BluewingsGents , when you send a Carrier (or more) far away (which is why Carriers exists) , you want them to be fully multirole because they need to defend themselves , to open a corridor (SEAD) and to kill stuff on the ground .
To this purpose , what would you choose : a “normal” US carrier with F-35Cs or a UK carrier with F-35Bs ?
The answer is obvious .
Me , I say that a “normal” European Carrier with some kind of “Trafales” would have done the trick for Europe ‘s Navy carriers ( France , the UK , Italy) at a lower cost , would have been operational quicker and would have provided a similar to better force .
Cheers .
Bluewingsobligatory :
F-35B have it’s niche on small Carriers
No , the F-35B has its niche in the bin .
Of course , this is my humble opinion .
Cheers .
BluewingsDistiller :
While I’m all for dumping the B for a long time already (for various reasons), and going for the C version alone, it would not be enough.
“It would not be enough” ? I am sorry but I don ‘t know where you ‘re going .
What are you trying to say ?
That wouldn’t solve the problem of too few air superiority fighter, but it might produce a quite good fighterbomber.
I agree with you .
Cheers .
BluewingsNic :
Marketing ploy comes to mind.
And ?
Please , tell us what you think . Your response is a bit … short .
Cheers .
BluewingsPlease , enough with the “supercruise” business 😎
This capability is only usable during the merge and only for a short period of time as you still burn fuel as an alarming rate (full mil power, dry) .
Madrat :
Bluewings also made a good point about bring-back capability. I can only guess the F-35C won’t be a stuck pig in that situation, unlike the aircraft it will displace.
Thanks 🙂 but I still wait for data . What are the MLW of the various F-35s ?
If someone in the U.S. had offered an F110-powered scaled-up Rafale-like aircraft to the USN twenty years ago I’d have found that much more attractive than the current Super Hornet.
Nice idea , maybe it would have worked out .
The Rafale is a little too underpowered for the USN, but it is the right kind of rugged for carrier use.
That , I don ‘t get :confused: ??? The actual Rafale M F3 has more power at all regimes and a better thrust-ratio than the USN Block2 SH .
Where is the problem ? :rolleyes:
Cheers .
BluewingsWrightwing :
You’ll note even the Russians got rid of the canards on the Su-35 and the PAK FA.
Reply With Quote
The SU-35 does NOT need canards in the first place because they are counter productive for the airframe . The T-50 being a real LO aircraft , it has to be without canards .
As simple as that .
Cheers .
BluewingsMSphere to Wrightwing :
I think you are underestimating the role tradition and experience plays in development.
I agree . In France , we say something like : What you do best is what you like best . Does it mean something in English ?
In most bug companies, the direction is usually set by few key persons, the others just follow. Given the history of Lockheed’s designs I think there is simply no one who would want to push a canard design and at the same time have sufficient authority to actually achieve that.
I also agree but there is a reason behind I believe : the fact that canards are counter productive when you try to design a real LO aircraft .
Besides that , canards are good 🙂
Do you think that the long history of Dassault’s delta designs is solely based on requirements and that there is no experience, tradition or agenda involved? Yes, after Mirage III even they have flirted with classic layout (Mirage F1) but then nicely returned back to what they do best (Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, Rafale). Hey, don’t tell me that exactly French have always placed requirements which only call for a delta and nothing else.
I love this bit :
and that there is no experience, tradition or agenda involved?
True , true and true .
No need to talk about the “experience” factor it is obvious , no need to talk about the “tradition” factor it is also obvious . What is interesting is the “agenda” 😉
Yes , Dassault (and France Btw) has an agenda : build a fighter who could replace our entire fleet (5 types of aircraft) . It would have to be superior in AtoA and AtoG to what we had and be able to protect and fight for France against the 2000-2030 threats .
A delta fighter was the obvious choice . Dassault and Thalès used their expertise to make it “discrete” with canards .
Saab and the Eurofighter Teams have also chosen the same path , why ?
We all know the reasons : canards bring agility and better lift at all regimes .
But there are not “stealthy” .
One only has to check the empty weight of an aircraft versus its MTOW .
Delta-canards fighters have the edge with Rafale leading the pack by a good margin , specially when you have to take-off fully loaded at 220km/hour after a 75m catapult run on a carrier .
Canards are not stealthy but they don ‘t generate a high RCS , far from it .
Carefully designed edge and angle , RAM coating and sawtooth can make them almost undetectable at BVR range . Unless they are used as airbrakes (near vertical position) , they tend to deflect radio waves on the sides and behind the aircraft when seen from up front .
As an example , a F-16 is a small aircraft without canards but its RCS is much bigger than Rafale’s .
Now , I don ‘t think that France could have built an aircraft like the F-22 (or better YF-23:)) or the B2-Spirit 20 years ago .
We didn ‘t have the money and the knowledge in real LO designs was not good enough . Now , it is different : we still have no money but the know-how is probably there .
Cheers .
BluewingsSince I wanted to discuss about AtoA tactics , not carrying medium to long range missiles during routine CAPs is not wise , I disagree with such decision .
Interceptors on “Scramble” duty are loaded and ready to take off in less than 10 minutes , even less in critical times .
You don ‘t have time to load up anything , you just rush and take off .
Again , I don ‘t get it ? :confused:
Is the RAF so … loose ?
Or what else ?
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion82 :
During training missions they rarely carry AMRAAMs, I haven’t seen many Typhoons with AMRAAMs attached.
I can see that , even when the Typhoon is chasing Russian bombers around :
Strange , why that ? Why not having Amraams under the wings ?
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion82 :
BW,
this thread was first and foremost created to discuss the events during and around the ATLC in the UAE and everything which is publically available has been discussed to death.
I know but we can still extrapolate to more interesting things , can ‘t we ? 😉
With regards to your questions:
1.) Typhoon’s are mostly operating in pairs, though this depends on the mission
2.) In most cases Typhoons carry two ASRAAM/IRIS-T and usually one, but sometimes to drop tanks
3.) Cross Eye is a jamming technique not a separate jammer. At least in theory the Typhoon’s ECM system should be able to do X-Eye jamming in the forward hemisphere, to do so in the rearward hemisphere would require another rearward facing jamming antenna and it appears that such an antenna is not present, this includes Italian Typhoon’s as well.
Reply With Quote
Thanks . So , Typhoons are not carrying Amraams ? :confused::eek:
Cheers .
BluewingsForgive in advance if I am a bit curious , but there is something who is puzzling me :rolleyes: …
—> The Solenzara score in between the Typhoons and the Rafales : 8-1 .
I know rather well the Rafale and more I learn about the Typhoon , more I ask myself why the Typhoon lost so badly , specially against virtual semi-active missiles … I don ‘t get it :confused:
More I think about it , more it is leading me to … Captor vs Rafale .
I can ‘t see any other decent explanation , can you ?:confused:
We don ‘t know the exact RoE , but it seems obvious that the one who has the first look will take an aggressive action OR the Typhoon had the need (RoE) to ID the target first : CQFD .
In the first case , it simply means that the Rafales had a lock on Typhoons first and fired first (which is backed up by Rafale pilots) . While this in itself is telling , the situation probably went like this :
-a) “exercise over , go back to base“
-b) “try evasive mesures for 20 seconds then chase the ******”
-c) ” …” (any idea ?)
In the second case (Typhoon having to ID the target) , it is even more telling for 2 reasons :
First , it could mean that the Typhoons were unable to ID the Rafales even if the French had to keep the RBE2 at all time on the Typhoons to guide the semi-active missiles . In this case , it would mean that DASS can ‘t compare the RBE2 emissions to anything known in its library and maybe ~maybe~ it can ‘t detect them .
Secondly , it could also mean that the Typhoons were unable to break the link (jam) the virtual missiles in time .
In both scenarios , I am wandering why the Typhoons did not fare better . Again , I don ‘t get it :confused:
The exercise was 4 Typhoons against 2 Rafales , twice .
Why such a poor result ?
I only try to understand why it happened .
Cheers .
BluewingsSince it is a Rafale versus Typhoon versus F-22 thread , maybe we should think more about tactics rather than hardware capabilities .
The 2 are obviously closely linked to each other but let ‘s not forget that different “Tactics” are put into place because of the “hardware capabilities” , and not the opposite which is decided during development and blue print work . Am I clear ?:rolleyes:
So , what do we know about actual AtoA tactics used by the RAF when flying Typhoons ? There isn ‘t much to read on the Net so far .
We know a wee bit more about the tactics used by the USAF with the F-22 because of the recent exercises and papers but it is only few bits and pieces here and there .
I just have a couple of simple questions first , when the Typhoon is “policing” the sky , how many are they per patrol and what the usual load is ?
Example : the M2000-5F here in Dijon take off by pairs , usually with one central fuel tank or 2 under the wings and 4 Micas , 2 EM and 2 IR .
Same configuration for the Rafales at St. Dizier (often with only a single central fuel tank) .
Second question , what about the “Italian” cross-eye” jammer ? Has it been implemented or not ? Since it is using the two wingtips pods (bare one TRD in the right tip) , what the RAF did decide ?
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion82 :
There isn’t much known, except that prediction algorithms are used to keep a track even when the radar temporarily looses it.
It is a predicted lead to try to tell to the radar where to scan next .
A bit like when a hunter sees the bird he ‘s aiming at passing behind a tree : he predicts the lead for after the tree action .
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion82 :
For your scenario it would highly depend on various factors, of course you can draw a scenario which favours your favorit plane, whether this would work out that way is a totally different question.
I agree and I never said otherwise .
Cheers .
BluewingsSeahawk :
And if I look at what Captor-M is able to do, I am not convinced it is really a generation behind a PESA or even APG63 V2 and similar first generation AESAs. It is able to do interleaving, although maybe not as quickly as a PESA, it is a 3 channel system which allows him to Track, Scan and look for enemy emissions at the same time. It also has an ECM capability using the third channel with Captor-D and it has controlled side lobe reduction.
A late AESA array can do more and better and it is the reason why everybody is going AESA . Latest mechanical arrays are not up to speed anymore .
Cheers .
Sign In
