No, he had an A2A ARM in mind,
and i believe i’e read the old Viggen had the targeting capability based on passive reception of radar signals in the 80’s

Very limited use. It would essentially be the same as HOJ, which is only rated as a less reliable secondary function even today. ARMs would definitely struggle with a manoeuvring target, especially once it points its radar away. They’ve also traditionally carried larger warheads than AAMs due to reduced accuracy, which either means a shorter range AAM or a very large AAM.

True if you are looking exactly numerically, but for operational means its negligable. For most airfoils, drag increases exponantially at above certain AOA. for a level flight at M1.5+, there is certainly so miniature drag increase that top speed wont change noticably. Compare an F-16 top speed at 20000lbs and at 36000 lbs; weight is almost doubled, but top speed stays the same, if drag is unchanged. However at slower speeds (due to increased drag) or at higher altitudes, maintaining level flight requires greated AOA -and drag- increase so top speed goes down with increased airspeed.

You are comparing 1300 kg increase on a 25000+ kg aircraft. It won’t change the top speed or maintained airspeeds by a measurable amount.

Sure it will. The relationships between weight, lift, Cl and Cd (Cd0 + kCl^2) are very well understood. The F-16 has a pitot intake so its intake efficiency falls off a cliff at high Mach, hence why weight doesn’t seem to affect speed much. It’s effectively like hitting the rev limit in a car. While Cl does fall due to V increasing, the drag effect of simply having that mass there due to a bigger airframe is noticeable.

Efficiency is irrelevant. Su-27 has efficient enough inlet to provide good enough SFC at supersonic speeds. Its surely less efficient than supercruising, but has more than enough fuel to compensate.

Go figure. A Typhoon’s dry SFC is 0.74lb/lbfhr. An Su-27 wet is 1.92lb/lbf hour. You can’t compensate for that.

how it will know when to drop the tanks. and if Flanker refuse to fight in tail chase engagement EF range without ET will be greatly reduced. Flanker can still turn around for fight. there is no evidence of RCS with 6 AAMs that will make difference against all kind of radars.

Easy, it doesn’t drop the tanks until the Flanker turns.

using missile with greater than 60 degree turn greatly reduces its speed/energy/range. the best way to enter fight is to use long range radars, high altitude , speed and best nose pointing position of fighter for missile shot. You cannot outrange 40 Km export R-73 let alone Ruaf R-73 launched from Flanker at higher speeds.
EF with ET is not some stealth fighter. and amount of intelligence in Baltic. they can be tracked right where they start there engines on the ground.

What? The Typhoon can achieve high speeds quicker than a Flanker and its RCS is about a hundredth of an Su-27’s running clean, so even with drop tanks it’s still better and they can of course be dropped at any time:

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

I think you missed both my points. A Su-27 will easily go and play around M1.4/1.6 with 10 missiles, and maintain such speeds for quite some time; Typhoon simply cant; even if could reach M1.6+ with 10 missiles, it has to drop EFTs to go that fast, but needs EFT to match endurance of Su-27.

Even when clean, Su-27 can maintain any high speed chase much longer than Typhoon.

Says who? A Typhoon can supercruise at Mach 1.21 even with drop tanks and it would only need one drop tank to match the Su-27’s fuel fraction and wouldn’t be far off range-wise even running on internal fuel simply due to having a better engine and not requiring the burner as much:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL-31
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurojet_EJ200

Furthermore, as a Typhoon uses fuel, its overall weight diminishes far quicker further improving endurance.

Throuoghly biased comment as Meteor is not in service, because I was simply talking about aircraft chasing each other, in the means of escorting them. What we see is a Typhoon equipped with 2xAIM-120Cs and 2xAIM-132s + 3 EFTs, compared to a Su-27 equipped with 2xR-27REs 2xR-27Ts and 2xR-73s. If you go in that way, there is a consideration of trying to outrun longer legged R-27 variants, compared to AIM-120s.

Standard load for a Typhoon is 4 AIM-120Cs and 2 ASRAAM. How well did R-27Rs do in the Ethiopian-Eritrean war? The Typhoon’s drop tanks are probably more likely to get a kill after release.

Supercruising is not exactly cruising. F-22 can only supercruise for around 600 km @M1.5 IIRC, makes ~20 minutes. Equipped with external AAMs, and less fuel fuel fraction when armed with 6 missiles, I dont think Typhoon will do any better than F-22.

You’ll have to show me a source for your figures and your ability to calculate also needs work. 20 minutes would require Mach 1.8 to make 600km. This also seems to suggest a near 800km combat radius with 185km (100nm) in supersonic each way.

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

So that’s 1600km total, with 370km supersonic and some fighting inbetween.

Supercruising is exactly cruising! That’s the whole point! Running dry instead of on afterburner reduces SFC to about 40% of wet SFC. It’s 2.5 times as good for range.

I am sure the Gripen would be ‘ok’ to him, but imagine if they took away its radar, BVR missiles, multi-role capabilities, and all that other useless weight and added a few more machine guns… now THAT would be a proper fighter. :very_drunk:

Like this? (Note: I’ve removed the FCS and had to re-design the wings a bit because the FCS counts as unreliable electronic complexity.)

Sprey is a nit wit, always has been.

He had some good ideas back in the day but was a zealot and advocated an approach that if followed would have been a disaster. The F-16 became the incredible success it did not because of him, but in spite of him. He wanted a stripped down WVR only, dogfighter with no meaningful multi-role capabilities. (lacking a modern radar even) If the F-16 had been built as he wished it would have gone out of production 30 years ago.

He was a huge critic of the F-15. He has been a huge critic of the F-22. Philosophically he would be opposed to essentially every fighter in production today. Eurofighter… twin engined, complex, expensive, optimized for BVR combat. Rafale… twin engined, multirole, complex, expensive, emphasis on BVR combat. Su-27/30/35… heavy weight, twin engined, multirole, complex, expensive. etc etc.

Basically the only aircraft he’d approve of is the Gripen. Funny….. I know someone exactly like that.

Like the people from LM. The same behavior by promoting the own case and ignoring contradicting facts. By such behavior both have a credibility gap for all to see.

Furthermore he advocated that the F-16 shouldn’t be fitted with a radar when it was in development, not only making him irrelevant but an idiot to boot.

I don’t understand what they don’t design a commune launcher like a stealthy pod for the Brimstone. All said that it will stay a commercial success for long and adapted to platform with RCS reduction shape and increased Dyn perf req. for the carrier.

Something where the studies for the StormShadow family of missile could be reused to lower the cost.

– A rotary launcher (that does not have to be cylindrical)
– with a gravity released system at the back
– a forward single launch tube for ex. with rotating eyelid (see the T50 canon)
– Conformal mounted low cost sensor as an option to help widening the nbr of platform

Eventually, it could even state the standard in dimensions or could be reusable for other missile.

I think the solution will be a ejector version of Brimstone because it’s also needed for the F-35B to allow for internal carriage. It also seems like the simplest solution.

just to add the picture to the exciting news posted above:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229384[/ATTACH]

So Brimstone II by 2018 with the probability of SPEAR 3 to follow?

Can we therefore work out a notional number of weapons to be carried in both cases based on what we know of RAF hardpoint usage?

Currently 18 Brimstone using each of the 3 inner wing pylons but a common launcher is being explored for Brimstone II and SPEAR 3, so we may see an ejector launched Brimstone carried in quad racks, which would also suit F-35B internal carriage.

http://www.adsadvance.co.uk/bae-systems-awarded-brimstone-2-onto-typhoon-study-contract.html

The missiles are 50kg each and the triple rail launcher is 90kg, so all-up weight for a triple mount is 240kg (530lb), making it roughly equivalent in weight to a single Paveway IV.

I was also thinking that a 2,000lb JDAM/LJDAM(-ER) would go nicely on the inner wing pylon being roughly similar in length to an EPW II and narrower.