Eurofighter Typhoon question [Archive]

Cyclic Hotline

14th Oct 2000, 20:18

Friday October 13, 7:24 PM

MoD wants U.S. combat jet--source

By Bradley Perrett, European aerospace & defence correspondent

LONDON (Reuters) - The Ministry of Defence will recommend the government adopts the planned U.S. Joint Strike Fighter to equip the country's future aircraft carriers, a source familiar with the department's thinking said.

Rejecting bids from Boeing, Dassault Aviation , BAE Systems and the Eurofighter consortium offering other aircraft, the ministry wants the government to pay about one billion pounds to maintain Britain's role in the huge U.S. Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, the source said.

The government is expected to decide whether to do so in the next few months.

"None of the other aircraft matches JSF's all-round performance and suitability," the source told Reuters.

Britain has been the United States' major partner in the development project for JSF and must decide in less than a year whether to continue its contributions to the programme's costs.

Theoretically, Britain has the option of buying JSFs off the shelf, without continuing its contributions to the development programme. But the source said the ministry sees persuasive reasons for sticking by the United States.

A British order for 150 JSFs has long been pencilled into the programme, but the ministry has been considering alternatives from Boeing, Dassault and other firms since the 1998 defence review.

Vertical-landing versions of the JSF could replace Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Harrier jump-jets, but another source said Britain had the option of switching to a different version designed to be launched from aircraft-carrier catapults.

"That's an option, although there are complications," that source said.

The project is also very closely matched to British requirements -- because Britain has been involved since its inception and joined the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps in writing the specification.

Aerospace engineers say most aspects of the plane's performance will far exceed that of comparable fighters.

Most notably, it is a stealthy plane, shaped so that it does not reflect radio waves back at enemy radars.

U.S. aerospace firms Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing Co are competing for a prime contract to develop and build about 3,000 JSFs plus perhaps another 3,000 for export.

Britain needs JSFs or other planes for two large aircraft carriers it intends to bring into service from 2012.

The irony is that Britain needs to make a final decision on JSF before the Pentagon does, and that poses a risk, since the JSF is not scheduled to enter U.S. service until 2010. If it is selected but delayed by more than two years, then the carrier programme would be affected.

A Ministry of Defence official told a conference this week the possibility of the United States delaying JSF was an issue.

"From 2012 we expect (Harrier) numbers to become steadily unavailable," Air Commodore Peter Giles told the conference. "There is not going to be a hard cut-off (but) that doesn't mean that we are relaxed about it."

Giles would not say which aircraft had been chosen, adding the ministry would make a recommendation "in due course".

VALUABLE INFLUENCE

Conversely the second source said influence over the programme was the main reason Britain would want to keep up contributions to JSF development, rather than buy planes like any export customer.

"We get wonderful value for our money," that source said.

If Britain stayed in, the programme would be more likely to produce a plane that suited its armed forces, the source added.

The presence of an international partner might help persuade the U.S. Congress to keep the project on track and, perhaps most importantly, it would ensure that Britain would be among the first in the queue.

Also, no one has any idea how much regular export customers will have to fork out for their JSFs, whereas programme partners expect to pay only around $30 million to $35 million a plane.

Since other fighters cost $50 million or more, the winning contractor could easily expect to put a higher price on export JSFs.

The Eurofighter consortium combines European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co, BAE and Italy's Finmeccanica .

John Farley

14th Oct 2000, 21:15

Cycles

One has to admire how a journo can sit in the audience at a one day open syposium at the Royal Aeronautical Society (where some well chosen people gave unclassified presentations about the JSF programme) and then select bits they have said and sell it to Reuters as breaking news.

Why did he not start by saying he went to the afore mentioned event and everything that was expected was said and nothing unexpeceted happened.

I guess Ritchie Profit was right when he said “John Farley? - he will never grow up.”

If growing up means not telling the truth then I hope to die in nappies (good chance come to think about it)

JF

PS How was the 3 Sqn bash Ritchie?

[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 14 October 2000).]

S Potter Esq

17th Oct 2000, 03:19

F22 has stealth, supercruise, PA radar and TVC. Typooh has none of these. It may have low frontal RCS in 'clean' configuration, but when armed?

As for 'it has 90% of F22's capability at 50% of the cost', well, F16 Block 60 has 110% of EF's capability at a much lower cost.

Also, IIRC, F22's will join the Tyndall training wing from late 2002 with IOC late 2005/early 2006, so not too far behind Typooh and certainly long before any kind of actually working, effective model.

Roc is right, EF is simply a huge job-creation programme and the Germans would have done us all a favour if they'd pulled the plug on the bloody thing back in 1992.

Quite simply, the technology in the F22 is decades ahead of Eurofighter (but then so is the technology of the Albanian State Washing Machine Co.)

------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"

Max Burner

17th Oct 2000, 13:05

You can only optimise stealth against certain radar bands, not all. Even the mighty US jets can have problems.

As to EFA, the technology is at least 20 years old, 10 years to late and will come in to service if we are lucky in 5 years time. Anyone care to take a bet on EF coming in to service with most of it's kit working to spec, even the 1990 spec !!!

I hope it does ...... but history and the present are not kind to the British military industrial complex.

Jackonicko

17th Oct 2000, 14:58

S.Potter

"F16 Block 60 has 110% of EF's capability at a much lower cost."

I'm afraid you're talking knob.

And about F-22 timings, too. And remember whose HUD, HV avionics, etc are in F-22, and remember which aircraft has EFRCs, ETAPs, DVI (!) etc.

Supercruise? So what. Its only a faster supercruise than EF, and its of dubious relevance anyway.
Thrust vectoring? Useful for supersonic agility to enable you to rapidly gimbal your opponent, and v.useful for STOL but worth the money? (Don't tell me, the F-22s are going to be squandered in close-in visual 'knife fights' with Su-27s). In any case, EF are working on TVC anyway.
PA radar? Hmmmm. If it works.

The F-22 is even more of an inflexible, over-expensive Cold War aeroplane than EF, and lacks many of the Typhoon's attributes - including affordability and deployability.

There's plenty wrong with EF, I'll admit, but all this uncritical adulation of anything American is barely worth a response.

Roc

17th Oct 2000, 19:57

Jackonicko,

Up until now I have agreed with you 100% of the time, However, the argument you use about the US will not squander the F-22 in a close in knife fight is lacking any merit..Your going to tell a fighter pilot in arguably the best fighter in the world not to fight!!! please...would you have turned tail if your missiles didnt score at 20 miles? I could hear the brief now...Gentleman dont get closer than 50 miles from the SU-27's turn around and land!!
If you read my original question correctly I do not mean to insult the Brits, I love you guys, and am proud to fly alongside of you.happy were on the same team..I just question why its taking so long to get this plane on-line, and with the un-anticipated breakthrough of stealth technology, I find it amazing that any new aircraft, including rafael,and F-18E/F would be fielded without using this great breakthrough. What Jet would you, given the choice, like to go into battle strapped under your butt? I know my answer!!

NoseGunner

17th Oct 2000, 20:18

Some people are definitely talking bollox (block anything F16 110% better my a**e). It seems the journo is more informed and realistic than anyone else. Typhoon is/will be in an acceptable timetable, a good piece of kit. It will match any foreseeable threat. F22 will be better but we can't afford it.
Stealth is very specialised and very expensive. There is only 1 country in the world for whom that makes sense. When it comes in to service Typhoon will have plenty of problems, as does every modern fighter - the mighty F15 had big problems but had billions thrown at it. We can't afford to do that and that is always the bottom line - money. Be realistic. It's what the brits are good at!

Remember there are 2 types of aircraft - fighters and targets

ps No I don't work for BAE

Ham Phisted

17th Oct 2000, 20:20

Roc,

What would you rather have: 2/3 EFs or one F22? And TVC for a BVR ac? Really crucial to its capabilities? Don't think so. I'm sure that they will train for close-in air combat but when it comes to seeing off the bad guys for real, don't you think they'll rely on sensor fusion and long-legged missiles to fire and eff off from a v. long way?

Red Snow

17th Oct 2000, 21:15

I can back Jacko up on the 90%. A whole series of tests was run using generic cockpits (and I'm not talking Microsoft FS here) configured to represent a variety of fighters, and it showed that EF comes out at 90% of F-22 capability, with nothing else coming close. That's pretty bløødy impressive given the relative cost of the two, and more than enough when you consider the opposition. Given sensible ROE the F-22 is the only fighter that can best the EF, and it is not completely one-sided, either. I don't think we will ever be fighting F-22s in the near future.

Don't knock it cos its Euro - it may just turn out to be a bløødy good aircraft.

And I don't work for BAE GmbH either

smooth approach

17th Oct 2000, 22:43

Seems to me that Typhoon is pretty damn good as long as it doesn't take on an F22 flown by a half-decent pilot. Best we don't pick a fight with Uncle Sam.

On the other hand, how many half-decent pilots ...........?

Jackonicko

18th Oct 2000, 03:35

In peacetime no-one wants to do anything but close-in manoeuvring. But in the fog of war, however likely you are to 'wax' the other guy, a close-in fight is always unpredictable, and there's always the danger that his unseen wingman will fall on you unnnoticed and 'Ker-pow'.

If you're out of BVR missiles it's time to go home and re-load.

And yes, if I failed I would eff off very fast and then come in again for a second BVR attempt. And so would you. You would, you would, you would, you would!

Stealth didn't help the F-117 bloke in Kosovo very well, did it?

And while one versus one, the F-22 might win, imagine multi-aircraft formations of both, climbing and accelerating to their optimum missile firing points. EF has DVI to let the formation leader sort the targets for his entire formation (if he disagrees with the aircraft's solution!) and has a Ramjet-boosted BVR missile, while the F-22 formation leader is using alphanumeric buttons on his UFC, and only has AMRAAM. Who wins then?

[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 17 October 2000).]

Roc

18th Oct 2000, 05:41

Jackonicko and All

Stealth may not have helped that chap on that one particular sortie in Kosavo, But it sure as hell helped THOUSANDS of others on thousands of other sorties in places like Panama and Bahgdad, Have you forgotten those pictures of downtown Bahgdad, with tracers arcing everywhere, Not ONE BULLET HOLE in any F-117!!!So please dont underestimate the importance of stealth, you guys lose alot of credibility when you do..Now, it seems from this debate that the Euro-fighter is alot more capable than I had originally thought. If these comparisons are correct than on a cost per capability basis it sounds like the Typhoon will be a real winner, and a welcome addition to the arsenal of democracy..I just had some reservations concerning the lack of Stealth technologies. Thanks to all for the education!

Ham Phisted

18th Oct 2000, 16:17

Roc,

It's good to see reasoned debate winning the day on Pprune for a change without having having to resort to verbal fisticuffs. One more point on this before the thread dies: the USAF has realised that it's EW capability has fallen below acceptable levels and US industry shows no sign of scaling back its design and production of traditional jammers and RWRs. If stealth was the only way forward, the US would not be investing in these technologies and programs such as the EA6B improvement capability program.

S Potter Esq

19th Oct 2000, 23:37

UAE thought F16/60 was a better deal than EF, even with all the cocking around about releasing software codes. Greece *might* sign up for EF, with full industrial participation (although apparently Rafale is still in with a shout), but was happy to pay hard cash for a similar number of F16/50+ even when they were refused the top-of-the line engines. Bottom line is, our latest fighter is losing export sales to a derivative of a 1970's US design. Once JSF comes into the equasion EF is really going to struggle to sell.

Stealth isn't everything but it certainly is *something*, supercruise offers distinct tactical advantages and I think you'll find the US has been operating various types of PA radars successfully for some time now, so they should be able to get the F22 radar to work.

As for the various tests 'proving' EF is 90% as good as the F22 - at what? And who did the tests? The F22 had to prove it was better than the F23 to get the go-ahead, what did EF have to do?

I'm not saying EF is totally useless - it's certainly better than anything we've got now - but it's not clearly better than aircraft that are in service NOW, so what will the situation be in 20 years time?

Meteor - we'll see, but I won't be holding my breath. In the meantime, the US will have AMRAAM+ by about 2005 and possibly a gel-fueled version with ramjet range by 2010 or so. Doubtless Vympnel won't be too idle, either.

------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"

grodge

20th Oct 2000, 01:30

I'd like to chime in on this important thread.

A few have mentioned cost, but frankly trying to sort out reliable costs (fly away? non-recurring? unit?) can be a nightmare. What the F-22 and the EF have in common, sadly, is that they are BOTH breaking their owners' banks. F-22 because it's basically the last of the gold plated 'performance rules' aircraft, built to a hugely ambitious spec and concept that is straining the abilities of Lockheed and Boeing to build it at all. Try the GAO website at www.gao.gov (http://www.gao.gov) to view recent cost reports. The US are claiming that they are going to reduce the costs by over $64m PER AIRCRAFT, which at more than an entire F-16 shows how much the damn thing costs.

EF costs have been inflated by international collaboration and I believe over emphasis on performance at the expense of cost. The long time taken to get it to where it is today has undoubtedly left it further behind the 'stealth' curve than anyone in the Uk would like. The other problem is that in the real world of UK defence budgets, spending this amount on an aircraft that is a superb AD aircraft but a very average strike platform just does not make enough sense.

The key message I picked up from the JSF symposium was that it is designed for 'whole life' affordability, and that means the leanest possible deployment crews, using commercial ideas for support and working in some just gopping (I've been there and seen the stuff) production technology to get costs down. Stir in avionics that are around 10 years on from F-22 and the Yanks have a winner if they keep their nerve.
My bottom line: EF is a great aircraft a little late, but we can't afford to buy enough of them. We CERTAINLY can't afford Raptor

Red Snow

20th Oct 2000, 11:41

S Potter
I don't know why I am bothering really, your arguments don't seem to be based on much reality.

The UAE chose F-16s for very specific reasons which I could elaborate on, but won't. Wish I could.

Greece chose EF because it best suited their needs. As far as I am aware they still think it is best for their needs, and the only reason Rafale is in with a shout is because Dassault are competing with EADS to buy into the Greek aerospace industry. F-16 was chosen to cover a perceived gap, and they could be bought cheaply.

The 90% 'tests' concerned air defence, and were conducted by people in this country, who might very loosely be described as the 'customer'. One thing is for sure, they know an awful lot more about air defence than you (or I!).

Like I said before, I don't work for BAE. Sounds like you did....once!!!

Jackonicko

20th Oct 2000, 14:16

Red,

Well said. Was going to add that a UAE one-star told me that the UAE's choice was very much to do with a timescale need which EF couldn't meet, leverage that Britain couldn't apply, and a bottom line unit cost that even the might LMTC have had problems meeting. Add to that commonality and common infrastructure with the UAE's existing fighter fleet, plus F-16-trained pilots etc. and it was always going to be F-16. Examination of all other options was never more than a well-played bluff.

Max Burner

20th Oct 2000, 18:43

Red Snow,

The outcome of the tests was dependant on the software and capabilities you thought you might get from a full up super spec machine against an enemy of what programmed ability and performance.

If you put s**t in you get s**t out.

I do hope you are right though, time will tell.

Jackonicko

21st Oct 2000, 02:01

Not strictly true. Joust simulations ran EF with original EJ200 and intake and assumed AMRAAM as BVR weapon of choice. Radar performance assumed was 'as demonstrated'.

Main baseline opponent was Su-27 with same radar performance (unlikely) and equal missile performance, with acceleration, performance, RCS all increased to assume 15 years constant development and improvement.

Red Snow

21st Oct 2000, 02:06

Fair point, Max B, but....

Jacko beat me to it!

Jackonicko

22nd Oct 2000, 03:53

My only real worry with EF is that we'll end up with an epic F3 replacement, with BVR and close-in capabilities, just at the time that those capabilities are becoming so irrelevant that the F3 is being criticised for not pulling its weight on deployments, and when they're desparate to widen the role, with ALARM, TIALD, whatever.

But at the same time, this perfect F3 replacement may not be much of a Jag/GR7/GR4 replacement, for some few years to come. Refurb the Jags, anyone?

Radhaz

24th Oct 2000, 01:38

Grodge,
For a moment I thought you were talking about the UK's Raptor project. Now that is a capability.
-----
ALARM for the F3 - With a good ELS, could be a good solution. Sounds like a viable role to me.
TIALD - not so sure, they'd be bombers then (!) Could their fighter pilot instincts ever cope? Also they'd have to go ever so much closer to the nasty people who fire things at us.

Ewan Whosearmy

24th Oct 2000, 14:22

On the point of the F-117 being downed by Slobbo, it really is nothing more than an spurious statistic.

Operational and Intelligence factors were, most probably, the main causes for its loss, not a failing of stealth technology itself. It hardly represents a 'flaw' in the -117 that the Serbs, in a pre-planned move, heavily modified 2 emitters and managed to down an aircraft when they knew where, at what time, in what direction and at what height it would pass over them.

As has already been pointed out, stealth is optimised to work against certain emitters, from certain altitudes and aspect angles just as ECM and EW is designed to defeat a specific range of threats. Probably also worth pointing out is that nobody has mentioned any of the other properties of stealth in this conversation yet (IR, Visual & Acoustic). I'd bet that the F-22 has a far lower IR signature than the the EF, which could be vital when confronted with dual seeker BVR missiles or the latest R-77 missiles. The Yanks are known to have developed technology allowing colour change whilst in flight of an aircrafts skin, so they'd probably have the upper hand in the visual arena too.

TVC will be important, I am quite certain. In an ideal world, you'll take your BVR shot, extend and bug out. But we know that it isn't an ideal world and the chances are that these aircraft will be used in contained and controlled conflicts of limited scope - not all out 'shoot anything that moves' wars. Despite all of the wacky technology allowing sensor fusion, LPI radar snapshots et al, somebody (probably sitting in an E-3) has to have 100% confidence that the contact is not an airliner or a civilian or a friendly and allow the shot to be taken. Even with the advent and maturing of NDI and NCTR systems, fighter pilots will, surely, still be required to EID AND VID contacts before they shoot. History shows that ROE haven't changed that much in this respect since the F-4 was denied the ability to make full use of the AIM-7 in Vietnam (despite the fact it never worked). Therefore high angle off boresight capability will be important factor when one finds oneself, inevitably, WVR & VID'ing. Fighting the likes of the TVC SU-27 variants or the TVC R-77/HMS combo I'd want every possible advantage I could get my hands on. Snapshot ability with Guns will also be important if it came to it, but clearly the EF pilot will have taken his ballast and gone home by this point; therefore failing in his role to dominate the skies.

John Farley

24th Oct 2000, 15:06

Ewan

Exactly

JF

Jackonicko

24th Oct 2000, 16:08

And where, exactly, are all these TVC 'Flankers'? Tech dems at Sukhoi, unlikely to enter service anywhere, for the foreseeable. And until Elbit, or someone, does an upgrade, the MiG-29 anmd the Su-27 will remain desparately effective airshow performers, and a good reason to avoid the glamorous but inherently unpredictable Top Gun world of the close-in fight.

With the F-22 unable to sort its avionics even enough to get funding to progress beyond the test/development stage, and with a bare handful of prototypes (five) limping around the sky, your faith in the invincibility of US technology is touching.

I personally believe that it will all come right in the end. But it may not. This is the land of the self-jamming bomber (B-1B), the remarkable F-111, the AWG-9 and AIM-54 Phoenix, and the F-14/TF-30 combination. All systems which looked great on paper, and which have been hyped to the nth degree, but which remain deeply flawed in service.

BAE Systems are not the only company in the world who sometimes have problems turning dreams into reality.

Low and Slow

24th Oct 2000, 21:09

The thing all the techies and fighter pukes constantly fail to focus on, his WHO HAS THE THREAT CAPABILITY ??

Serbia ? China ? India ? Where is this high risk multi threat environment they're all talking about. The upgraded F-4 can still peform 90% of all fast jet tasks for 95% of all the worlds AF's.

EFA Buffoon is most likely to see operational service over IRAQ ( AGAIN??) or some horrible little jungle, dropping bombs in the CAS role (BTW The Apached will not fulfil this role because we cant ver risk loosing one to enemy fire!!)to try and save B COY 2 PARA as they fight to the death surrounded by 1100 angry locals armed with AK's who are immune to information warfare and AIR POWER COERCION.-

Ewan Whosearmy

24th Oct 2000, 21:29

I'm not really sure why you think that I hold the belief that US technology is invincible, but I'm glad that you're touched all the same.

The basis of your argument is flawed Jackoniko, because irrespective of whether the TVC Flanker is in service or now, tomorrow, the next day or in 3 years time, a fighter pilot can NEVER have too much manouverability, capability or advantage over his adversaries, present AND future. Have you ever heard one complain that 'the fight's unfair' because his opponent is not on an equal footing?

The fact remains that when EF comes into service it will have to last a very long time and be as 'future proofed' as possible. You may not be worried that TVC variants of the Flanker, or other highly manouverable designs are not in service today, but IMHO that's a near sighted view point which does little to represent the best interests of tomorrows fighter jock - precisely the people who are going to be flying the F-22 and EF for many years to come. My point really revolved around the fact that I believe that true, unrestricted, 'shoot when you're ready' BVR environment is pretty rare in the conflicts we face now and those we may face in the future. I am surprised that a journo could fail to learn the lessons that history so clearly lays at his feet (have you forgotten why Top Gun was formed in the first place?) - you might like to relax and say that the SU-27 and MiG-29 are merely air show performers, but the reality is that given the closing speeds of modern fighters in a hot intercept and the need to VID in many scenarios, a merge is extremely likely - Top Gun furballs may not be avoidable. I know that there were kills in the Balkans which were BVR and several during DS, but it cannot be relied upon, especially when the political climate dictates that there simply cannot be another Iranian Airbus shootdown or another Blackhawk shootdown (which in itself was a mistaken VID incident!)

I'm not quite sure what you allude to with regards to the F-111. In it's most advanced version (F) it was superior in the mud-moving role to anything we (the Brits) had, and in its EW capacity it was superior to - oh, I don't need to say that because we never had anything in the same league. Perhaps you are referring to the initial problems with its WTB, in which case you should know better, as this was a teething problem manifesting itself as a result of the type being pushed into service before it was ready and without enough testing - surely this rings a bell? Your self jamming bomber comment is well deserved and I concede too your point on the TF 30 equipped F-14 (although the TF-30 P100 was the monster which powered the F-111 to 900 KIAS+ at 'low level'). My understanding of the AWG-9/AIM-54 suite was always that it was a pretty good system - perhaps you could enlighten?

Oh, and I'm a Brit and proud of our Defence industry too (on the whole, a least)

S Potter Esq

25th Oct 2000, 01:05

Ewan, don't worry about JN,if he ever said anything critical about BAE Cisterns (formerly British Wasteofspace) or the RAF they'd stop giving him press releases to re-hash as 'investigative journalism'.

IIRC, both China and India are receiving, or are about to recieve, TVC Flanker variants (with PA radar). ISTR that, like most Russian fighters, they will also have a very effective IRST system. Doubtless further sales will follow. You're quite right, by 2020 or so EF will be looking pretty dated.

Can't quite see what JN's problem with the F111 is either, AIUI the RAF was very keen on buying the 'Vark at one time but eventually couldn't afford it.

And of course there are literally hundreds of EF's flying right now, all with fully-tested, full-spec systems. Or maybe not.

------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"

Jackonicko

25th Oct 2000, 02:49

My criticism of the RAF and BAE is near-constant, and has long been annoying to both organisations. However, I do happen to think that EF might (if it works as advertised) be a bloody good F3 replacement). And that's it.

The F-111 was completely useless until the E and F Models, and required an unfeasibly huge amount of money to be thrown at it to become so.

The AIM-54 has yet to be successfully fired in combat (despite several attempts) and the much hyped test firings were rigged more comprehensively than a Tony Blair press call.

When was the last close-in turning fight?
When was the last close-in turning fight involving an aircraft that had any other option?
Even with the need for VID (reducing almost daily with long range TISEO-type video sensors, offboard sensors, datalinks, JTIDS, IDM, etc.) most fighter pilots would choose to avoid a turning close-in fight. Eurofighter gives them the tool required to win, not to impress at an airshow - though incidentally, anyone who saw the HAVV roll at Farnborough might well wonder whether EF is all that much of a slouch in the close-in arena. With HMS and ASRAAM, I'd keep my money in my pocket, but if you want to bet on the outcome of an Su-27/EF visual rules close in fight, you're most welcome.

R O Tiree

25th Oct 2000, 04:11

Anyone who thinks there is no need to design for and plan for a knife fight in a telephone box (close in combat, in other words) is fooling himself. Missiles (a) miss, (cynics would say "Hence the name!") (b) can be defeated. You might think that today's smart seekers cannot be decoyed, but it is only a matter of time before some cleverdick finds the solution. Ultimately some poor schmuck is going to find himself in a turning burning fight with no speed, no ideas and no close-in weapons system, being nibbled to death by someone with an ac that can turn tighter and who has a gun to send our hero's LPB to perdition. You can fight the best BVR battle ever (that's assuming your ROE would allow it), followed by the best pre-merge fight ever, but you are certain to get some leakers. Why, for the sake of a few hundred pounds per ac in weight and a very few million pounds sterling, would you hamstring your pilots?

And what about strafe? You see a column of trucks? It may be that you have a cluster munition on board, but they have a relatively small footprint. A cannon is a cheap and cheerful option here.

Let's just ask ourselves why the F4 was retro-fitted with a cannon, sometimes internally, but often externally, taking up an otherwise useful pylon? It couldn't have been that the much-vaunted missiles weren't cutting it, could it? Naah! The pilots just liked the noise.....

[This message has been edited by R O Tiree (edited 25 October 2000).]

Gainesy

25th Oct 2000, 13:37

I'm with R O Tiree. If you have a gun you can attack, say, the WestSide Boys or similar both cost-effectively and without upping the political ante that comes with missiles.
Cheers
Gainesy

alphaball

25th Oct 2000, 16:01

Tactical considerations aside trying to sell a fighter without a gun is a PR nightmare.

Fighter pilots the world over know that EFA hasn't got a gun.

Who will have major imputs into fighter replacements within those countries. Fighter pilots.

What do they say when its name comes up in conversation. "EFA, isn't that the jet without a gun?!?!"

No matter how good the arguments to buy it are the EFA will always start on the back foot.

Whether the reasons are rational like:
1.you can't jam or flare off a bullet
2.it has no min range and is truly all aspect

Or totally irrational like:
1. Nostalgia
2. the phallic sybolism of big guns
3. Comments like "No gun, thats why all those Phantoms got shot down in 'Nam"
4. the saying that "there is no kill like a guns kill"
5. being able to strafe a line of enemy trucks once the air war is sewn up, without having to haul bombs around for a living.
6. being able to ask the bograts round the crewroom "See that Bloggs thats an F-15 Eagle. Do you know why they make 'em that big?"
"No sir, why?"
" So even a guy like you can get a guns kill!"
7. The simple fact that rolling round the sky trying to gun someone is a lot better fun, in peacetime, than working the ID and then shooting BVR.

EFA will be pretty neat, but, try and convince an Army General to buy an assault rifle without a bayonet fitting.

Ewan Whosearmy

25th Oct 2000, 19:49

The Gulf war saw a number of instances where furballs were a very likely option were it not for the incompetence of all but a few Iraqi fighter pilots/GCI operators - F-15E drivers running in on target and OVERTAKING MiG-29's and MiG-23's, unable/unwilling to engage and bugging out. Albino (F-15C) drivers loosing track of targets BVR and only reacquiring WVR, Albino drivers providing inefficient HVA CAP and allowing an Iraqi MiG-29 to get within IR missile range of the HVA (KC-135)! F/A-18's ingressing on an OCA mission and downing MiG-21's at less than 3 miles with >1000 KIAS closure. And let's not forget the losses: there is strong evidence to suggest that F/A-18 pilot Scott Speicher was downed by a MiG-25 having briefly merged and then disengaged due to poor SA. An F-111 was lost having manouvered into terrain avoiding a rear quarter IR missile shot from a Mirage F-1. I don't have my reference materials handy at the moment but i'll bet that a lot of the kills during DS came from the AIM-9 and required ACM for favourable shoot conditions, i'd also bet that many of the AIM-7 kills came WVR and failure of those missiles to achieve a kill would have resulted in a merge and subsequent furball. With the exception of the F-111 all of the a/c carried BVR weapons and had the capability to employ them.

I'm not sure about Balkans kills, but looking away from the US for a moment, a good percentage of Israeli kills over the past 30 years have been post-merge and they've certainly not decided to dump ACM/BFM skills in the vague hope that one day they'll all be able to do it with missiles in time to pop home for tea and medals. Interestingly, the US recently held excercises with the IAF during the course of which the US was comprehensively arse whipped. One F-16 driver i know said that the US DoD was so unhappy about it that it had told all participants to keep their gob's shut and to decline comment to any press. He said to me that one of the main reasons they were so convincingly beaten was that the US have significantly decreasd the amount of time it spends teaching it's pilots ACM and most importantly, keeping them current at it - the disbandment of the vast majority of agressor squadrons is a significant hinderence here. Conversely the IAF pilots spend all day dogfighting week in week out. You can draw your own conclusions from this...

Low and Slow

25th Oct 2000, 21:22

OH GOD!! We can tell the FAST JET aircrew input from the stuff about ACM and BVR et al.

Here’s the facts girls. Air combat is not won by ACM. It’s won by trashing the other guys airfields or a combination of factors such as GCI, SIGINT, being up in force and Maintenance. If you are actually out to settle things in a dog fighting engagement, you’ve screwed up. WHO TAUGHT US THIS.. The RAF, in the BoB, FAA in the South Atlantic and The Israelis.

Why is manoeuvring a factor in VID? It was done in Vietnam with no manoeuvring. You just had your wingman blow through and call the shot.

And BTW manoeuvring has never been an absolute factor in air combat victories. Look at WW1. Look at WW2,. Korea, India-Pakistan. Vietnam. Arab-Israeli and even the Falklands ( no accounts of Viffing please. I till can’t find anyone who has done it in combat. ) And there where no manoeuvring kills in the Gulf. AT ALL.
In fact the 3:1 trashing of Hunters by F-86s (India-Pakistan) is the only example I have ever found of consistent victory going to the more manoeuvrable aircraft.

One of the reasons the MOD gave for getting rid of the Cannon on Buffoon was because the “Days of Dog fighting are long gone.”

IMO, just more evidence that EFA was designed by input from Macho fighter types, and that is never good.

Why is anyone worried about EFA dog fighting?? It’s ability to do CAS is vastly more important.

[This message has been edited by Low and Slow (edited 25 October 2000).]

Pontius the Non-Pilate

25th Oct 2000, 21:32

Jackonicko -
your comments ref "if the EFA Radar works" (whatever name they're now calling it. "Captor", I ask you) are noted. I should point out that over two years ago, the quote in Budgie News by John Roulston was "large a/c at 200nm, fighter-sized a/c at 100nm". This from a person who was taking VIPs up in the trials aircraft for demos at Farnborough. (Apparently, Group Captains weren't senior enough to get a seat).

OK, I'm biased, I spent ten years working on it before going off to design telecoms stuff, but you don't put together 4000 manyears of engineering in a few months, nor do you prove that it works in a week or two.....

S Potter -
Your comment ref F-22 and its PA radars is noted. However, the US claims all sorts of wonders about its technologies. Given the public quotes about APG-65 / APG-73 design in AvWeek, just be happy that the German bid of MSD-2000 (remanufactured APG-65) didn't win the EFA radar.......

For EFA progress, try doing a web search on GTDAR and AMSAR. As for poor old British Industry, remember the SHAR FA.2 versus F-15 et al in Ex PURPLE STAR a few years back.

Note also the maintainability aspects. Given that a likely limiter on the RAF is trained maintainers, (every extra man on the squadron is going to cost you at least £100k/year) I suspect someone, somewhere, is happier with an EFA that takes 1/3 of the maint hours/flying hour compared to certain other a/c. A _lot_ of work is going into reliability / maintainability.

Captain Kirk

26th Oct 2000, 16:54

Purely for the purpose of providing balance I consider it appropriate to share my own experience of working with (not for) BAE Systems over the past couple of years. As an operator, I must admit to previously regarding BAES with some disdain and indeed had been known to use the ubiquitous term Brit WoS. However, I am compelled to record that upon working alongside the shop floor technicians I was very quickly struck by their enthusiasm, competence and genuine determination to deliver the very best product that they could.

Unfortunately, it is the Commercial and Contracts staff, not necessarily from BAES although I would tar the bean counters of all 4 Nations with the same brush, that all too often fail to see the bigger picture and demonstrate an inexcusable lack of Customer focus. Whilst it would be extremely naive to forget that we are talking about profit making organisations I am disappointed to have witnessed too many occasions when more time and effort was expended trying to find ways NOT to fix something rather than just get on and do it. Ironically, I can tell you that those very capable Industry technicians share our frustration at being prevented from delivering to the best of their ability.

Nevertheless, it is worthy of note that within the EF programme, BAES can actually be seen with some justification as quite the best of the bunch. Several key areas of the programme have been wrestled from the other Partner Companies after consistently under-achieving and responsibility transferred to BAES who have subsequently delivered significant improvements.

As to our experience of previous programmes, we must acknowledge that we are often, or certainly have been, our own worst enemy. Many of the deficiencies of our current fleets are largely, if not entirely, due to the specification that we demanded, often against the specialist advice of Industry. A few spec relaxations in non-critical areas of the MRCA would not have seen an aircraft delivered with swing wings, variable geometry intakes and Kruger flaps, saving significant weight and complexity for what have indeed transpired to be largely superfluous systems.

Just for the record, Typhoon HAS an internal cannon. Only the RAF were short sighted enough to bank everything on an unproven missile system. Let's hope some decisions can be reversed.

EF Typhoon has awesome POTENTIAL. I just hope desperately that the senior personnel within Industry can go the extra mile to deliver what they have promised, even at some cost/risk, because IF the boys love it then it will have a great export future.

[This message has been edited by Captain Kirk (edited 26 October 2000).]

bombedup

27th Oct 2000, 03:42

Commons Defence Committee finally looks like its winding up to go after Eurofighter's big numbers. Lessons of Kosovo Report notes 100 Serb aircraft destroyed on the ground, only six fighters in the air. Same sort of imbalance in the Gulf War.
Quote: "These relative levels of apparent effectiveness against aircraft in the air and on the ground may at least give some pause for thought as to the balance between ground attack and air defence capabilities in the UK's inventory of aircraft. These need to be considered carefully if Operation Allied Force is to be seen as representing any kind of template for future air operations in which the UK and Nato are likely to become engaged. In neither the Gulf War nor in Kosovo did the enemy get any significant air forces off the ground. If this is a pattern likely to hold true in the future, the Alliance and its constituent nations may need to reconsider their long-term procurement policies relating to aircraft. We invite the MOD to respond to this argument."
Since the RAF hasn't changed its requirement for 232 Eurofighters from the start, and the first 138 are all going to be fighters, the committee seems to have a point. What are they (and the fighter versions of F-22) all going to do? If we're going to keep knocking the enemy down before they ever get into the air the EFA white scarves will never get a chance to use any of those beautiful BVRAAMS.
And since it'll be a while before JSF comes along why not get started now converting a few of those 138 fighters to strike versions? Or, better still,to the SEAD role? Or are we going to depend on German EW Tornados for ever?

R O Tiree

27th Oct 2000, 03:59

LowNSlow - Who the hell do you think is going to fly the Buffoon? DOH! FAST JET AIRCREW!! Donkey! Also, have you ever done any ACM? It doesn't sound like it 'cos you are talking bo!!ocks, mate. Read Ewan's post (the one above your last one). When sneaky-beaky 3D shoot and try and run away doesn't work, you have a fight on your hands. If you are crap at ACM, you will die. Needlessly. If your ac is crap, you will die. Equally needlessly.

Now to specifics:

A. The RAF in BoB were on their way to getting their butts kicked as the Box-heads were busy taking out their airfields, GCI sites, etc. Point to you there, but the reason the RAF was able to sap the will and morale of the Luftwaffe pilots was because the Spits and Hurricanes were marginally better in ACM than the 109, and tons better than the 110. The BoB was effectively won when Hitler decreed that the bombing effort be switched to London after he threw his teddies out of his cot over a raid on Berlin, which was staged as a result of some German bomber crew who got lost and dumped their bombs on London.

B. The eyeball and shooter tactics employed in Vietnam worked in their day. Briefly. Read Randy "Duke" Cunningham's book "Fox2" for more details. It is interesting to note that the USN's kill ratio was pi$$-poor until they instigated Top Gun School to teach their people ....... ACM!! The reason is left as an exercise for the student.

C. At one point in WW I the Germans were getting their butts kicked until (i) Baron von Richthoven, Immelmann et al pitched up and started seriously devising ACM tactics that worked (that acronym again, I wonder why?) and (ii) Antony Fokker designed and built an ac that could out-turn, out-climb and out-run it's Allied opponents. Their bombs weren't big enough or numerous enough to close airfields, so it all came down to which side had the advantage in ACM.

D. In WW II it was still about ACM. We made an advance, we started winning, they made an advance, the balance of kill ratios tipped the other way.

E. In Korea, the US pilots in their WWII vintage prop driven ac were losing heavily. To the MIG-15 which out-matched them in every respect. Along came the F-86. Problem solved. ACM again.

F. You quoted India-Pakistan as an example of how ACM doesn't count and then contradicted yourself by saying it did matter in the same paragraph 5 sentences later.

G. ACM was extremely important in the Arab-Israeli wars. Ever seen any gun camera film from an Israeli F4? I have - it's gob-smacking. And it reeked of pure ACM.

H. I'll leave Desert Storm, 'cos Ewan covered it already. ACM again. Lack of skill in that area, you die. 'Nuff said

You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about fast-jet types vis: "Here's the facts, girls," and "IMO, just more evidence that EFA was designed by input from Macho fighter types, and that is never good."
The best that can be said for your post is that it is ill-considered, factually mis-leading, contradictory, insulting (both to the intelligence and to fast-jet crews in general) and immature. On the other hand, you may just be a pillock. Votes, gentlemen, please.

[This message has been edited by R O Tiree (edited 27 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by R O Tiree (edited 27 October 2000).]

Gentleman Aviator

27th Oct 2000, 10:38

Well, I'm a Truckie and it does sound as though Low n Slow has his head up his ar$e.

However, what on God's Green Earth would a Truckie and a Wokka Mate know about Fighters?! Very interesting topic gentlemen, but I must admit, it is like reading in another language.

Good luck with the BA DEP for all of you chaps who are departing stage left!

:)

R O Tiree

27th Oct 2000, 11:43

Gentleman Aviator, you're making an assumption based on my user name.

Maybe I'm an anorak who watches Discovery the whole time.

Maybe I have flown more than one class of ac.

Or maybe I chose a name to mislead the plods who read this thread as to my background.

Suffice to say I don't fly Wokkas. Go wash your mouth out with soap! :)

[This message has been edited by R O Tiree (edited 27 October 2000).]

droptank

27th Oct 2000, 13:05

Before this thread, which was interesting and potentially illuminating deteriorates into the usual name-calling, misinformation and 'intellectual fascism' (wherein contributors are driven off the thread by a 'so wadda you know abaht it ven' approach:

Low and Slow - You might be correct in your assertion that offensive operations are a more efficient way of winning the Counter-air battle, but only if it is always possible, permitted and prudent to conduct them AND they can be conducted in a manner that gives the required level of assurance. If not (and usually) defensive counter air is also a requirement. The issue then is whether DCA can be conducted BVR with the required degree of assurance or whether ACM and short-range engagement are needed as a 'backstop'. You may (well?) be right in your assertion that the 'white silk scarf brigade' are over-focused on ACM because it is fun and gives them something to swagger about in the bar. However, most 'classical' air defence theory is based on layered defence of which SHORAD and ACM represent the final, inner layer. Take a practical, but theoretical example:

There is an enemy with 100 ac. The OCA campaign can give,say, 90% assurance. That leaves 10 ac to deal with. BVR engagement also gives,say, 90% assurance. That leaves 1 'leaker'. That is now approaching your AWACS. Without ACM/guns/CIWS, there is now NOTHING you can do about it. If you are prepared to accept the loss, fine. If you cannot, wou are s&rewed. (And it all depends in the first place on being allowed to 'do' the OCA campaign - which will 'cost you' because they tend to be expensive in both effort and losses).

R O Tiree - Your use of history is (at least in some areas) dubious and may fall into the category of selecting facts to fit cases. Eg:

The Luftwaffe's problem in 1940 was never 'the morale of their pilots'. The Hurricane was not 'marginally better in ACM than the 109' (nor, in some respects,was the Spitfire). Hitler did not order the bombing of London as a 'tit for tat'. Richthofen was not an innovator in ACM tactics (try Boelcke or Wolff as a partner to Immelman!)- in fact all the indications are that the Rittmeister would have used BVR if it had been available and he had a marked distaste for 'mixing it' with potential equals. The Fokker Dridekker was not faster than its opponents (simply because in the speed/turn/climb trade-off, Anton sacrificed speed). In many of the earlier cases you 'quote', BVR (or any form of missile) was not an alternative!

The central issues are: 1. Can OCA ever make DCA unnecessary? 2. Have advances in C4I2 and misslie technology made the gun irrelevant in DCA? 3. Can they ever do so? 4. If they do, does the gun have utility in other applications that make it worth carrying anyway? My answers:

1. No. (levels of assurance, political constraints).

2. Probably not. (levels of assurance, counter technology'you can't fool a bullet', flexibility).

3. Maybe, but probably not. (same as 2).

4. Yes. (flexibility, particularly in a expeditionary, out of area world).

I think history and doctrine argue my case better than either of you are doing with yours.

Gentleman Aviator

27th Oct 2000, 13:26

Hmmm, a little odd this...

I gently bantered Low and Slow.

He was immediately defended by R O Tiree who has a viewpoint 180 out to Low and Slow.

In fact the nature of the defence suggests that Low and Slow and R O Tiree are one and the same person!

Points?

Ewan Whosearmy

27th Oct 2000, 15:16

I not sure that the question 'could OCA ever replace DCA' is even worth thinking about.

OCA would be severely hindered without air supremacy in the first place (the first step of the sortie is to get to the opponents runways & HAS's, and that wil involve flying through a layered AD) and DS was a good example of how even with air supremecy and some pretty good SEAD assets, it's not necesarily the most effective way of keeping enemy a/c out of the skies, IMHO. Why? because, using the RAF low-level JP233 sorties as an example, we ended up with pilots who turned into mental wrecks after a very few number of sorties, runway damage could be be repaired within 12-16 hours, we lost a proportionally high number of a/c per sortie rate, the Iraqi's had taxi-ways as big as their runways and could have operated from them (if they had chosen to) and finally SEAD assets were always stretched to capacity, necessitating some missions be flown without support (and losses ensued). All of this happened most disturbingly, under conditions that were in our favour: much of the KARI system was out of action and those nodes whioch survied the intial pummeling were operating independantly from eachother (precisely not what it was designed for nor how the Iraqis had been taught to use it), their pilots weren't purtting up much of a struggle, their COMMSEC was up the spout, and they were effectively blind, deaf and dumb. We still had to change tactics.

Sure we took out a goodly number of a/c in their HAS's, but the Iraqi's seemingly didn't have the inclination to do anything even approaching putting up a struggle, so i'm not sure that this is a fair indicator as to how 'easy' it might be to use OCA as the tool to grind down enemy air assets in any future conflicts. Pehaps the advent of stand-off weaponary may change this; technologies such as the WCMD, JSSOW, JDAM and others may mean that OCA can efficiently be carried out through medium level attacks or attacks at stand-off ranges. However, my recollection leads me to believe that using CCIP, CCRP and other methods of unguided delivery of both cluster and conventional munitions was far from satisfactory in both DS and recent conflicts. PGM munition delivery, specifically LGB attacks, are heavily dependent upon favoutrable atmospheric and wx conditions, as is the role of recce/photo intelligence, which was a problem in DS and an absolute must for an effective OCA campaign

Perhaps the Balkans conflicts are good examples of how a determined adversary can preserve his assets (by use of visual deception; comouflage, dispersal and decoys) in order to fight another day on his own terms. If a determined enemy is able to do this, there's a very good chance you'll come head to head with him again on terms that may not suit you.

Am i missing something here?

droptank

27th Oct 2000, 18:26

Ewan,

IMHO you have missed nowt and are right on the button on the OCA/DCA question! One of the key questions the campaign planners must answer at the outset is 'To OCA or not to OCA?' It is a difficult one, and perhaps the knee-jerk 'Well we've got the kit and it's what we planned to do against the Warsaw Pact' response is not always the right answer - even if you're allowed to do it. It is a predictable opening gambit and, as you point out, many air forces guard against it by building in redundancy to their airfields and AD systems or into their design for battle. Factors to ponder might be:
1. What chance have I got of achieving perfect surprise and winning the air war at a stroke? (Israeli pre-emptive strike 1967).
2. Is the enemy so numerous that OCA, irrespective of the cost, is the only way of reducing the weight of his effort to the point where DCA might be able to cope? (The Warsaw Pact equation).
3. Even if I cannot achieve surprise or am not forced into it as a 'desperation throw', is it still the most cost-effective way of achieving the required level of air control?
4. Whatever the reason, am I going to rely on it as my sole means of waging the counter-air battle?

For a large number of reasons, no-one has EVER been brave (or foolish enough) to answer 'yes' to Q4 so we need DCA capability.

Soooo! Does that DCA capability rely on BVRAAM, or does it need SRAAM and guns (the last 2 implying ACM capability to an increasing degree)? I (having doffed my white silk scarf decades ago) would still argue for all 3 because flexibility and adaptability are important facets of capability (the guns of Singapore!). But it all depends on how good you reckon each layer
of your capability is and needs to be, and what risks you are prepared to run.

Sorry - hogging the thread - I'll shuddup now!

34DD

27th Oct 2000, 21:24

Please don't shuddup. Its a real joy to read the stuff of quality on this thread. On both sides.

Captain Ed has explained to me why I should NEVER be in a cockpit, but even so I would appreciate you advice on the following:

When I fly I like to look out a lot – even in my sort of modest machines. So I ask why did you guys not require downwards view from the cockpit of this new wonder machine? Like the pilot has in the other three aircraft of this configuration - Raffale, Grippen and Lavi?

Correct me if I am wrong but did not EVERY previous jet fighter in the RAF have this capability? Don’t you guys value it any more?

XOX

------------------
Forward CGs are better than aft ones

Tobbes

27th Oct 2000, 23:26

Evening,

As a newbie here, firstly let me commend everyone on the quality of the informed debate, rather than the flame wars so often seen.

On the grand OCA/DCA debate, I too find it inconceivable that the de facto death of ACM has been proclaimed by UK MoD in deleting the gun from EF. However, as a political spectator, this is simply because of the ROE restrictions which will be inherent in any future conflict.

Pure and simple, (and ignoring the persausive arguments of increased combat persistance, unjammability of cannon fire and the simple economics of a cannon) under what scenario short of general war will the ROE permit BVR shots without VID? In OOTW and in most peace enforcement scenarios, it is surely inconcieveable that this level of flexibility will be extended by our politicians.

Tobbes

Captain Kirk

28th Oct 2000, 02:23

34DD

No offence, sincerely, but if you are not entirely sure of your ground, I offer the suggestion that you make your point differently. For example, Is it true that the canards obscure the downward view? This way you will possibly recieve an informed answer without contributing further to the self perpetuating but inaccurate EF myths or invite awkward questions like - Have you sat in the EF cockpit - i.e. do you know what you are talking about?

To answer - the canards extend into the downward view by about an (apparent) inch - i.e. imperceptibly. More significantly, the overall aero config creates a total void aft and down from the cockpit, in total contrast to any of the types that you list. The ability to scan this deep low six is (would be) extremely comforting when tooling around on CAP over Bos/Kos/Gulf/etc and wondering where the next ambush SAM trap is going to be staged.

Hope I have been of assistance.

NoseGunner

28th Oct 2000, 12:49

To answer Tobbes: most modern/recent scenarios will allow a hostile declaration BVR. In some scenarios this can be very quick and allow plenty of time for even the longest range rockets. However in some areas the declaration may take some time.......
This in no way defends the idiocy of removing the gun from Typhoon. :)

34DD

28th Oct 2000, 14:31

Dear Captain Kirk

Thank you for your polite response The age of chivalry is not dead. Hurrah!.

Yes I was lucky enough to sit in the aircraft at Farnborough.. A very nice young pilot (called I think Keith – sorry if it was Ken – but it was noisy) showed me round. When I complained about not seeing out very well (I am very short) he said I had to move the seat up until I was in the right place to see the head up instruments. He moved me up for that and then I can assure you (have you sat in it?) that I had a very good view of all the canards.

When I commented on that the pilot said it was sometimes quite useful to be able to see what they were doing when you flew along. I can understand that as I suppose if they stop it means your flight controls have a problem and common sense says it would be nice to know that without waiting for a warning light or something which you might not notice if you were busy working out tactics or something.

Thanks again for your reply

------------------
Forward CGs are better than aft ones

R O Tiree

28th Oct 2000, 15:42

Gentleman Aviator - let me read that again.... no, I think I attacked him. And I don't know him. I should not have resorted to name-calling, though. LowNSlow, I apologise.

droptank - don't shuppup - you're talking a lot of sense. I bow to your superior knowledge of WW I ACM innovators. That'll teach me. my only excuse is it was late and I couldn't be bothered to look it up and just cuffed it. Lesson learned. I would, however, take issue on the reason for switching bombing raids to London in WW II. Shall we agree to differ and let it lie?

That said, we appear to be singing from the same song-sheet on all the other issues. In particular, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in your last post. Isn't a layered defence one of the tenets of any battle planning, be it on land, sea or air? YES!! As a clinching argument, missiles are hugely expensive assets. Cannon shells aren't.

"Please, Mister, can we have our gun back?"

Captain Kirk

28th Oct 2000, 16:36

34DD

It would have been Keith that showed you around. Yes I have. What you would not have realized is that when you close the canopy, the canopy frame will inevitably obscure the downward view beyond the cockpit sill - which I am willing to presume that you saw as the vision limiter. To reiterate, with the canopy closed, only the very ends of the canards are visible with no significant impact. Actually, the whole canard issue is completely spurious, if a fighter pilot wants to see the ground below, he/she (brother) will not peer over the side - he is not sat in a bathtub but a highly agile Weapon System that, by the time he has attained Combat Ready status, is almost an extension of one's own body. Just look down and aeroplane obligingly gets out of way of view by dropping a wing.

Kind regards.

Captain Kirk

28th Oct 2000, 16:54

Roc

Returning the debate to the original theme, I note that the F22 has now added the option of underwing pylons to provide greater swing role capacity. I cannot imagine that underwing stores will do much for radar stealth so the US clearly does not regard it as a panacea.

JSF is stealthy but optimized for attack. It will not have the supersonic performance or missile payload to be in serious competition with EF for the air superiority role.

To answer your question, while low RCS is patently important I would not personally want it at any cost. When the technology is countered (inevitable) I would like to fall back on sound aerodynamic performance and lots of missiles (and a gun - DOH!). Affordability cannot be ignored; F22 is just too expensive - even your Congress keep sucking their teeth over this one.

Regards.

34DD

28th Oct 2000, 18:53

Dear Captain Kirk

Yes the canopy was open so I’m sure you are right.

Thank you again for your patience – much appreciated

Regards

34DD

------------------
Forward CGs are better than aft ones

Roc

28th Oct 2000, 20:50

Captain Kirk,

By no means am I an expert on fighter tactics, flew T-38's a bit but mostly C-141's however I'll assume that the drop tanks will be stealthy, or they will be used prior to entering the radar coverage area,so as to extend range. just a guess

Captain Kirk

28th Oct 2000, 22:35

Roc,

I was referring to munitions.

34DD

Of course, on a lighter note and in view of your call-sign, perhaps it was not the canards at all that were obscuring your view of the ground!

Hope you're good with banter - no offence intended.

Toodle Pip!

PA-28

28th Oct 2000, 23:23

This thread seems to be assuming that the deletion of the Typhoon gun, in UK destined versions, is as a result of a new interpretation of air combat tactics ....

The Daliy Telegraph - Mon May 1st 2000

Britain scraps Eurofighter gun to save money
By Tim Butcher, Defence Correspondent

THE RAF's new Eurofighter combat aircraft will be unable to strafe targets because the Ministry of Defence has scrapped the plane's cannon to save money.

RAF insiders say that the Government has decided that it cannot afford the ground support equipment needed to operate the 27mm Mauser cannon fully. The first jets to enter service with the RAF in 2002 will carry the 220lb gun, but only as ballast. It may be replaced in later versions by a lump of lead.... etc

Full article at :-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000659276559150&pg=/et/00/5/1/ngun01.html

The article goes on to say that strengthening is going to be incorporated anyway so the gun may be re-retro-fitted at a later date, and that the Mauser cannon is the latest upgrade to the original German Tornado version, so it's hardly brand new.

Q1 RAF insiders say that the Government has...

Is this story actually factual ?

Q2 will carry the 220lb gun, but only as ballast

!!!!!! Will that be with or without ammunition, as ballast ?

Q3 Lump of lead

!!!!!!

This is an agile fighter, equiped with newly developed avionics and missile systems and we can't afford the gun ?

Errr ?

PA-28

34DD

29th Oct 2000, 00:17

Capt K

No probs. Many years ago my second husband insisted I went on something called the “2 TAF quick wit and ready repartee course” . If you are not familiar with that you may need to speak to your Dad.

Back to flying: two things I have noticed – being strapped in makes it easier to keep my balance and more g improves my forward and downward view.

34DD

------------------
Forward CGs are better than aft ones

Roc

29th Oct 2000, 01:41

Captain Kirk,

I did mis read your post..I'm really surprised about the underwing pylons especially since the internal weapons bay is a huge part of the programs goals..all I can surmise is that the F-22 is under alot of scrutiny in congress right now and by adding an air to ground capability it may seem like more bang for the buck to some lawmaker. Your JSF comment is true, it is intended to be an F-16 replacement, air to mud being its primary role, so to compare it with the typhoon is apples and oranges. My bet is that we will never see an F-22 with external weopons, as this would totally negate the stealth, supercruise and reason it is being built.

ORAC

29th Oct 2000, 11:39

There are/were three considerations being looked to extend the capability of the F22.

Firstly, as stated, to add the possibility of pylons. The reasoning being to use the aircraft in stealth mode whilst taking down the SAW/C2 system, but being able to load non-stealthy weapons to be able to make full use of the airframe in later stages of the conflict.

Secondly, there is is investigation into extending the size of the internal bay. I believe the reports said that there was already sufficient leeway to add 6" internally and that tests were being done on changing the doors/underside to add another 6".

Thirdly, of course, there is all the work being done on a new generation of smaller PGMs sized to fit within the bays.

-----------------------------------

With reference to the discussion about the relative values of DCA and OCA. I would like to start with a few definitions for thoe non-experts.

DCA is purely defensive. It involves the use of passive and active measures. The active measures are fighters and SAW embedded in the AD structure (ADGE, comms, CAP, FAOR etc). They only time you engage the enemy is when he crosses into your airspace.

OCA is offensive. It includes not only SEAD/ARM and runway denial but also fighters on sweep, loose/embedded escort etc and is conducted inside enemy territory/airspace.

Air Supremacy is the achievement of total domination of the air in the theatre of war covering the entire airspace 24 hours a day.

Air Superiority is the achievement of domination of the air over part of the airspace for a limited time period for tactical reasons.

Right then,

The USA believes in Air Supremacy. They have since Korea, and their claim is that not one soldier has died due to (enemy) air attack since that period. They achieve this through the use of EW and OCA using SEAD/HARM and long range fighters with AWACS to engage enemy fighters whilst their bombers destroy the C2 infrastructure.

The number of aircraft you need to achieve this is massive. You can only start to reduce the numbers needed in the air after you have sufficiently degraded the enemy C2, SAW and AD fighters so that he will not be able to achieve air superiority at any stage by concentration of his assets.

During DS, the initial concept to achieve air supremacy was to keep the enemy bottled up on the ground until the stealth, F-111s etc had taken down the C2 system and degraded the SAW. This stretched into several days. To this was then added a sustained campaign of LGB attacks visiting every HAS on every airfield. This proved ineffective in achieving confirmed hard kills of enemy aircraft.

Here I would like to digress and add the concept of Hard and Soft Kills.

A Hard Kill is when you have hard proof of the destruction of the enemy. For a fighter you shoot it down; for a SAW you blow it up. In both cases you need the film to prove it. Using the hard proof and a known orbat you can reliably estimate the remaining threat.

A Soft Kill is when you use your munitions but cannot confirm a kill. If you use a LGB on a HAS,was there an aircraft inside? If the doors blow off it may be drums of fuel/oil used as a deception. If a HAS has been targetted does that mean it is empty? They can have cleared it out, down rapid repair and put an aircraft back inside. When you fire a HARM have you destroyed the radar or SAW? It became obvious that the number of soft kills were vastly overstated. (As they later were in Kosovo/Serbia).

It also became plain that even LGB attacks can be frustrated by placing the targets next to schools, hospitals, mosques etc and placing prisoners/hostages in the area.

The conclusion reached was that the best place to destroy enemy aircraft is in the air. You get a hard kill and, hopefully, no collateral damage. In DS, this conclusion was reached too late. The enemy had reached the same conclusion and refused to co-operate. Large numbers of aircraft had to be maintained in theatre and, to this day, there are still large numbers missions being conducted to, apparent, little effect.

I think it likely, therefore, that in any future conflict the use of runway denial will be limited, if used at all, and the use of fighters in sweep and escort will predominate with every effort being made to persuade the enemy to respond and to destroy his forces in the air.

What about SAW? As I said, the trouble with SEAD with weapons like HARM is that there is no hard kill. The enemy just has to turn on an emitter for a few seconds and turn it off again to ensure you have to maintain a permanent EW and SEAD presence. Even now this is still required over Iraq with ARM and PGM attacks a regular occurence. The US, therefore, is now moving to the concept of DEAD rather than SEAD. The Destruction of Enemy AD. The concept being of 2 to 3 platforms providing a long baseline and pinpointing an emitter with great precision. A suitable platform (Predator, Global Hawk?)then fires a high speed/hypersonic PGM from overhead the battlefield before the target can move.

The final question being, how does this apply to the RAF and EFA?

It is impossible to conduct OCA at medium level over enemy territory without EW and SEAD. The DASS, perhaps, solves one of these problems; but consideration should be given to a dedicated capability. The other needs an ARM capability.

To engage enemy fighters over their own territory needs a large fuel margin. (It is far easier to get into a fur-ball than to get out alive when the low fuel light starts flashing.) The EFA is not the longest range aircraft in the world. Range extension is a critical need.

If the use of EFA to achieve air superiority for the period of a COMAO/strike package is not possible, we will have to continue to rely on low level penetration, runway denial and self defence SEAD (Alarm) for the GR1 force.

[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 29 October 2000).]

34DD

29th Oct 2000, 14:13

Orac

Thanks. A very informative post and a great read

XOX

Radhaz

30th Oct 2000, 03:20

I seem to remeber something about the Cloggies having a close in, and fairly close, fight with some Mig 29s in Kosovo - Can't remember the details (Pi**ed in G**se when I last discussed it). Anyway, if memory serves, it was a fairly short range AMRAAM shot that saved the day. Anyone out there hear about it?

ORAC

22nd Nov 2000, 01:02

Flight 21 Nov:

Roke Manor, the UK Research and development consultancy, is pursuing a method of detecting stealth aircraft using mobile telephone base station transmission, and a development of of commercial ATC equipment.

Peter Lloyd, Roke Manor project manager, says coded signals transmitted by the base stations would be scattered by passing aircraft. A modified version of the company's civil Height Monitoring Equipment (HME) civil equipment would detect these signals. A number of returns would then triangulate the target's position.

He say's the system would act as a bi-static radar Base stations continuously transmit coded signals to permit the mobile phone network to operate and, say's Lloyd, do not need mdification to become part of a counterstealth radar..........

.............the base stations already exist, Lloyd say's an operational system is close to reality. The detection system is small enough for a mobile unit to be developed.

Lloyd say's the US proposed a similar system using TV transmissions. However, TV networks do not require large amounts of transmitters and can be easily targeted third generation mobile phone systems will provide thousands of transmitters.

--------------

So, problems for stealth? Look at the the widespread use of GSM, nation civil networks even in third world nations (revenue flow)and add in the small cost indicated by the article.

It shouldwork even better for non-stealth.

[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 24 November 2000).]