I seem to recall that in 2001 the IDF attacked and destroyed a major node of the Syrian ADS, effectively leaving Damascus unprotected for more than a week.
Yeah, now look at a map. Note the distance between Israel and Syria.
For a more recent example of penetrating defended airspace, how about 6 September, 2007?
Another completely irrelevant reference to a very short range strike on Syria, which does nothing except to prove that Israel thinks it has a right to conduct arbitrary pre-emptive strikes whenever/wherever it sees fit, whilst practising double standards by not opening their own nuclear sites to IAEA inspection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard
To put things into perspective, Typhoon could have taken off with no tanks and 2 SSs and fired them immediately at that target and then landed. Thanks for proving my point.
Further evidence of lack of necessity for further range?
Iraq Wars – TLAMs fired from Persian Gulf all the way into Baghdad. This required less than half a TLAM-D’s full range. A Typhoon with SS has a greater strike radius than its full range.
Operation Ellamy (Libya) – A Typhoon flies with 2 1000L drop tanks and 4 EPW II non-stand-off weapons and an LDP and AAMs. 4 EPW IIs and an LDP plus an extra drop tank have a weight greater than 2 SSs and a greater drag index. Yet the fuel was sufficient for the Typhoon to fly all the way to the target area (no stand-off) and succeed.
Similarly, the Tornado did the same with 12 Brimstone AGMs and 2 drop tanks and took out over 200 Libyan tanks:
Show me a valid combat example where 3 drop tanks plus SS stand-off range is actually required.
Ah, the endless desire for ‘links’ – if data is not available in unclassified and open form on the internet, it is apparently not real?
If it’s not available from RR or MTU then I’m entitled to believe it’s BS, especially given the history of EJ200 development.
I would not rate Wiki as the most reliable of sources
Did I rate it as a reliable source? Eagle stated that it was on wiki. I stated that I couldn’t find it there and then I tried looking for manufacturer specs. Very reasonable, yes?
However, far from being ‘preposterous’, the figures bypass ratios and SFCs Eagle has cited match those given in the detailed description of both powerplants in Jane’s Aero Engines.
I can find the EJ200 figures at Rolls-Royce and MTU but the RB199 figures aren’t stated anywhere credible (Jane’s has been wrong in the past) and all sources indicated that the aim going from RB199 to EJ200 was to improve dry SFC and massively improve wet SFC. Then you’ve got the fact SFCs are valid about a given speed range. At 600mph with 2 tanks and 2 SSs, the RB199s with 9,000lbf dry are likely to be having an asthma attack, whereas the EJ200s with 1 tank and 2 SSs are probably capable of supercruise, or pootling along subsonic. Furthermore the GR4’s empty weight is 30% more than a Typhoon, so it need far more thrust anyway.
[QUOTE=xena;2143553]@halloweene:
Taurus doesn’t work with hard points in front of the landing gear. I attached an image I made on the fly. Taurus and EF are in scale and you can see how big this beast is. I pushed the Taurus to front so that the landing gear can be used. It is impossible to use it so.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228959[/ATTACH]
That is literally how far forward munitions are mounted on those inner pylons and don’t forget that Storm Shadow is a lot narrower:
I am not that opinion, Sir. :p
Tornado has an equivalent range like Typhoon. But Typhoon has this range in Hi-Hi-Hi and Tornado in Lo-Lo-Lo mode. In an wide land with heavy anti-aircraft, one can perform his job only in low level and use all the obstacles an the way to hide himself. Tornado is designed to do such a job very easy in a smooth ride. I doubt that Typhoon, or any other temporary fighter, will ride so low over a wide range so smooth like a Tornado. Flying so low for a long time means AFAIK a heavy bumpy ride that will exhaust the pilot and the systems. Imagine a wide country like Libya, Algeria, Sudan, Russia, Ukraina, China, India and so on would have a very effective anti-aircraft umbrella and you have to penetrate very deep into that country with no opportunity to refuel once inside the country… and you are forced to stay low or you risk to be shoot at…
Seriously, give up. The Tornado’s range is nothing like a Typhoon range. All sources I can find state the internal fuel load as being the roughly the same (circa 5,000kg) and it weighs 7,000lbs more than a Typhoon and has older, less fuel efficient engines.
I doubt the Typhoon is as good at low altitude but it still manages Mach 1.25. Don’t see how that factors into anything though.
As far as I can see the Typhoon ferries as far on 3 smaller drop tanks as a Tornado on 4 larger drop tanks.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?56511-Drop-Tanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GR4
So I rest my case. The Tornado carries two drop tanks with Storm Shadows because it needs to.
Also your understanding of survivability is limited. They found the exact opposite during Desert Storm.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf
There’s a misconception that long-range SAMs are more lethal, they aren’t. They’re typically less manoeuvrable than short-range SAMs and the time to intercept is lengthy, giving fighters chance to duck and cover. If a short-range SAM gets you at low altitude, you’re done.
The British Tornado had a visible and consistent role in the strategic air
campaign, being one of the few non-U.S. coalition aircraft assigned
missions in the final, command-approved, version of the Master Attack
Plan. A primary planned mission for the Tornado was attacking runways
with the JP233 munition at very low altitude. However, the combination of
four British Tornado losses in the first week of the air campaign and the
command decision to go to medium-altitude operations brought an end to
these planned missions.
In the remaining 5 weeks of the air campaign, the primary Tornado
mission was air interdiction at medium altitude against a variety of target
types. Many of the new targets were point targets, like hardened aircraft
shelters and bridges believed to necessitate LGBs. Because the Tornado
had no laser self-designation capability, buddy lasing tactics with the
British Buccaneer aircraft were attempted. A British Ministry of Defense
report suggests that the buddy lasing experience demonstrated the need
for laser self-designation capability in the Tornado.3
The whole purpose of stand-off missiles is to stand-off and avoid the contested airspace. What’s so difficult to understand?
original mig 35
inforgram mig 35sf
🙂 4 internal weapon bays
Good luck doing a cobra with the intake there.
Sign In
