dark light

lukos

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,516 through 1,530 (of 1,752 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2212750
    lukos
    Participant

    He said 6 Mica + 4 Meteor. That’s what he said & that’s what you replied to. Don’t try the little monkey strategy on me.

    I’m not. Just pointng out that it isn’t quite there in terms of A2A load.

    One knows you are lying when you bring documentation on the Mica VL to make a point on the Mica. Do you think you’re debating with 5 year olds or something?

    Why’s that? I’m comparing a MICA-based SAM to an ASRAAM-based SAM.

    Which is why it has less range.

    MBDA state no range for the ASRAAM or MICA. Less weight doesn’t mean less range. The internal volume of an ASRAAM is marginally higher than for MICA and it doesn’t have TVC or a datalink and the warhead is smaller – therefore more room for fuel. It alsp has less aero surfaces on the outside. Hence why it’s lighter. You can’t simply assume more range due to greater weight. At the same length as a VL MICA (112kg), the ASRAAM-based SAM (CAMM-L/FLAADS – 99kg) has >25% greater range.

    Your Mica VL has salvo fire capability from the link YOU posted. Oh wait it’s not even the Mica but the SAM version. Nevermind. Mica can be launched @ 1 second intervals. That’s salvo in my book.

    Not fully autonomous LOAL – datalink-dependent.

    & me who actually thought that the fastest missile was the one that went the faster, not the one which weight 88kg & has a motor of 166mm.

    Why, because someone wrote it on wikipedia?
    http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/air/15/performance

    Which is why the swiss air force rated the rafale significantly higher than the EF in offensive counter air & defensive counter air :eagerness:

    Nic

    With Typhoon at Tranche 2 standard it will be. It’s clear that RBE-2 AA won’t match CAPTOR-E or even come close given the above information posted earlier.

    in reply to: ISIS versus everyone else #2212789
    lukos
    Participant

    Looking at that video, they seem to be trying to miss.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2212815
    lukos
    Participant

    2 Mica on wing tips
    2 Mica on outer wing pylons
    2 Meteor on middle wing pylons
    2 1250 or 2000L fuel tanks on inboard wing pylon
    2 Meteor on conformal pylons
    2 Mica under the belly (I don’t know if Meteor fits).

    That’s 10 AtoA missiles & up to 4000 L fuel.

    + All Rafales are plumbed for CFTs already.

    Nic

    Still not 12 and 1 drop tank (1000L) or 10 Meteor and 3 drop tanks (4000L) though. MICAs are only roughly equivalent to ASRAAMs except without true fire-and-forget capability outside the acquisition range.

    Taking a look at CAMM-L which is ASRAAM based plus 10% in length. “In excess of 25km.”

    http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/ground/4/performance

    MICA VL – “up to 20km.”

    http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/vl_mica_land_ds.pdf

    [2.9 x (0.166^2)] > [3.1 x (0.16^2)]

    And the ASRAAM is lighter (lighter warhead, no need for datalink, no need for TVC).

    ASRAAM has no requirement for a datalink because its LOAL is fully autonomous, allowing multiple targets to be engaged in salvo fire. It is the only missile with this capability.

    At 88kg with a 166mm rocket motor it is also the fastest SRAAM in the service.

    http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/asraam_background-1402652228.pdf

    Given the radar performance quoted above most of this is irrelevant. There is no comparison between the Typhoon and Rafale in the A2A role. People became obsessed with fuel after stealth fighters hit the scene, failing to realise that the larger internal fuel loads were related to stealth not performance.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2212834
    lukos
    Participant

    It’s a nice light weapon but battlefield smoke issues, range and larger warhead, leave me favouring MMW seeker and Brimstone. UK Reapers is a different matter though, lighter Griffins could really increase endurance but I think they’re set on Brimstones there too.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2212934
    lukos
    Participant

    Entering enemy air space with full tanks gives you the option to drop fuel tanks when under fire and still have lots of gas to turn and burn. Way better than facing SAMs with something like 50% internal fuel. Its a mission kill either way.

    Yes but that option is a dead certainty in terms of realisation in well-defended airspace before air superiority has been established and a more lightly loaded aircraft has better performance. After air-superiority has been establish, mid-air refuelling becomes an option. In the Libyan situation, if you wanted to attack Southern Libya with a cruise missile, it’s only 1200km from North to South at the widest point, so you just fire a TLAM-E from up to 500km out in the Med, as several were. The same would apply to Iraq too.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#Operators

    That’s far safer than flying inland if it were a high threat environment. You may think I’m playing devil’s advocate but I just can’t envisage a situation where all this extra fuel would be paramount except for long CAP, where it’s provided for.

    You must have a different version of the internet then. No really, thats strange. :confused: Anyway, try this: http://www.panavia.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=54

    The question is, for this and the other SFC figures for the RB199, where did they get that figure? Is it valid? Given that the Tornado was optimised for low level flight, was it measured (if it was) at low altitude, where the air is denser and the engines run more efficiently, which isn’t great for range because of extra drag, meaning you need to produce more thrust. You also have to realise that this is only part of the equation, because you’re dealing with a smaller, lighter aircraft with relaxed stability and a very sophisticated FCS. All reports are that the Typhoon gets on point quicker and can stay for longer than a Tornado.

    That was the goal yes. No actual numbers are available though.

    Not for the RB199 but the figures for the EJ200 are widely available from RR and MTU and they’re better than the equivalent figures for all other fighters in that class. The Rafale’s M88-2s get the closest to equalling it with the only other SFC that seems to fall below 0.8lb/lbfhr.

    Evidence for what? EF wasn’t operational in the 90ies, I think that’s safe to say. As for other goals that haven’t been met, here’s a few. Empty weight increase from 10 to 11 tons, engine did get heavier too (it’s mentioned here somewhere). So I assumed there might be a chance SFC is higher than originally planed. I didn’t state that as fact.
    Whatever the actual numbers are, I have no problem admitting Typhoon has better range than Tornado, provided that there is some actual data. Design goals and marketing don’t count imho.

    Empty weight increase is no surprise. Basically it’s because the aircraft isn’t empty anymore. I believe the YF-22 was a full 10,000lb lighter than the production version. The engine has a class-leading thrust-to-weight ratio and whilst the ratio didn’t achieve targeted 10:1 in production form, the target weight was 900-1000kg:

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EJ200

    and that was met:

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

    I believe they now have a 12:1 engine just waiting in the wings to be fitted.

    AFAIK, there was never any intention to compromise the design by adding low level air to ground characteristics. An 11 ton air superiority fighter surely would be able to do what a 7 ton Jaguar does, that was the idea. Minus the low level part of course, and rough field capacity.
    Re 2020 Tyhpoon, probably mostly, if you dont require the low level bit. Needs CFTs of course, lots of new weapons and pods (recce!). Even a 2nd seat would be available which is nice to have for some missions imho.
    If we want to include Germany and Italy, ECR replacement is still an issue. But who knows what they’re planning.

    That’s what I mean. Low altitude has been binned as a tactic due to lessons learned – it’s not even safe against less-sophisticated ADS threats. I don’t think it needs CFTs to match the Tornado, they’ll just provide an added aerodynamic benefits (drag reduction) over carrying 2 1500L drop tanks. Recce – yes, that’s due. I think AREOS and DB110 are currently under consideration.

    I’m sure 2 seat is already an option, unless it’s just for trainers???

    http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafconingsby/newsweather/index.cfm?storyid=FC7305A4-1143-EC82-2E7E2861662D1D3D

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2212937
    lukos
    Participant

    Having had a quick peruse, Griffin is more of a helicopter UAV type weapon than a fast jet deployable system isn’t it? Are you saying that the Brimstone (carrying in 3s) could be replaced by 9 Griffins on the same launcher? Also the range is significantly less for the American weapon.

    SPEAR 3 is a different weapon entirely in that its even longer ranged and jet powered although still capable of multiple carriage on one hardpoint.

    That’s what I thought. I’ve only heard of them being deployed on UAVs, helicopters and launch tubes on newer AC-130 variants. The real problem is just qualification and integration time/cost. It’s not exactly technically difficult to integrate Brimstone, it’s just that nobody in the MoD can see the point whilst Tornado is still in service, unless someone else pays for it. It’s certainly not a priority.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2212941
    lukos
    Participant

    12 MRAAMs? I don’t think the outermost pylons are rated for anything other than SRAAMs. But it doesn’t matter since more than 6-8 AAMs isn’t required. Rafale could, in theory, carry 6x MICA, 4x Meteor and 2 drop tanks, for either 2500 or 4000l extra fuel.

    How do you work that out. It has 12 stations that it can use for weapons and 2 for pods. 2 of those 12 are taken up by a centre drop tank, leaving 3 on each wing, one where each wing meets the fuselage and one on each wing-tip. So that’s one drop and 10 AAMs.

    One the Typhoon 5 and 6 are cleared for 1,450kg, 7 and 8 are cleared for 1,300kg, 3 and 4 I forget, and the outer AA stations (1 and 2) are cleared for 600kg. It would be unlikely to see Meteors on 1 and 2 but then seeing MRAAMs on F-16 wing-tips used to be rare too and still is to some degree.

    Thats nice, but without targeting pod. Rafale: 4x 450kg bomb, 2000l fuel, pod and up to 6 AAMs. Thats 1000l less of external fuel, but then again, Rafale is lighter. Same external fuel load if EF is to carry a targeting pod.
    If you want, Dassault surely will come up with a twin rack, or they could just use the US BRU-69 rack for use with 1000lbs class weapons. Probably wouldn’t fit on all stations though, but just 2 means 4x 450kg bombs and up to 6000l of fuel or many other configurations.

    Is there a target that moves that requires a 1,000lb bomb? No.

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

    Once released from the launch aircraft, EPW is fully autonomous in cases where there is cloud cover over the target which may obstruct the laser and prevent weapon guidance. In these instances, it is steered to the target using Global Positioning System (GPS) information as well as guidance from its on-board inertial navigation unit.

    ^Quite sufficient for the stationary targets that 1,000lb class weapons will be used on. Need a TGP? Swap out a Meteor station. A twin rack on Rafale? Only just fits with AASM-250, wouldn’t fit anything bigger.

    Rafale is lighter but the canard positioning is worse as regards drag:

    http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf

    More so on the Rafale because the side intakes mean that the body has to bulge outwards to hold them clear of the intakes so that they don’t interfere with airflow to the engine. The resulting increase in cross-section is worse for drag and RCS.

    http://www.aviation-francaise.com/WALLPAPER/RAFALE-B-parking.jpg
    https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/4/23/1398275167069/An-RAF-Typhoon-jet-014.jpg

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2213037
    lukos
    Participant

    Ok last answer, it is late. Yes, Captor E will have a larger angle. A 13.5 Kw RBE2 is being tested on DGA Dornier testbed. MLU will come with conformal antennas. Cats and mouses game…

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

    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. [80] [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.

    According to Indra Sistemas be antenna (LRI # 9) Transmitter Auxiliary Unit (TAU) and Antenna Power Supply & Controller (APSC) be different from the Captor-M. The TAU of the Captor-E is to be charged with 12,75 kVA, so after losses 10,58 kW flow into the APSC, which is to work with over 88% efficiency. [86] Consequently, the output power would be here at about 9.31 kW . In conservative 32% PAE per module results in a continuous power of 3 kW. With a duty cycle of 10%, such as at typical radar operation, a pulse power of 30 kW would result, which results in 1500 TRM to about 20 watts per module. This is in perfect agreement with the literature data.

    However, it must be considered that exact data the military secret subject. So Toshiba announced in 2006 and 2007 to have an X-band GaN-TRM completed with 50 to 81.3 watts. [87] There is no reason to suspect why the modules of the Captor-E, which is 10 years later in series are produced, should have a lower peak power. Since the energy supply is limited to 9.31 kW, and not arbitrarily high heat losses can be dissipated, the duty cycle would (and ultimately, the pulse repetition frequency are) reduced. This corresponds to the application profile as high-power microwave weapon (HPM), since only pulse repetition rates of 20 Hz are required to 20 kHz. [63] The cooling of the components to the Captor-E by evaporative cooling can be realized. [86] The detection range is 59 km against a Lockheed Martin F-35 are. [88]

    Signal processing [ Edit ]
    By the Euro Fighter Typhoon practiced sensor fusion on the Attack and Identification System (AIS) , the radar modes are selected automatically in the normal case the onboard computer, the operation of the Captor is governed exclusively by the VTAS principle (VTAS – Voice, Throttle and Stick). instead of [51 ] [48] The general operation of the radar is as follows: First, the radar is transmitting in the mode Velocity Search (VS) to detect approaching targets in ground clutter. If targets discovered is in the Range While Search (RWS) changed mode. The computer then begins to create a track file, and works in Track While Scan (TWS) mode on, while searching for new targets. Subsequently, the identity of the targets by NIS or NCTI is detected, and the threats prioritized. Then, optionally, other modes are as Raid Assessment and Threat Assessment applied. [45] are more modes and abilities, not fully listed:

    Synthetic Aperture Radar / Automatic Target Recognition: Even older aircraft types have a SAR mode, but the pilot must look for yourself goals, provided that the resolution of the image is high enough. When Captor-D / E, this function is automated: The high-resolution SAR image is first with a Gaussian filter smoothed to reduce details. Then, from each pixel on the basis of the gradient and its direction to the neighboring pixels determined. If the magnitude of the gradient of a pixel is greater than that of the neighboring pixel in a certain direction, the pixel is declared to be edge and otherwise associated with the background. Weak edges are protected by a hysteresis threshold eliminated ( Canny algorithm ). After another algorithm generated closed structures, the invariant Fourier descriptors of the image are calculated, and these for automatic target identification in an artificial neural network fed. [52] Here, multiple subnets are parallel, the final result between the subnets is determined by voting. [ 53] The positions of the detected targets are then marked on the SAR image by red diamonds on the hash of the target type is displayed in red text, such as ” T72 “or” MLRS “. The radar generated image is placed on a computer stored in the vector map with a known GPS co-ordinates, in order to calculate the GPS data of the targets. Alternatively, can be determined on the basis of its own GPS position and different camera angles and distances, the GPS target position. For training the neural network EADS developed software in the CAD models of targets are set at a map, and the scene is converted to a SAR image. The algorithm then tries despite disturbing objects of different target angle and partial occlusion of targets to discover this. [54] [55]

    Non Cooperative Target Identification: Since the late 80s radars are generally able to JEM, but that only works in the front area of the aircraft, because the turbine must be visible. For fighter aircraft radars next-generation implementation of HRR was provided. As the name High Range Resolution suggests, the aim of the length is profiled. A series of narrow-band nanosecond pulses are sent to a high range resolution to achieve in the meter range. In addition to this standard method, there is also the possibility of narrow-band chirp to send with stepped carrier frequencies as a continuum. The former was already possible before 1987, the latter was newly developed by BAE Systems. Which method is used when CAPTOR is secret, but probably the latter. The radar echo of the target are now over the time a characteristic frequency response, since a pulse is first reflected by the nose, cockpit cover, air intake, leading edges of the wings and vertical stabilizer (If the target is irradiated from the front). In general, a bandwidth of 400 MHz and a large number of measurements deemed necessary to identify air goals. Along with the track data of the target, which are needed to determine the angle of the target to the radar, the characteristic frequency response of the echo can be assigned over time by a database matching a target type. [56] After the pilot in the display is an abbreviation for the aircraft type displayed, eg ” mrg3 “or” FLKR “. In order not to let the database size out of hand for inserts only the aircraft type data loaded is to be expected its occurrence in each area. [57] Since the external load configuration of the target are not known, it can lead to difficulties in the non-cooperative target identification come. In this case, hundreds of HRR profile of the target are made ​​to filter out the echoes of the external loads, and to calculate therefrom an ISAR image. However, the target must for move relative to the radar, and the radar dwell long on the target, which is tactically unfavorable. [56] The ISAR image can be the pilot probably represented in the “Visual Identification” mode on the display, the resolution per pixel point is worse than PIRATE .

    Space-Time Adaptive Processing / Combat Search: This ability is at the heart of the Captor-E. When Space-Time Adaptive Processing (STAP) slow-flying targets can be detected even under the influence of clutter and interference, even if their echo signal would otherwise be lost in the noise. To a plurality of sub-apertures can be used, with which the reflected wave from the floor field is sampled at different times. The signals in each channel are different, ideally, only by this time offset. Moving target having a radial component of velocity change, however, within this period of time its distance to the sensor, so that the signals are subject to a phase shift and can be distinguished from the Cluttersignalen. In the vicinity of the echo signal of a target only the change over time is no longer considered, but also the spatial variation compared (Space-Time). [58] The principle is also used to slow ground targets in Ground Moving Target Indication (GMTI) mode of operation . discover [59] Where an air target is lost in TWS mode, the suspected target area does not need more time-consuming with a signal leg be swung: The mode combat search generates multiple signal lobes, which occupy the target area like a chessboard in an angular range of 20 ° × 20 ° . Idealized as a sufficient pulse being transmitted and received through multiple signal beams to find the lost target again. [60]
    Adaptive Beam Forming

    Jammer Mapping / deterministic nulling: The Captor-E (rumored to also Captor-M) has the ability to Jammer mapping . The identity and the angle of the jammer by spectral processing with high accuracy is determined. The Captor-E begins with the Digital Adaptive Beamforming : Since the directivity of an AESA antenna can be manipulated by controlling the T / R modules, zeros are in the direction of the jammer antenna pattern set. [60] The art is in the to make zeros as narrow as possible so that targets can be reliably detected in addition to troublemakers. In AMSAR flights so the signal strength of interference sources could be reduced to the background noise, so that targets again appeared. [61] In order to improve the result even deterministic nulling is wall. The received signals of the T / R modules over all degrees of freedom of the antenna from the signal processor are weighted differently in order to reduce the impact of interferers on. [59] The principle is shown in the right picture.
    Low Probability of Intercept: To the likelihood of detection by enemy radar detector and electronic support measures to reduce the Captor-E will receive an LPI mode. Details are also little known; so shall the radar with a wide main lobe, send and received by multiple lobes with high antenna gain. [60]

    Noise Jamming / High-Power Microwave: When used as a jammer, the radar transmits simultaneously at all frequencies at full strength, the radar energy is focused on the opponent’s X-band antenna. On target radar thereby increases the background noise, the signal-to-noise ratio worsens, the range decreases. If the available effective radiated power of the antenna’s large enough, further signal lobes airspace search, target tracking or disturbance can be formed. If the burn-through distance below, the broadband noise is pointless. If the opponent is close enough to the Captor-E, uses the HPM-Mode: The radar energy is extremely heavily focused on the target, and the transmission frequency, the pulse repetition rate and the signal pattern adapted to the target. The energy penetrates through a front door into the object, usually the viewfinder of the weapon (IR or radar), or via feedback effects of the surface and openings ( back-door ). Inside, which forms an electromagnetic field, which – interferes with the electronics of the weapon – in choosing appropriate transmission parameters. This leads to an increase in the bit error rate , and, at best, to computer crashes . [62] applications include the diversion of enemy missiles, and Suppression of Enemy Air Defences . [63] While the jammer function as soon as possible with the introduction of the Captor-E should be available, [64] is the use planned as an energy weapon until later. [65]

    High-Speed ​​Data Link / Cyber ​​Attack: AESA antennas can also act as directional antennas are used to transmit data with high data transfer rate to send. The AN/APG-77 can send, for example, with 548 Mbit / s, and received in the gigabyte range. [66] Since the Captor-E the same carrier frequency used similar speeds will be possible. The data transfer function shall promptly comply with the introduction of the Captor-E is available. [64] The use of a cyber weapon to inject malicious programs is planned for later. [65] By Suter , which was developed by BAE Systems to attack enemy computer networks and communication systems , competence and experience in the euro radar consortium already exists.

    Bistatic Radar / Space-Based Radar: The ability to exchange data packets between radars, allows two Captor-E to use as a bistatic radar. [67] Due to the inclined, rotating antenna surface can move the machine during cooperation fly on a parallel course. Exotic possible application would be to use a satellite with the X-band in the AESA orbit as a transmitter and the CAPTOR-E as passive radar use. The principle was already in November 2007 with the satellite TerraSAR-X demonstrated. [38] The successor system of the SAR-Lupe , SARah called, should also get a satellite with AESA, which on the TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X is based. [68 ] The AESA radar prototype PACER (Phased Array Concepts Evaluation Rig) DERA, which should support the development of AMSAR, for example, only consisted of passive X-band receiver modules, and should explore, among other things, the bistatic application. [69]

    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.

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html

    According to a calculation by a senior EADS radar expert, the Captor-E, which will use 1,426 T/R modules and is scheduled to be integrated onto the Eurofighter Typhoon in 2015, is capable of recognizing the F-35 at around 59 kilometers away.

    His calculation shows that the F-35’s APG-81, which allegedly has 1,400 T/R modules, will be able to recognize the Eurofighter or semi-stealth fighter at 120 kilometers or farther based on the assumption both radars have the same capability.

    Ignoring affects of noise in finding such a small target:

    [(1/0.001)^(0.25)] x 59 = 332km for an object of 1m^2 RCS.

    [(1/0.005)^(0.25)] x 59 = 222km for an object of 1m^2 RCS.

    Detection range for 1m^2 RCS is 222-332km

    There is also a calculation in there for the Typhoon RCS if anyone is bold enough.:dev2:

    [(120/59)^4] x 0.001 = 0.017

    [(120/59)^4] x 0.005 = 0.086

    Typhoon RCS 0.017-0.086m^2 ballpark???

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2213051
    lukos
    Participant

    EElightining is an intelligent Typhoon fan. He knows the qualities of his horse…

    It’s not that I don’t know that Rafale can carry more load, I’m just not seeing the point in measuring how large a carriage a racehorse can pull. If we were discussing shire horses that would be different.

    in reply to: Superior CAS platform: B-1 or A-10? #2213078
    lukos
    Participant

    Theoretically this thread could have been titled F35 or B1 for CAS. As I understand it Plan A of the USAF is for all the A10s to be replaced by F35s, also the Marines are planning to use the F35 as CAS support for MEUs.

    This would imply to me that the USAF has decided that the A10 is an outmoded airframe, things have of course changed since the Fulda Gap was the expected main area of operation.

    There is of course a big battle going on in the US about keeping the A10 with the stringent budget constraints, as well as the development costs of the the F35.

    I think the need for the A-10 was caused by the need to fly low, below clouds to target anything. Modern technology has changed that and modern ADSs are far too lethal to try that.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2213081
    lukos
    Participant

    Typhoon could use Brimstone II in the future, but a better short term solution for a Brimstone missile is Griffin. Not much less range than the Brimstone, but light enough to mount a three pack in the same manner as one Brimstone. Virtually the same mission, lighter warhead, but guided with dual sensors. It would be a better option in the short term IMHO.

    The problem is qualifying anything. It takes time and money. In that respect it would be just as easy to qualify Brimstone as Griffin.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2213104
    lukos
    Participant

    My points are far more interesting on a thread about Typhoon, everyone should concentrate on those rather than this excruciating fuel tank/missile/range debate.:)

    That I can agree on.

    Eurofighter Studying Missiles To Give Typhoon Maritime Attack Capability | Defense News | defensenews.com

    in reply to: Superior CAS platform: B-1 or A-10? #2213127
    lukos
    Participant

    No, they can not. JDAMs need halve a minute to get contact with GPS satellites after dropping. In this time it flies a ballistic trajectory resulting from forward move vector of the dropping aircraft and gravity.

    I was talking about SDB II (GBU-53)??? JDAM is far more limited as you say and limited to a range from its standard ballistic trajectory.

    MS-SGP in action:

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2213130
    lukos
    Participant

    How old is this image? No, it doese not work. And about saying Tornado loaded with two SS could reach any lybian point with a centerline tank, it is simply hilarious.

    I said Typhoon. From Sigonella and Iraklion no point of Libya is more than 1600km away. So even if you take a really, really conservative view of an SSs range, one centreline tank is plenty….. even ignoring N’Djamena in Chad….. or refuelling over the Med. Your points are nonsense.

    Btw, sorry but 14 hardpoints on Rafale. (the last 2 are being opened atm).

    Which 2? 2 are pod only and the outer non-wing-tip ones are usually never used.

    Your configurations are just wet dream fantasies.

    So are yours but you make out like they’ll actually be useful in a peer adversary environment because it’s all you have left to offer. The fact you campaign so hard on these points is a sign of desperation if you ask me but what else can you have? The AESA radar advantage is going, as are the EW RWR and passive MWS advantages. Leaving you stuck with a smaller, less powerful, less capable, fixed last-gen AESA radar with a smaller FOV and a one-way data-linked Meteor. Less low-band jamming and outright jamming power potential than the DASS upgrade. No sophisticated DRFM decoys and no worthy equivalent of Brimstone or SPEAR. Poor high altitude performance. Worse supersonic performance etc.

    If I were in your position I’d probably try over-play the drop tank load thing too. I can’t blame you really.

    Spear 2 do not exist yet.

    SPEAR 2, now you’ve confused me. SPEAR cap 2, which is Brimstone II has been successfully tested last year, in service early 2015, SPEAR flight trials are due later this year:

    http://www.janes.com/article/28524/mbda-scores-five-from-five-in-brimstone-2-tests

    Quad launcher do not exist at all…

    Yes….. gee….. gonna be real tricky to produce that. That must have been the hardest part of the USAF’s SDB program by far.:rolleyes: It may be that they end up using the same damn launcher given identical length/diameter dimensions- development vs OEM procurement costs etc.

    The induced drag would be so huge that your plane wouldnt fly more than 1000 Kms without refueling.

    Right….. You’ll have to substantiate that with a little more than a garlic and onion side dressing. :stupid::rolleyes:

    Feel free to procure numbers (and references ) about Tornado AND Typhoon (afterall you are praising typhoon and suddenly you kick back to Tornado), i’ll gladly read them (but it will be hard to prove as France alone destroyed 2225 targets, aka 35% of destroyed targets…)

    Yeah, you’ll have to show me an official evaluation pdf on that claim.

    I’m tired with it, you are just ridiculizing yourself. Bye

    Ta-ta.

    “Talking with a troll is just like playing chess with a pigeon : he lands from nowhere, wipes the chesset, ****s on it and flies away proudy because he thinks he won…”

    “Only a complete dumbarse would play chess with a pigeon in the first place.”

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion and News 2014 #2213204
    lukos
    Participant

    NO IT CANT. Heck why do you think they are being qualified on wet points??? And you would like to change the mounting points on Storm Shadow now… :confused:

    They’re being qualified there because that’s the primary position where they will be carried 99.9% of the time for realistic, ‘non-pie-in-the-sky’ mission profiles, rather than trying to provide hopeless wet dreams to export countries with limited refuelling assets and little knowledge of campaign planning, so that they end up trying to fly 12,000lb of payload and a barn drag index deep into sophisticated networked air defences and get shot to hell.

    Btw heavy configs with three drop tanks and 2 Scalps were used during operations for deep strike in South Lybia.

    And 2 SSs and 2 drop tanks were used by Tornados, who flew from the UK and used refuelling anyway. What’s your point here? This has already been discussed, a Typhoon with 1 drop tank and 2 SSs could have reached any point in Libya using bases in Cyprus, Malta, Italy and Greece without refuelling, and of course, it could have refuelled over the Med anyway. Which aircraft launched the most SSs during the Libyan campaign, Rafales or Tornados from the UK and Italy? So for all the high tech in Rafale and Dassualt’s one-upmanship, the Tornados fired more stand-off weapons, hit more targets, did more Recce and destroyed way more armoured vehicles.

    Considering the induced drag and fuel fraction, aswell use G2G missiles, you will have a similar range… Even MBDA in its artwork didnt dare to show that type of totally unpraticable config. (btw the quad launcher is also an artwork atm, nothing more)
    Can you explain your fantasy numbers about AASM? Rafale has 14 hardpoints inlucing 5 Wet/Heavy and a bigger payload.

    The quad launcher has smaller width and length dimensions with 4 SPEAR than a single EPW II and it’s lighter….. is this another null point coming on?

    The Rafale has 4 A2G wing stations for 3 AASM 125/250 each (12 total) and a centre pylon for a drop tank. The Typhoon has 6 A2G wing station for 3 Brimstone or 4 SPEAR each (18-24 total) and a centre pylon for a drop tank. Brimstone II has equal or better range than an AASM and better manoeuvrability for fast asymmetric threats. SPEAR has twice the range making a very good SEAD/DEAD package. Similarly the Typhoon can carry 12 AMRAAM/Meteors and a centre drop tank, the Rafale is limited to 10 and a drop tank. 2 of the 14 hardpoints you quote are pod-only points and 2 of the other ones are taken up by the centre drop tanks. Rafale can’t carry 3 drop tanks, 4 1,000lb GBUs, 4 Meteors and 2 ASRAAMs.. Furthermore 4 of the Typhoon AAMs stations are semi-recessed, which reduces drag. Basically, in terms of all practical load-outs the Typhoon is better.

    Heavier payload….. here we go….. full retard again. That might actually be relevant if you were talking about a strategic bomber or transport aircraft but since when does a fighter need to carry more than 17,000lb of load? I don’t think I’ve even seen an F-15 Strike Eagle carrying more than that. That’s what?….. 2 5,000lb GBU-28 bunker busters, a 600US Gal drop tank and 8 AMRAAMs.:stupid::eagerness: Holy hell!

    The point isn’t moot. You can’t refuel within contested airspace. So again if you wanna do Deep Strike, you need range.

    You can’t fly inside heavily contested airspace with 3 drop tanks and 2 3,000lb missiles either, so your point is moot. The only deep strike, will be a SAM/AAM strike deep in your ****.

    http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/typhoon-airint.gif

Viewing 15 posts - 1,516 through 1,530 (of 1,752 total)