My estimate for JSF production is < 1600.

Base on previous experience, and the fact that the niche that the JSF occupies it rather neatly filled by UAV’s.

cheers

You best let all the companies developing 5th gen fightes, plus the new Gripen varient, with internal bays in on this! Unless of course it is something that can be worked around without any problems. And i’m quite sure you’d change you tune if a varient of the Typhoon was developed that had internal bays.

They already know and have done studies on the acoustic effects, if you have ever had the rear windows down in a car and heard a low frequency thumping then you may guess the effect that would have if it happened to be the harmonic frequency of the missile and the airflow was supersonic!!

However, some carriage environment concerns could be greater for internal carriage than that of external carriage. Examples include high vibration and acoustic loads when the carriage bay doors are open at a flight condition with high dynamic pressure.

source http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p010957.pdf

So I stand by what I say – internal carriage isn’t as benign as you and others pretend.

Errrrrrrrrrrrr.. Once more.
The Charlie AMRAAM has problem with excessive vibrations coming from its propulsion system. That means the electronics of the missile is prone to fail after it has been launched. Can you see any connection to external or internal carriage here?

I can’t.

Just you mentioned vibration and that internal or external didn’t matter, it does especially if the frequencys involved with internal carriage make the AMRAAM problem worse i.e higher failure rates due to acoustic buffeting.

Cheers

Is it my imagination but doesn’t that picture also show LERX?

It would be a tad misleading if I was referring to what was said by a non RAF pilot at Red Flag. I am to what RAF Typhoon pilots have been saying since the UAE.

I see the point your trying to make, however it depends if they were saying it for the same reasons!

Information I have is the USAF doesn’t want to play fair, they are rather reluctant to share tactical information in these DACT environments, which is a little strange as there are UK exchange pilots flying the F-22, then again the RAF have been extraordinarily quite about their TyphoonF-22 DACT experiences.

Do you have any direct quotes?

Cheers

1/5: I never said that it could not be detected, just that the chances are “Low”.
2: Considering that the AN/ALR-94 is the single most expensive and complex component in the F-22 and designed to be the primary detection device, this is exactly what it was designed to look for.
3: See#2
4: Never said it could not.

Remember that I was just answering MSphere’s question as to how the F-22 could be superior. Notice he was not asking if it was, only why.

You could equally ask in which way the Typhoon DASS could be superior.

1. DASS is also a very expensive piece of kit.
2. The Towed Decoy would seduce any AMRAAMS fired at Typhoon even if it was detected.
3. The Typhoon has an EM silent mode.
4. High aspect DACT with the Typhoon and F-22 has had surprising results.
5. You can breath in a Typhoon.

You can infer from #4 that the surprise would be in Typhoons favour or it wouldn’t be a surprise.

Now the above comments are taking as many liberties as the LPI/Expensive thats what it was designed to do etc.

If each of the elements of both fighter design works as the makers claim then the following should play out.

Both flights will roam around the sky looking for EM leaks, occasionally one may light up to have a peek and share data, and both would like to exploit the others perceived weaknesses and not play to the others strengths.

The Typhoons passive detection will know there is a Raptor out there, perhaps not enough to get a fix, but enough to know its being painted by an LPI Radar. Typhoon could turn on its MAWS and Radar when and if its detected.

The F-22 will get the first BVR shot off, followed by a second missiles just to make sure.

Typhoons will detect the in bounds, the Typhoon self protection suite would give the best vector indicator to the pilot to avoid incoming missile, and or the decoy would be deployed, and or the chaff deployed and illuminated, thus seducing the AMRAAMS off course, the Typhoons use the reciprocal vector to search the sky for the Raptors using Pirateradar as they would now be turning away and be presenting a better target for it.

The Typhoons also fire a couple of Meteors at the departing F-22’s fully utilising the superior range and NEZ of the missile.
The Uber Stealth and self protection suit of the F-22 would dissolve any threat.

Rinse and repeat and run away or get into WVR, where both aircraft are likely to get burnt.

That all relies on the makers providing kit that works as advertised that’s why it would almost never play out exactly that way.

Cheers

Not quite sure what you mean. No fighter is the same as the one built 5 years previous or 5 years in the future.

If you are implying that the ones being build today will not be able to be upgraded (to the standard 5 years from now) without serious hardware changes, then I would say you are wrong. .

It was said I was wrong about the F-22 too, the sort of things found after the full envelope is expanded and what simulations say are different, thats why the F-22 had to have its ar$e end changed etc etc.

First lets have a JSF built in 5 years then we can start to debate how different they are from those built today, does anyone have the number of design changes currently outstanding – its in the 1000’s.

cheers

There were some Rafales at RAF Coningsby Typhoon base yesterday!!

Source: http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42767