Eurofighter a dud - London plans to reduce order for obsolescent fighter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like minded
I was just reading Janes Defence weekly - normally a fairly accurate publication and it says that F35B has a combat radius of 503nm (800km). This doesnt really agree with your 2000km range figure, even when doubled. Also it has a 7.5g limit and no internal gun - something the Typhoon got ridiculed and lambasted for (quite rightly in my opinion). These figures dont really fit in with your ultra-agile F35B picture. Have I missed something?
If you want to push F35B I suggest you stick with its biggest strength over Typhoon/Rafale etc and that is "stealth". There is other avionics stuff, but that is currently unproven/planned capability that Typhoon could claim as well for Tranche 3/4/whatever.
I was just reading Janes Defence weekly - normally a fairly accurate publication and it says that F35B has a combat radius of 503nm (800km). This doesnt really agree with your 2000km range figure, even when doubled. Also it has a 7.5g limit and no internal gun - something the Typhoon got ridiculed and lambasted for (quite rightly in my opinion). These figures dont really fit in with your ultra-agile F35B picture. Have I missed something?
If you want to push F35B I suggest you stick with its biggest strength over Typhoon/Rafale etc and that is "stealth". There is other avionics stuff, but that is currently unproven/planned capability that Typhoon could claim as well for Tranche 3/4/whatever.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
How much relevance is stealth in the future? As new technologies are invented technologies to counter them are too.
Isn't comparatively cheap IRST/FLIR proving a thorn in the side of of this expensive stealth technology?
Isn't comparatively cheap IRST/FLIR proving a thorn in the side of of this expensive stealth technology?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't comparatively cheap IRST/FLIR proving a thorn in the side of of this expensive stealth technology?
Nope, passive infrared devices can't see much too farther than visual range in humid and/or dusty air. Active infrared radar has less range than microwave radar in any atmospheric conditions. ( Microwave wavelength radar -- that which is commonly called "radar." )
Radar stealth affords low observability at distances beyond passive electro-optical sensor or eyeball range. Radar stealth is what one needs for successful 21st century air to air bvr combat.
Let me ask this rhetorical question: why do longe range air interdiction missiles use radar guidance instead of IRST/FLIR?
Nope, passive infrared devices can't see much too farther than visual range in humid and/or dusty air. Active infrared radar has less range than microwave radar in any atmospheric conditions. ( Microwave wavelength radar -- that which is commonly called "radar." )
Radar stealth affords low observability at distances beyond passive electro-optical sensor or eyeball range. Radar stealth is what one needs for successful 21st century air to air bvr combat.
Let me ask this rhetorical question: why do longe range air interdiction missiles use radar guidance instead of IRST/FLIR?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Let me ask this rhetorical question: why do longe range air interdiction missiles use radar guidance instead of IRST/FLIR?
Ok, whilst IRST/FLIR may not be the correct counter I'm sure my initial comment is true enough, ie: as one technology is invented someone invents one to counter it. Surely its only a matter of time before the stealth technology that the F35B will employ is countered and its all back to square one again (well at least against a 1st world foe)?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golly, I'm not French, I'm a colonial.
The range of F-35B is not conclusively known, but at the very least, we know that it is possible that it will have a longer range than the EF, despite being a VSTOL fighter.
Furthermore, with the addition of beam weapons on the F-35A and F-35C, the natural agility of the EF is eroded even further. At the moment they have gotten a laser to fire up to 10 km range with effect and are miniaturizing it to fit into the forward fan space of the B version.
There is no plane fast or agile enough to escape the speed of lasers, eh.
Furthermore, the AESA radar of the F-35B, which is already into the fourth generation AESA for the Americans, is known to be a comprehensive weapon.
When it comes to space age **** like this, I don't doubt the Americans.
The range of F-35B is not conclusively known, but at the very least, we know that it is possible that it will have a longer range than the EF, despite being a VSTOL fighter.
Furthermore, with the addition of beam weapons on the F-35A and F-35C, the natural agility of the EF is eroded even further. At the moment they have gotten a laser to fire up to 10 km range with effect and are miniaturizing it to fit into the forward fan space of the B version.
There is no plane fast or agile enough to escape the speed of lasers, eh.
Furthermore, the AESA radar of the F-35B, which is already into the fourth generation AESA for the Americans, is known to be a comprehensive weapon.
When it comes to space age **** like this, I don't doubt the Americans.
LM - put the spade down and step away from the hole...
Anything might be possible. It is possible that the Pope will renounce his position in order that he might marry Kylie Minogue; it is, however, a tad unlikely.
How is agility eroded, unless the DEW is in a turret? If it'll 'fit in the fan space of the B version' (what happens to the fan?), then it'll be possible to fit it to Typhoon.
That, with respect, is meaningless gibberish and ignores the fact that Typhoon will, in due course, have AESA.
The range of F-35B is not conclusively known, but at the very least, we know that it is possible that it will have a longer range than the EF, despite being a VSTOL fighter.
Furthermore, with the addition of beam weapons on the F-35A and F-35C, the natural agility of the EF is eroded even further. At the moment they have gotten a laser to fire up to 10 km range with effect and are miniaturizing it to fit into the forward fan space of the B version.
Furthermore, the AESA radar of the F-35B, which is already into the fourth generation AESA for the Americans, is known to be a comprehensive weapon.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, it won't fit into the EF, because the US will never ever share that tech.
The natural agility advantage of EF, I mean.
Show me a working AESA of EADS or Dassault, and I'll sell you a bridge over River Helmand.
The natural agility advantage of EF, I mean.
Show me a working AESA of EADS or Dassault, and I'll sell you a bridge over River Helmand.
If the US won't share the technology, then it means that as far as the RAF is concerned (and, one would hope the Austrians, Italians, Germans and Spanish at least) then the 'threat' is irrelevant, since unless we've fouled up spectacularly in the old special relationship, we're not going to be attempting to avoid DEW shots from F-35s.
And while European AESA may not be at full functionality now, by the time F-35 comes into UK service then unless something has gone wildly amiss, there will be one (unless you're adopting the arrogant view that only the US is capable of developing a functioning AESA radar).
Your argument is that the RAF shouldn't buy T3 of the Typhoon because of the 'failings' you mention, yet none of them actually stack up. Your argument might have some validity (a) if the timescale for JCA and T3 were parallel, but they're not and (b) if the UK finds itself at war with the US within the next 20 years.
And while European AESA may not be at full functionality now, by the time F-35 comes into UK service then unless something has gone wildly amiss, there will be one (unless you're adopting the arrogant view that only the US is capable of developing a functioning AESA radar).
Your argument is that the RAF shouldn't buy T3 of the Typhoon because of the 'failings' you mention, yet none of them actually stack up. Your argument might have some validity (a) if the timescale for JCA and T3 were parallel, but they're not and (b) if the UK finds itself at war with the US within the next 20 years.
Last edited by Archimedes; 21st Sep 2007 at 00:00.
Furthermore, the AESA radar of the F-35B, which is already into the fourth generation AESA for the Americans, is known to be a comprehensive weapon.
When it comes to space age **** like this, I don't doubt the Americans.
When it comes to space age **** like this, I don't doubt the Americans.
It's a great pity that the F35 vs Typhoon discussion has become an argument from the 1960s: whether the UK needs floating ac carriers or a fixed one. Both the RN and the RAF seem to be fighting for survival, each trying to maintain a size of fleet that is sustainable as a separate service. The current's Government's SDR in 1997 was supposed to provide strategic direction, but since it was reneged upon with in months of its inception, has done nothing of the sort. So both services are fighting over a steadily reducing pot of cash with, it seems, little basis in what the requirement is.
McD
The range of F-35B is not conclusively known, but at the very least, we know that it is possible that it will have a longer range than the EF, despite being a VSTOL fighter.
Plus, the way things are panning out and given the likely future strategic priority for UK Plc being AF rather than IZ, I would think that the EF's range is plenty enough to get from KAF or KAIA down to Helmand with enough ordnance to do some landscaping.
Last edited by Melchett01; 20th Sep 2007 at 19:26.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 37
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, if my information is correct the MoD makes money out of the deal by taking a "brokerage fee" of around 1% of contract value, if the much quoted 20 billion pounds are correct for the whole deal the MoD should net around 200 million pounds.
As for European AESAs, there are lots currently working, CAESAR, RBE2, Vixen and ARTS spring to mind, none of them are operational but until the F35 comes along they pretty certainly will be in operational service.
As for European AESAs, there are lots currently working, CAESAR, RBE2, Vixen and ARTS spring to mind, none of them are operational but until the F35 comes along they pretty certainly will be in operational service.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show me a working AESA of EADS or Dassault, and I'll sell you a bridge over River Helmand.
Please see below the RBE2 AESA as fitted to Rafale and in service NOW.
Top tips: know what you're talking about before engaging in debate.
Finally, how much do you want for the bridge over the River Helmand then?
Regards,
MM
Ah, but he'll claim that the Rafale' AESA is still being worked up, hence my reference to full functionality. QinetiQ have a GR4 that is trialling the very same sort of radar.
However, it has since occurred to me that there's another small point LM has overlooked in his claims, namely that the US Coast Guard has gone for an AESA for its HC-130s - Seaspray 7000E, which (whisper it gently) is a decidedly non-American product...
However, it has since occurred to me that there's another small point LM has overlooked in his claims, namely that the US Coast Guard has gone for an AESA for its HC-130s - Seaspray 7000E, which (whisper it gently) is a decidedly non-American product...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show me a working AESA of EADS or Dassault, and I'll sell you a bridge over River Helmand.
However, if you ask nicely, they'll sell you some of the goat ****e they've tramped across it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Damn, imagine that. A non-american designing and building something Gucci.
Next you'll try telling me it was some backwards European person who came up with the concept of radar.
Next you'll try telling me it was some backwards European person who came up with the concept of radar.
Guest
Posts: n/a
and I'll sell you a bridge over River Helmand
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/1Combat...idgebuild2.JPG
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, but he'll claim that the Rafale' AESA is still being worked up, hence my reference to full functionality.
I noticed a little snippet in the aviation press recently which also suggested the B-2 AESA replacement for the M-Scan APQ-181 has been significantly delayed due to technical problems. So LM's assertion that the US are so wonderful with AESA is also questionable.
Ironically, the first nation to field an AESA was Russia, with the MiG-31 Foxhound.
MM
RBE 2 is a PESA, and while the French have flown an AESA (two AESAs if memory serves) on Rafale, they are not in service, but are merely ahead, but not much further ahead than Euroradar, who have now flown CAESAR extensively on the QinetiQ 111, and on Eurofighter DA5.
But nor is US AESA technology much further ahead - and this claim that JSF has 'fourth generation AESA' is barking.
The USAF has 18 AESA F-15s, which are useful, but which still have limitations.
The USN has AESA Super Hornets but still can't deploy the AESA birds operationally (or has only just done so if something has changed in the last weeks).
The only in-service AESA that is working well is that on the F-22.
I'm not surprised that LM highlights AESA, since without a helmet and without a decent datalink, there aren't many examples of great advanced technology from the USAF's in service example of a 5th Generation fighter.
But nor is US AESA technology much further ahead - and this claim that JSF has 'fourth generation AESA' is barking.
The USAF has 18 AESA F-15s, which are useful, but which still have limitations.
The USN has AESA Super Hornets but still can't deploy the AESA birds operationally (or has only just done so if something has changed in the last weeks).
The only in-service AESA that is working well is that on the F-22.
I'm not surprised that LM highlights AESA, since without a helmet and without a decent datalink, there aren't many examples of great advanced technology from the USAF's in service example of a 5th Generation fighter.
MM - yes, yes Rafale may have been on ops with it, but that doesn't count under LM rules. If it's not making nice latte because some modes are still being developed (I'm basing this on a chat I had with an Adl'A chap last month - I may have made up the bit about latte...), then it's not working as the designers intended and it therefore doesn't work, and we've failed to prove our point. We must try harder to obtain the bridge!