancelled or delayed, or funding will require a massive increase (on a level not seen since the cold war highest peak and then it would have to maintain that peak for several years). as yet there isn’t a threat to justify that sort of spending(trouble in Tiawan or Korea might change this)
As for being too expensive, the cost benifits of mass production top out around 1600 airframes and there are three varients!! any major reductions will push up cost as will any major delays, likely with the budget bow wave!!.
The partners are looking not for an F-22’s sidekick they are looking for an autonomous fighter/bomber, as the partners are not buying the F-22 the JSF will by neccessity have to fullfil most of the F-22’s role.
What does that mean, well the cost of sensors goes up because it can’t depend on the f-22 being there, as will the ECM/EW etc,the JSF will have to cover a very wide spectrum of roles to fulfil the partners requirements.
Now if you start to measure how effective it is against Eurocanards/F-22/Migs interesting questions get asked.
To be really successful it has to be better than everything else in the Ato A role with the exception of the F-22, while remaining affordable. that on its own would be quite impressive if it was pulled off.
Now the technology employed to make it such a success looks like being restricted (hence the large sum of money on the export varient), the UK is getting really bloody angry that certain technology including the software codes will not be released, and several high level complaints including a Blair to Bush ‘chat’ have failed so far to resolve it (see UK’s Hansard)
Add this to the exiguous foreign workshare component and you can see why the northern europeans are moaning and threatening to leave the program.
Some of these problems of work/cost/capability are mutually exclusive.
If the codes are not released then the purchasher is tied to the US for support and weapon intergration, returning black boxes to the US for repair.
This could lead the user being denied support if US foreign policy is affected.
In short at this very early stage of the program, there are already dissatisfaction with restrictions, the lack of workshare needs to be addressed quickly, and the performance in AtoA needs to be finely balanced.
If you can do all that while matching several airforces mandatory requirements, for a price thats never been acheived before, in a timeframe that looks quite optimistic, I for one would be very very impressed.
Bring it on – As you say (quite rightly) time will tell :rolleyes:
Cheers
It will run into problems IMHO, because it has too many conflicting goals
It can’t be too effective as it will be see to compete with the F-22. but it cant be too mediocre as the Partner nations won’t buy it.
It can’t be too expensive either, but the requirements from the US and Partners are pushing up costs.
It has to fulfill several services requirements (thats no mean feat in itself).
Export restriction may push buyers elsewhere as will industrial manufacturing workshares.
I’ve not see a program with this many conflicting goals before, I would expect some major changes/delay/realignment/costs, or even the scrapping of one varient(Gasp!)
My personal opinion is a delay of at least 4 years from the 2010 to the 2014 timeframe, with some less than minor changes.
Cheers
IIRC Eurofighter Typhoon £40-50m flyaway depending on equipment fit, £62m inc development costs.
Cheers
Very Interesting peice, thanks….
but what was the comparison of western fighters v the Mig-29 like?.
Cheers
Its the receiver for the Defensive Aids System DASS, the ‘cod peice’ look alike underneath the knob is the parachute cover, the UK has a couple of extra bulges too,right on the boarder of the nose cone and the fusalage they look like MAW of some type.
Cheers
F15’s – Yup cheap to buy!, HORRENDOUS TO MAINTAIN!!.
Look at through life costs!, then decide which is cheaper…
Cheers
The engines were of an earlier configuration, the engine software was of a later configuration, the engines surged when afterburners was selected and flamed out!, the real problem arose when they could not relight the engines!!.
Both these situations were the result of old engines and new software.
When they were convinced that that the newer engines are not susceptible to the same conditions the grounding order was lifted.
BTW heres a news snippet…
US Air Force chief praises Eurofighter
21 July 2004
LAAGE – The chief of staff of the US Air Force, General John P. Jumper, was quoted Wednesday as praising the Eurofighter Typhoon after a test flight on the much-maligned jet, which has been in service just 11 weeks with the German Air Force.
“I’ve flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter,” he said, according to an account by the German Air Force of his Tuesday try-out of one of the two-seater jets based at Laage Air Force Base near the Baltic coast city of Rostock.
The general praised the jet fighter for its agility, manoeuvrability, acceleration and precise navigation.
…
Washington-based Jumper, who is the most senior US Air Force officer, was in Germany as a guest during an exercise, Baltic Jump, in which German aircraft and paratroops practised seizing an enemy airfield so as to evacuate trapped civilians.
It does seem an very inappropriate thing to say with the F15 in competition with the Typhoon in Singapore, If true, Its quite statement from Gen Jumper!. (or is that Private Jumper now?)
Here’s something I did quite a while ago, when very very little was known about internal fuel etc. I posted it on 22/2/1998 in rec.aviation.military, and worked out a rough figure of 780nm for the F-22, it has holes big enough to drive a truck through, but may prove useful with better figures etc..
Cheers
I would like a formula to give the rough ranges of aircraft.
As no range details are freely available (that I can Find) for the
F22, I got to thinking how to work out the rough ranges for CAP, Air
to Air, and ferry.The only thing that I could come up with was the comparison method,
this is where I took a ‘known’ (by this I mean, what has been
published) ranges, and compared them to the engine dry thrust and fuel
loads, my (big) assumption was that for every pound of thrust a
certain amount of fuel was required and that this would be fairly
constant.This figure would be comparable across engines designed in the last
decade, with allowance made for larger or smaller engines.Ok, a quick rundown.
I will start with the ferry range as this is the easiest.
The EF2000 can fly 2000 Nm (Nautical Miles) using 5700 litres of fuel
+ 2 x 1000 litres drop tanks, total 7700ltrs , this gives a figure of
3.85 ltrs per nautical mile for an engine that produces 120kN dry
thrust.This figure does not include any reserve fuel, but as all aircraft
usually have this margin, it can for this purpose be ignored.But now we have established a fuel usage figure for ferry range for a
120kN class engine.Now the F22 can carry 11000 litres of fuel internally, but the engines
produce 220kN of thrust, if we use the same ratio 220kN/120kN and
apply this to the fuel we get 7.05 litres per Nm.Ok the above is rough, and no doubt somebody will tell me larger
engines are more/less efficent, and I would like to know!!!.So the ferry range for the F22 is around 11000/7.05= 1560Nm using
internal fuel.
With additional drop tanks (9000 litres) this extends to 2837Nm.Using this figure of 7.05 ltrs per Nm, the F22 can fly around 780Nm
combat radius, with no loiter time, using internal fuel only.The F22 empty weight is 30000 lbs, max take off is 60000 lbs, and
20000 litres of fuel weighs around 30100 lbs, so some fuel will be
sacrificed if any weapons are to be added.Around 2400 lbs for air to air. a loss of 220 Nm in fuel terms, plus
the loss of stealth with large drop tanks bolted on.This gives a figure of 1308 Nm or around 1250 with 10 mins loiter.
The above is based on:-
1 The ratio of fuel used on late generation engines is related to
dry thrust figures, and that they remain roughly constant.
2 The the aircraft/engines are similar in their roles.
3 That ferry range is the most fuel efficent.
4 That the 2400lbs of weapons does not affect range.
Ceramic materials would mostly be used in the hot sections of the Engines to cover the turbine blades, this increases abrasion resistance and also its a thermal barrier.
Ceramics have advantages of higher tempreture resistance and they don’t expand or contrct like metals do.
See here for an example http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html
EJ200’s HP turbine blades also utilise a special Thermal Barrier Coating, or TBC. This barrier is comprised of two plasma deposited layers, a special bonding coat over which a top layer of a Nickel-Chromium-Yttrium ceramic material is applied. Although this increases the life of the blade and increases the achievable operating temperature it does require regular inspection to ensure the coating remains viable
I think you’ll find the number of T/R modules for the F-35 is 1200, and theres talk of the F/a-22 benifitting from the JSF technology and sharing the same antenna.
Look at page 6 of http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/hfradar.pdf and divide the total number of MMIC’s by the number of sets required, and you get the figuree of 1500 for the F-22, however recent comments now tend to suggest the F-22 might get the F-35 antenna, its a costs thing!
The information is there, If you look!!!.
Cheers
‘why the trip took 6 days’. Couple of stopovers and to leave time to fix any unexpected problems and to rest the pilots
Any news on how their going?
Cheers