lukosIt isn’t just an issue of jamming, rapid maneuvering can deny or break a radar lock by rapidly varying radar return
Less likely to work these days without advanced jamming and decoys.
lukos:apologetic: RIP Captain Carrascosa
Second crash at the same base.
lukosIt didn’t, as pointed out, and it is still required for some missions. Granted, missions for which low-level flying is a must (CAS, battlefield interdiction to a lesser extent) are those that require specialized aircraft to be carried out properly, so Typhoon won’t be doing them, or at least not much.
low level attack profiles are also well suited to cruise missile and antiship strikes.
Anti-ship strikes yes, because you’re over clear blue sea and you know roughly where the ships are and hence where the threats are. Going through defended airspace however, the enemy likely knows where all the approach valleys are and will lace them with SR SAMs and AAA. Come up against an SR SAM or AAA in a valley and it’s pretty much over, nothing you can do.
Low level attacks are not well suited to cruise missile strikes on land targets because you’re essentially halving the range of the weapon and the idea is to let the stand-off weapon negotiate the dangerous territory rather than flying through it yourself.
lukosIs that what you meant? I was puzzled by the reference to “You’ve been doing it since Bekaa Valley, probably before.” I wondered – why me? What was I personally supposed to be doing since Bekaa Valley?
But I suppose your syntax would make sense if you were assuming that I was an Israeli, or even former member of the IAF.
Yes, you must forgive me for making such a bold assumption. So, are you Israeli, so we can finally dispense with these bold assumptions?
lukosEver heard of interactions between CFTs and extrados lift?
Agree FBW. AND the lesson is 20 years old…, on a very flat country etc etc.
Sorry dude but you’re gonna have to speak English if we’re to get anywhere here. CFTs are more drag-efficient than drop tanks, that is all. An aircraft will likely carry CFTs instead of drop tanks, not as well as drop tanks. Are you saying they increase drag relative to using drop tanks instead?
lukosThat must be why they still carry as much fuel as possible. Even back in 1999, jets hit the tanker over the adriatic sea after take-off from Italy while carrying fuel tanks, all that for the short hop to Serbia.
Don’t understand…
It says 18,38 mg/Ns 18,38 mg/Ns 18,41 mg/Ns depending on variant.
I was going to rant about the usefulness of wiki because so called real sources are often cited but not in this case so I didn’t mention it. 😀 But thankfully Mercurius did step in.
Well wiki.de seems to say 25mg/Ns, not that I would believe that horse**** anyway.
Your guess is as good as anyones. Tornado is optimised for low level cruise. Is Tyhpoon optimised for high alt. cruise or rather combat? We don’t know which one works best for maximum range at optimal alt.
Sue we do, it’s the Typhoon.
Tyhpoon was not designed to replace Tornado. F-18 is more modern than A-7 but they obviously must have been pretty stupid as A-7 has longer legs.
It wasn’t. F-35B will do that role.
Its a hard number on the test bench. Yeah nothing is linear throughout the flight envelope like Typhoons 60 something degree swept wings and low bypass turbofans are worse at subsonic cruise than M1.6 @ 40k feet.
I think you’ve gone off on a tangent. What does this have to do with range? Or anything?
lukosI have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. I have been to the Bekaa Valley in the days of my youth, when the PLO used it as a training area, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the EF200, RB.199, or the ability of the Typhoon (or any other modern fighter) to penetrate today’s air-defence systems.
Errr… you brought up Syrian SAM coverage, I just pointed out that Israel have been negotiating such networks since the early 1980s, when the SAMs were nearer to actually being current.
You penetrate ADSs with shed-loads of jamming, SEAD/DEAD and route planning, not by flying at low level with carrying 15,000lb of ordnance. Low-level flying is an old tactic that proved a failure in Desert Storm.
lukosThank you you just enlightened my day! It has everything to do with it. Improved aerodynamics? You are sure? Think before answering. Here is a hint : extrados.
What? Carrying the fuel in CFTs means less drag than carrying drop tanks. You can’t drop CFTs but in peace time and in many combat situations drop tanks are not actually dropped anyway, therein lies the benefit of CFTs.
lukosApperantly you are looking at it with your wrong side; F-14A top speed 2.34, inlet ramps switches to “mach only” positioning at M2.2, Airframe limit M2.4 (where warning lights switch on) It only tops out at M2.0 with various store configurations. I don’t think thats a suprise.
I know it’s wrong. The point I was making is that you can’t trust the manuals 100% The manual for the F-14A says M2.0 with 2 AIM-9 or Clean but we know that’s wrong. We also know that a Tornado does more than M1.12 at sea level.
lukosAnalyst Sean O’Conner once described Syria (prior to its present problems) as having one of the most robust SAM networks in the Middle east. Going from memory, they have the SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-6, SA-8, SA-11, & SA-22.
The prospect of flying into Syrian SAM coverage in an Israeli military aircraft some years ago was an event that I happy to see not materialise!
Relevant part highlighted in bold. Meanwhile S. Africa has the most robust SAM network in Africa. You’ve been doing it since Bekaa Valley, probably before.
The level of security applied to individual military aerospace programmes varies from one to another, and RB.199 information was always in short supply. But as I said before, Gunston’s published sfc figures are my idea of “substantial support”. He would have been aware of the sfc figures of the other engines you cited, so would have considered these when looking at the RB.199 data.
Well eagle has just linked German wikipedia, which proves him wrong, not that I buy it anyway. The point is that RB199 SFC is only part of why the Typhoon has relatively better range. Better internal fuel fraction and lighter weight (by 20+%) are the main protagonists. Fuel efficiency also depends on intake design of course, as does real SFC in reality.
lukosYou assume. We have no hard data for Typhoons range with 1 tank and 2 Storm Shadow. Even if such data exists at the moment, it would be classified. And Tyhphoon/Tornado flying the same missions doesn’t mean they have the same range. Not even when carrying 2 tanks each. You don’t know how many times they were refueled in the air. Usually, NATO fighter fill up their tanks before entering hostile airspace, and a tanker is waiting when they leave hostile airspace. That alone doesn’t mean they would have needed those refuellings, its for safety and what not. So there is no way to deduct range from such missions.
Well that’s the other point. Many of them flew from the UK anyway, well beyond any kind of range with 1, 2, 3 or whatever drop tanks. What we can deduct is that the range issue is an irrelevance because of said refuelling.
Inaccurate, preposterous? Try the German wiki site http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Union_RB199
That actually seems to say 25 not 18 mg/Ns??? But then there is no source for the figure.
Unless you have real data about EJ200 like the manual (which is available for Tornado), there is no way to be sure about actual fuel consumption. While we know engine pressure ratio, we don’t know inlet/outlet pressure ratio f.e.
My guess: While RB199 has higher BPR and lower SFC, EJ200 has higher pressure ratio. RB199 is designed for low altitude, high subsonic cruise. EJ200 is a fighter engine ie it is most likely/certainly better than RB199 at high altitude and supersonic speeds. Also, there are Tornados sweep wings, which probably result in pretty good lift drag ratios. So there is a break even point in the altitude/speed diagram where Typhoon outranges Tornado but we don’t know where. Maybe, Tornado outranges Typhoon at 15k feet, and vice-versa at 40k feet.
Your guess? Sounds legit. Meanwhile Tornado engines were optimised for low level flight, whereas Typhoon engines were optimised for cruise at altitude. Do you get better range flying low or high?….. answers on a postcard please.
As I said, that is guesswork, but simply stating EF outranges Tornado is probably not true.
Except it probably is looking at weights and stated ranges. Who knows, maybe they even thought of this when designing a more modern aircraft.:sleeping:
Why would the wiki quotes on ferry range be more accurate than SFC numbers? :highly_amused:
Anyway, I would not trust those figures because unlike SFC, those are not “hard” numbers but depend on circumstances. Or do you think F-35s range is really 1200nm which just happens to be combat radius x2?
But hey, both Tornado and Typhoon crossed the Atlantic which proves once and for all they have the same ferry range. :very_drunk:
Errrr….. you do understand that SFC alone doesn’t determine range? One aircraft is a lot, lot lighter than the other, so even taking the hypothetical case of the RB199s having better SFC (for argument’s sake), it still wouldn’t out-range the Typhoon.:stupid:
SFC isn’t a hard number either. It’s pertinent to a small design band within the flight envelope. Do you seriously think that fuel consumption increases in direct proportion to thrust in a perfectly linear manner throughout?:stupid:
lukosThose that know the differences. The AESA radar that is due for it’s maiden flight isn’t known as CAESAR (demonstrator), but Captor-E (operational product). Why is that so difficult for you to grasp… CAESAR ‘Dem-on-strat-or’ is based on the Captor ECR-90 and the AMSAR, which is based on the Blue Vixen, which is based on the Ferranti Blue Fox. So lets be pedantic and just call it the Blue Fox regardless of it’s type, mechanical or active electric, and regardless of them being very different radars.
You can know it as whatever you like. If something is developed from another thing with an acronym that stands for the same name, then I’ll call it that regardless of your pedantry. Either CAESAR is an acronym for Captor AESA Radar or it isn’t, and it is, discussion closed.
This so-called “Rafale-numbtie” Halloweene (a Rafale fan, yes. A numbty, no) came into the thread bringing up the valid point and questioning the carriage of cruise missiles on the inboard wing pylons of Typhoon by saying: I quote; “Point is that configuration is finally impraticable… due to pitch moment when loading is released that cannot be countered without TVC, sry i stand my point on that.”
It’s untrue and an irrelevance as already pointed out. I’ve drawn on modern air campaigns, maps and strike radius with just one drop tank and 2 SSs to prove that.
No mention of drop tanks there.
So what was the point in bringing it up?
Madrat made no mention of drop tanks, neither did Sintra and neither did I. However…
…There was one person to mention the now infamous drop tank babble first… You. I quote: “Going into defended airspace with three tanks and two 2800lb missiles isn’t something you’d get away with, anymore than refuelling in such airspace, so the issue is moot.”
Without the drop tank issue your point is totally moot.
Since then, I’ve not seen one Rafale-Enthusiast (or as you put it, “Rafale-Numbties”) claim that three drop tanks (or any number of drop tanks in general) is the “be all and end all” requirement. Or maybe I’ve missed it, in which case you could be jolly kind enough to quote anyone saying so.
You’re not looking hard enough.
Edit: If anyone’s to blame for initially bringing up drop tanks, or/and prompting a reply from a Rafale-Chap… It’s you.
BS. We all know the points are interrelated. Without the drop tank issue, it doesn’t matter jack what pylon the SSs go on. Why were CFTs brought up then?
Thanks EE Lightning, i absolutely admit to be a Rafale “fan” or enthusiast” or even “numbty”, idc.
The explanation i was given by aerodynamicists is the one i gave, but i may have precised that due to landing gear geometry the missiles had to be put too much forward on shoulder point. CFTs should solve the issue.
I hope some remember i was the first here to announce some good news about Typhoon 😉
Best nite to all!
There is no issue except the imaginary one created by Rafale folk. CFTs are mainly for improved aerodynamics on certain mission/flight types. Nothing to do with SS carriage.
lukosThey regularly carry two for QRA/CAP, three for long haul flights but of course three, or even one can obviously be used for QRA/CAP. One hardly sees the point of you dragging this argument along.
I don’t think you can blame me for that.
I know what it means and I know that the final product is based off CAESAR. But they’re still two different radars at the end of the day. CAESAR first flight in 2007, Captor-E’s first flight the latter part of 2014. Take note of ‘first flight’ and 2007 & 2014.
Semantics. If a radar is a development based on CAESAR, is it still CAESAR or something else? Who cares?
Again, Captor-E. So, what relevance does the rest of your quote have? Keep your Typhoon vs Rafale gibberish for IDF.
You sound incredibly like BMD…
What on Earth are you babbling about now? This all started when some Rafale-numpties broke into the thread and started raving on about drop tanks as if they were the be-all and end-all of everything. Give the whole drop tank thing a rest.
lukosThis accumulation of LOL in your message clearly show your mental age…
Are you aware of spectra 5T? LOL
Captor E is bigger, yes. More powerful? Possible. More capable? How do you know? LOL
Later GaN technology. RBE2-AA (GaAs) can’t do jamming, whereas CAESAR has advanced RF cyberwarfare capabilities. It’s simply a more advanced system, hence why it’s taken longer to develop.
Furthermore the DASS upgrade is focused on much-needed low-band detection and jamming and increased jamming power, driven by the Typhoon’s larger electrical system. Then there’s the planned expandable DRFM smart decoys on top of the 2 TRDs already carried.
http://www.armada.ch/aircraft-self-protection-sophistication/
lukosStories – LOL…. What is more funny is you admit you prefer stories to technical data.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228971[/ATTACH]
I think it shows clearly Tornado’s envelope is limited to M1.1/M1.12 area.
What is more promising is;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228972[/ATTACH]
SEP graph shows Tornado has 0 ft/sec SEP (means no accelerating or decelerating) at M1.12 At around M1.16 its losing energy by 100 feet/second.kg, and by M1.2 by 200 fps/kg.
Pilots can easily refer to colder air dash speeds which are higher, or can refer to 3-4k feet as the deck. Both of which I dont care, I am not desperate enough to let pilots pimp up one’s aircraft.
Go look at the NATOPS manual for an F-14A. Apparently it tops out at Mach 2.
Sign In
