Lukos, I don’t know who you are to chose which hypothesis should fit, but I’m going to write 2 things and only 2 which should make you think a bit more.

1- In South Korea, Rafale was proposed with 3 drop tanks and 2 cruise missiles. But there, this wasn’t enough (no tanker), thus, they also proposed CFTs.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rafale-fighter/images/rafale_9.jpg
I would tend to believe that if professionals (Korean militaries and Dassault) wanted those CFT IN ADDITION TO THE THREE DROP TANKS, it means that contrary to what you claim, those in the know have an idea of what to do with so much fuel.
(more to this : on the Rafale, CFT would be used on already heavy configurations, since there’s no way it would be a win-win solution -not dropable, too costly on performance-)

Well I did bring this up earlier. The whole CFT/drop tanks thing is about countries with poor mission planning and less supporting capabilities. They’d honestly be better off investing in some tankers in the long run. The other factor is that the export version of Storm Shadow is limited by the MTCR. The very concept of CFTs is based on the fact that drop tanks are mostly not dropped. The other thing is that when I look at S. Korea and see that most of their targets are within 600km of Seoul, which mostly negates the requirement for an aircraft in cruise missile delivery, let alone drop tanks.

If you don’t believe this, then don’t loose your time here, go convince those who plan missions.

Some people can’t be convinced and like learning the hard way, the hard way being where you fly with 3 2000L drop tanks and 2 cruise missiles deep into an UnSEADed high-tech ADS with no air superiority and get shot down. It’s the equivalent of a boxer looking for a knock-out punch in round 1, it happens but usually they’re the one who gets knocked out.

You should keep on learning instead of throwing hazardous assumptions.

Mica is a multitarget SR/BVR missile (IR or EM) which has got 4 shooting modes, only one of them requiring the datalink (longest range). 2 of them are LOAL modes (BVR and SR)
LOAL autonomously is permitted by the use of a inertial navigation system (just like Asraam AFAIK).
Keep in mind that Mica, IR or EM, are also BVR missiles, LOAL allowing Mica IR to hit targets several tens of miles away (pilot quoted by the Air Fan magazine). Mica EM has demonstrated a range of 67km (Taiwan), you may expect a bit less for Mica IR, due to the IR dome. Are you about to bet on a reduction by 3 ?

Your evidence for that please because nothing on MBDA’s site suggests this. As posted earlier AIM-9X Blk II required a data-link for LOAL and common understanding is that data-linked LOAL missiles require that data-link (otherwise it’s dead weight). This means that they aren’t true fire-and-forget when used in LOAL mode.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aim-9x-block-ii-the-new-sidewinder-missile-011572/

Raytheon’s AIM-9X Block II would have made Top Gun a very short movie. It’s the USA’s most advanced short range air-air missile, capable of using its datalink, thrust vectoring maneuverability, and advanced imaging infrared seeker to hit targets behind the launching fighter…..

The final piece of the puzzle is lock-on after launch capability (the key Block II improvement)

Overall, the Block II has about 85% parts commonality with the Block I. The 2-way datalink is the most significant single Block II change

You’re missing my point about range. I’m not saying that the range of the MICA is 20km because the range of MICA VL is 20km, I’m simply pointing out that an ASRAAM has a slightly greater internal volume for fuel, whilst being lighter by 24kg (lighter warhead, no TVC nozzle, no datalink) and the ASRAAM-based FLAADS/CAMM-L has a range of >25km compared to MICA VL whilst only being 10% longer than a ASRAAM with the same body diameter and having an added datalink to allow for radar guidance. Therefore the range of ASRAAM vs MICA is probably about the same, or perhaps the ASRAAM is slightly better due to being lighter and having less drag (less fin). So a MICA is no more of a medium range missile than ASRAAM.

=> “The Mica has got an internal multitarget capability allowing the pilot to treat a close group of targets.”
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/salle-de-presse/communiques/ministere/la-dga-receptionne-le-1000e-missile-air-air-mica?nav=web

Let’s go back to topic.

In the frontal or rear hemisphere though?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/asraam.cfm

The AIM-132 ASRAAM is a high speed, highly manoeuvrable, heat-seeking, air-to-air missile. Built by MBDA UK Ltd, the missile is designed as a ‘fire-and-forget’ weapon, able to counter intermittent target obscuration in cloud as well as sophisticated infrared (IR) countermeasures. Although ASRAAM is predominantly intended for use in the within-visual-range (WVR) arena, it also has capabilities that permit its use in the beyond-visual-range arena.

The missile uses a new Raytheon Imaging IR seeker head and it is the world’s first IR missile to enter service using a sapphire-domed staring array detector, which detects the whole target scene. When combined with digital signal-processing and imaging software, ASRAAM is able to see individual areas of its target, such as engines, cockpit or wings. The picture is very similar to a monochrome TV picture, and gives the missile excellent long-range target acquisition, even against employed countermeasures such as flares or similar pyrotechnics. In addition to its ability to image targets, the seeker also allows the missile to be fired at very high off-boresight angles, in either lock-before or lock-after-launch modes. Because the missile has a fire-and-forget capability, the pilot can engage multiple targets with several missiles simultaneously. To increase its speed and its operating range, the missile has a low-drag design; only tail fins are provided for control purposes; and a new, low-signature, dual-burn, high-impulse solid rocket motor provides the power. Compared to other similar missiles, this new motor improves both the missile’s instantaneous acceleration and its maximum cruise velocity.

In a typical WVR engagement, the ASRAAM is slaved to the target either visually or by the launch aircraft’s onboard sensors. Following release, the missile accelerates to speeds in excess of Mach 3 whilst being guided to the target using its IR seeker. Detonation of the high-explosive fragmentation warhead is achieved by either a laser proximity fuse or an impact fuse.

The difference here is full 360deg, fire-and-forget (no data-link cueing) against multiple targets simultaneously. Full game-over WVR ability along with BVR capabilities.

As you discredit data that doesn’t fit your agenda but instead come up with obscure screenshots that do, there is no point in arguing.

You have the fact about the performance goals on EJ200 dry SFC and wikipedia in several different languages also quote higher figures for RB199 SFC. None of the manufacturing companies support the 18.38 figure either. Then you have the fact that none of this matters in the context of the original debate because all sources state the ferry range of the Tornado to be the same as the Typhoon, whilst having 4500L of extra external fuel.

Just one more thing:

RAF, Luftwaffe and AM operate Tornados which as you probably know are very well cabable of delivering the heavy stuff even with enough fuel tanks :dev2:
Spain has Hornets.

Errrr…. and the same aircraft can also deliver 500lb and 1000lb bombs, yet they were qualified first on the Typhoon. Given the ferry range of a GR4 vs Typhoon being the same despite 4500L of extra fuel, it again seems abundantly clear that a Typhoon could carry 2,000lb bombs and one drop tank and still outrange the GR4 with 2 2000lb bombs and 2 drop tanks….. remember, the original point.

What version of the F-35 are we getting? The B version. Can it carry 2000lb bombs internally like the A and C? No. Clearly not too pressing. Most things that work with a 2000lb bomb work with a 1000lb bomb and those that don’t work with a 1000lb bomb, usually don’t work with a 2000lb bomb either.

Discussions at Eurosatory next week will be more useful, and certainly more polite.

More useful than a senior EADS radar expert? What exactly would you like as a source?

Rafale fans after hearing about CAPTOR-E:

I have neither looked at or overlooked the calculation in question. An anonymous ‘expert’ cited by a newspaper (rather than in the defence press) is not a particularly good source,

Only if your butt hurts from the facts it’s delivering.

and I’ve been pushed for time in the runup to Eurosatory. (Ideally I should have travelled to Paris today, but this has slipped to tomorrow.)

Regarding IRIS-T, there is no contradiction between the Diehl documents you cited – the guidance was revised for the SAM role, and was given an INS/GPS subsystem.

SO why does the IRIS-T sheet reference a datalink. External cuing in a WVR environment? You maybe correct or not.

As for ranges, ASRAAM was designed to get a kill at the longest possible range, so speed and range were high priorities, while the IRIS-T team focussed on short-range manoeuvrability. MICA was conceived as an intermediate-range weapon, so inevitably eclipses the ranges of the other two.

The ASRAAM uses a patented body-lifting system and still acieves 50g, which is more than adequate. MICA does not eclipse the ASRAAM in range. The ASRAAM has marginally greater internal volume for fuel and weighs less and has less drag due to body-lifting system. The MICA is simply heavier due to thrust vectoring, extra control surfaces, data-link and heavier warhead – none of which help range.

It has now been confirmed that Bramhos ‘mini’ will have the same range and warhead size as original Brahmos, but a higher velocity. A Su-30Mki would be able to carry “3 to 5” of Brahmos-M.

Very impressive if it’s achieved.

Oh, really? REference please? Because datalink was used (with a second plane illuminating the target ) doesn’t mean it has to be… Come and play 😉

Source. The link you’ve posted doesn’t specify anything about autonomous LOAL lock and I know AIM-9X Blk II doesn’t have it either because it’s planned for Blk III. LOAL requires cuing via datalink for MICA. Here to play all you like.

Again assumptions, assumptions… Captor E for example do not have GaN modules . It may have, one day… In the meanwhile GaN based SPECTRA demonstrator is flying this very year…

You’ve not been reading the links. Only the test version is using GaAs the production one will use GaN.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroRADAR_CAPTOR

The radar antenna is like the CAESAR from about 1500 TRM exist. The prototype is provided for reasons of cost GaAs technology, the production version to receive modules based on GaN. [31] Since the GaAs technology is limited to about 10 Watts per module, the GaN modules have substantially higher radiation power Otherwise, an expensive new development would make no sense. In the scientific publications can be found, for example, X-band GaN modules (AlGaN / GaN HEMT MMIC ) EADS Ulm with 20 watts output and 24% efficiency (PAE). The work, published in 2008, was funded by the WTD 81 and the Federal Ministry of Defence. [83] in 2006 came from the same company, a paper that W AlGaN / GaN HEMT modules with 20-23 and 29 to 36.5% PAE at report did. This work was funded by France and the WTD 81. [84] SELEX Sistemi Integrati published in 2008 a publication in which about 5 mm thick X-band GaN modules of 45 × 15.5 mm size with 30 Watt and 40% PAE presented were. [85] This suggests that a module power of 20 watts is sought.

The Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom finally funded flight tests with a prototype known as Captor-E, which modules will use based on GaAs. For the later production version, which will fly in 2015, the more advanced GaN technology is planned.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2011-06-13/eurofighter-nations-inch-closer-new-radar-commitment

The UK MoD funding will lead to the first flight of a Captor-E prototype in 2013. But it will feature only limited radar modes, and the array will consist of Gallium Arsenide (Ga) transmit-receive modules that were developed by British company Filtronic, now part of Teledyne. The ultimate array planned for Captor-E will use more advanced Gallium Nitride modules developed for the Euroradar consortium by EADS Cassidian.

They’re doing well if they’re managing to detect 0.001m^2 RCS targets at 60km with GaAs technology on an ordinary sweep scan.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html

And Praetorian is being upgraded too. I know it kills you to….. but just drop it…..:cool:

http://www.armada.ch/aircraft-self-protection-sophistication/

[QUOTE=eagle;2145330]An aircraft with afterburners lit has better performance. More fuel = more afterburner. As long as your carrying all those A/G stores and tanks, performance is not an issue.
Very incomplete view. The Typhoon’s ramped intakes are vastly most efficient at supersonic speeds. The canard set-up also offers far less drag at supersonic speeds. The engines generally provide a better thrust-to-weight ratio and more supercruise performance. All this means that supersonic performance requires less fuel. You’re also not examining the probability of detection in the first place with all those tanks. However, overall the point I’m making here is that flying with a huge load into well-defended air-space is just a no-no anyway, it’s a bad idea and talking about afterburning when it comes to outrunning missiles is ridiculous.

Launching cruise missiles is nice except when you run out of missiles or are after mobile targets.

Going on long heavily loaded raids into well-defended airspace is nice until you run out of aircraft and, on-balance, I’d much prefer to run out of cruise missiles. Air superiority will be won in small chunks of airspace at a time if it’s a sophisticated enemy. A2A superiority and SEAD/DEAD will be required, not range. Hopefully you now see why you’ve made an issue out of a non-issue.

Why do you think CFTs are coming? Because EF needs them, not just too show them to some rich customers.

Drag reduction. In most non-critical operations, drop tanks aren’t dropped, so having CFTs improves fuel efficiency and reduces operating costs.

As “they” in this case is Panavia, take a guess where they got that figure. As with all such figures, its most likely static, uninstalled at sea level. Just like that for the EJ200.
Obviously, that doesn’t answer which SFC figure goes down faster with altitude.

It doesn’t answer anything. As “they” in this case, could be an undergraduate or work experience student assigned web design duties because everyone else was busy, who then pulled the information from wikipedia. Yeah, it’s a common task assigned to undergraduates. There also isn’t anything to back this figure up from the manufacturers. All we have officially is that the EJ200 aimed to achieve the same rated SFC but was optimised for high altitude, where longer range is best achieved. Then you’ve got the fact the Typhoon is more than 7,000lbs lighter dry and has a whole amalgamation of aerodynamic attributes that reduce drag, as well as just being smaller.

SFC numbers are available, but not where it matters, thats what I meant.

Not from the manufacturers.

Yes that’s great.
But there’s still the possibility the very ambitious SFC goals were not met. Very ambitious because the RB199 with high BPR is in another class. But actually, we don’t even know if it was really a requirement to have lower SFC at cruise conditions. I guess it was more of a ballpark figure.

And the possibility that they were met, not that it really matters given the huge difference in the aircraft that massively favours the Typhoon anyway. It requires less thrust at cruise and requires reheat less during transitions like take-off because it has the same TWR dry as the Tornado has on reheat. Hopefully you can see now why attempts to focus this on SFC are narrow-minded anyway.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/combat_jets/ej200/
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/combat_jets/rb199/

27,000/~35,000 vs 32800/~43000

The RAF along with many other air forces train low level flight. One reason might be that in a high threat environment, a triple A gun is probably less scary than a double digit SAM.
CFTs are absolutely needed for heavy strike configurations, as has been mentioned about a million times. Try 2000lbs bombs and targeting pod ie no tanks. Not good.
As with targeting pods at AAM station, there is no such thing as a 1500l drop tank.
Recce they will work out the only problem is the RAPTOR pod doesn’t fit.
2 seaters currently are only used for training afaik. Thing is, all aircraft are already ordered and there aren’t many twin seaters.

They thought that until Desert Storm. There’s a lot of time between a double-digit SAM launch and approach, there’s also a lot of warning prior and things that can be done in terms of EW because of the R^2 vs R^4 advantage and a lot of ECM and tactics that can be deployed to break lock and/or evade or jam the missile seeker itself. They definitely needed addressing but they don’t present the immediate plane-ending threat that short range ADS presents. For optically tracking or IIR SAMs, you get no warning until launch, after that you might have maybe 2s (or less if it’s head-on) to (a)Crap in your pants, (b)Select the best response and (c) Implement it. Short range IIR missiles are also well known for having far better combat Pk than longer range radar missiles and are generally more ECM-resistant. As for modern guided 30+m AAA, it highly lethal, and even far smaller crap can bite you at low altitude.

They train a lot of things that might never be used, like dog-fighting with guns. The last time a NATO member needed that was the Falklands, ignoring A-10 helicopter kills.

Dude, it’s not impossible to put that pod elsewhere. The fact that no 2,000lb bombs have been qualified yet (except for Spain?), is probably why it is where it is for now. As for needing a laser to drop an EPWIII, when they also have GPS guidance anyway, are you expecting really strong enemy MBTs in the future or something? <-Probably another reason why the primary TGP point is where it is. In terms of future possibilities, a 1000L drop tank must weigh about the same as a 2,000lb bomb, so why not put the bomb on the centreline and carry 2 drop tanks when it finally gets qualified? Can AESA be used to form a guidance beam? Who knows.

The fact that the 2,000lb bomb is being qualified last should tell you something about how urgent it is anyway.