F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In the Doghouse...
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thrust vectored F-22 most likely would be able to down 4 Typhoons in short order. Let the war game begin
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Yes Americans I refer to you but thought due to interlect I had better explain
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Friends and neighbors,
Regarding export sales of the F-22: Israel as well as Japan wants F-22's and F-35's with no restrictions. This is an issue. The DoD isn't entirely confident that the latter day Israelites or perhaps the Japanese wouldn't try to reverse engineer and perhaps re-sell some highly classified technologies if they got these aircraft. (Well, at least the Japanese pay for their American military equipment.)
Wwhat does this have to do with F-22 for UK or Australia? Selling F-22's to UK or Aus. would set a precedent for overseas F-22 sales, thereby increasing pressure from the aforesaid countries to get F-22's also.
Note to all Ppruners: thius is the 2nd time I have posted sentiments such as these on pprune.org. The first such post mysteriously disappeared. Let's see what happens to this one.
Regarding export sales of the F-22: Israel as well as Japan wants F-22's and F-35's with no restrictions. This is an issue. The DoD isn't entirely confident that the latter day Israelites or perhaps the Japanese wouldn't try to reverse engineer and perhaps re-sell some highly classified technologies if they got these aircraft. (Well, at least the Japanese pay for their American military equipment.)
Wwhat does this have to do with F-22 for UK or Australia? Selling F-22's to UK or Aus. would set a precedent for overseas F-22 sales, thereby increasing pressure from the aforesaid countries to get F-22's also.
Note to all Ppruners: thius is the 2nd time I have posted sentiments such as these on pprune.org. The first such post mysteriously disappeared. Let's see what happens to this one.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been said earlier*, it can have all the kit and buttons to push you want but if a monkey is flying it well.............................
* a LOT earlier....
* a LOT earlier....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mol W, I know almost nothing about Typhoon or how the fighter chaps operate it (Almost the perfect qualification to make a comment PPrune
)
I'd guess they might use better C3I, ASACS, BVR AAM, IRST, HMS, IR AAM, EW, SA, training and tactics, etc.
)I'd guess they might use better C3I, ASACS, BVR AAM, IRST, HMS, IR AAM, EW, SA, training and tactics, etc.
Disclaimer: This is a politics-free question coming from someone whose flying experience extends to a whole fifteen minutes on the Cessna 152.
This outrageously-expensive thrust vectoring thing, then. It seems to me to allow the aircraft to make very abrupt pitch changes without actually changing the direction of flight, presenting the belly of the thing to the oncoming air and slowing down to a near-stop in the process. At that point, as it hangs almost motionless in the air, I'm fairly confident I could bring it down with a spud gun let alone some form of sophisticated anti-aeroplane device.
How is this abrupt-pitch-excursion thing actually useful? Don't canards on the Typhoon have the same effect?
P
This outrageously-expensive thrust vectoring thing, then. It seems to me to allow the aircraft to make very abrupt pitch changes without actually changing the direction of flight, presenting the belly of the thing to the oncoming air and slowing down to a near-stop in the process. At that point, as it hangs almost motionless in the air, I'm fairly confident I could bring it down with a spud gun let alone some form of sophisticated anti-aeroplane device.
How is this abrupt-pitch-excursion thing actually useful? Don't canards on the Typhoon have the same effect?
P
Canards have another job - to keep the air going over the wing rather than smack into the underside in high angles of attack.
And as for how useful thrust vectoring is, ask the folks at Lockheed Martin who put an F-16 with thrust vectoring up against its conventional cousins (often with odds not in favour) and it still held its own. Now imagine what an aircraft designed with thrust vectoring from the word go could do.
(See also: F-15 ACTIVE, X-31)
And as for how useful thrust vectoring is, ask the folks at Lockheed Martin who put an F-16 with thrust vectoring up against its conventional cousins (often with odds not in favour) and it still held its own. Now imagine what an aircraft designed with thrust vectoring from the word go could do.
(See also: F-15 ACTIVE, X-31)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brickhistory
Lessons for both the Typhoon (still cannot believe the Germans went along with that name)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me to allow the aircraft to make very abrupt pitch changes without actually changing the direction of flight, presenting the belly of the thing to the oncoming air and slowing down to a near-stop in the process.
Thrust vectoring allows more than that. Compared to the same platform without thrust vetoring, thrust vectoring enables the aircraft to shorten its radius of turn, take off and land shorter, and point the a/c's nose at an angle away from the aircraft's velocity vector -- useful for air to air weapons which need to be aimed.
However, the combat utility of maneuvers which deplete both aircraft kinetic energy and potential energy is open to question. A tail side followed by three back flips and a falling leaf may not be a winning set of maneuvers.
Thrust vectoring allows more than that. Compared to the same platform without thrust vetoring, thrust vectoring enables the aircraft to shorten its radius of turn, take off and land shorter, and point the a/c's nose at an angle away from the aircraft's velocity vector -- useful for air to air weapons which need to be aimed.
However, the combat utility of maneuvers which deplete both aircraft kinetic energy and potential energy is open to question. A tail side followed by three back flips and a falling leaf may not be a winning set of maneuvers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Phil R,
Canards are fine with some airspeed when you have airflow passing over them. At low airspeed they are somewhat 'limp' when a rapid pitch movement is required.
Thrust vectoring is effective for pitch at any speed, also throttle dependent.
Now if they really want to nudge the tail of the craft around the lateral axis fast, why don't they include side thrust vectoring in proportion with the rudders?
How about reaction control jets in the nose for pitch control similar to what the Space Shuttle uses for steering control?
Canards are fine with some airspeed when you have airflow passing over them. At low airspeed they are somewhat 'limp' when a rapid pitch movement is required.
Thrust vectoring is effective for pitch at any speed, also throttle dependent.
Now if they really want to nudge the tail of the craft around the lateral axis fast, why don't they include side thrust vectoring in proportion with the rudders?
How about reaction control jets in the nose for pitch control similar to what the Space Shuttle uses for steering control?
Now tell me how a Typhoon would take on a thrust vectored SU30 if it came to the fight.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why ever not? Germany had a Typhoon all of its own, a world record breaking light plane in its day, and the basis for one of the worlds greatest piston engined fighters
I would have thougth (somewhat tongue in cheek) that they'd not really go for that name in cooperation with the RAF.
Doesn't matter, I'm firmly on the F-22 side. Hope/wish we buy more of them.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brickhis
The Typhoon I'm referring to had RAF roundels and had a starring role, among other places, at Falaise.
I would have thougth (somewhat tongue in cheek) that they'd not really go for that name in cooperation with the RAF.
I would have thougth (somewhat tongue in cheek) that they'd not really go for that name in cooperation with the RAF.
Although of late they have shown a new interest in its air to surface role. To the extent they will now replace one squadron of Tornados, even though that will entail keeping a squadron of air to air F4s on a while longer. Perhaps the loss of all those tanks, to its 'namesake' had something to do with it.
EF2000 Euroblighter was named 'Typhoon' after a meeting between the major European partners some years ago..........
UK: "We need a name for this new jet. We don't think that ‘Spitfire II’ would be terribly suitable, so we suggest following on the 'wind' tradition started by Tornado. How about 'Tempest'?"
Germany: "Nein! Ve are with this not happy being. Verdammte Englanders did my father in his Me262 mit ein Hawker Tempest shoot down. Ve suggest Sturm!"
UK: "No, sorry old chap. Too many memories of Storm Troopers goose-stepping across Europe..... We'd prefer 'Hurricane'"
Germany: "Nein. This is not possible."
UK: "OK - something else then. How about 'Typhoon'.....?"
Germany: "Nein! You also had those in the Second Weltkrieg. Ve do NOT vant unser aircraft so named being"
UK: "Ah - but you had a 'Typhoon' or rather 'Taifun' as well. Bf 108 Taifun, if you recall. In fact Lufthansa still have one in the Deutschen Lufthansa Berlin-Stiftung....along with a Ju 52!"
Germany: "Ach Himmel! Sie haben recht. Ve did indeed. Perhaps ve can consider this?"
UK: "OK - perhaps. Or what about 'Cyclone'? No-one has ever had any aeroplane called 'Cyclone'?"
Germany: "Hmm. Sehr interesting. Zis ist perhaps OK. Ja - ve are liking 'Cyclone', oder, wie sagt man auf Deutsch, 'Zyklon'. Ve can fur das Singleseaterflugzeug 'Zyklon A' have, und für das Doppelseaterjagdbomberflugzeug, vielleicht 'Zyklon B'......"
UK: "Ahhh - we don't think that would be a terribly good name. We want to sell our jet overseas. We don't think that 'Zyklon B' would go down terribly well with some of our potential Middle Eastern customers......"
Germany: "Ach so. Perhaps then ve should agree on 'Taifun'!"
UK: "Yes. ‘Typhoon’ it is then. Spot of lunch, old chap?"
Germany: "Danke"
Italy: "Lunch? Si, we agree."
Spain: "¿Qué?"
UK: "We need a name for this new jet. We don't think that ‘Spitfire II’ would be terribly suitable, so we suggest following on the 'wind' tradition started by Tornado. How about 'Tempest'?"
Germany: "Nein! Ve are with this not happy being. Verdammte Englanders did my father in his Me262 mit ein Hawker Tempest shoot down. Ve suggest Sturm!"
UK: "No, sorry old chap. Too many memories of Storm Troopers goose-stepping across Europe..... We'd prefer 'Hurricane'"
Germany: "Nein. This is not possible."
UK: "OK - something else then. How about 'Typhoon'.....?"
Germany: "Nein! You also had those in the Second Weltkrieg. Ve do NOT vant unser aircraft so named being"
UK: "Ah - but you had a 'Typhoon' or rather 'Taifun' as well. Bf 108 Taifun, if you recall. In fact Lufthansa still have one in the Deutschen Lufthansa Berlin-Stiftung....along with a Ju 52!"
Germany: "Ach Himmel! Sie haben recht. Ve did indeed. Perhaps ve can consider this?"
UK: "OK - perhaps. Or what about 'Cyclone'? No-one has ever had any aeroplane called 'Cyclone'?"
Germany: "Hmm. Sehr interesting. Zis ist perhaps OK. Ja - ve are liking 'Cyclone', oder, wie sagt man auf Deutsch, 'Zyklon'. Ve can fur das Singleseaterflugzeug 'Zyklon A' have, und für das Doppelseaterjagdbomberflugzeug, vielleicht 'Zyklon B'......"
UK: "Ahhh - we don't think that would be a terribly good name. We want to sell our jet overseas. We don't think that 'Zyklon B' would go down terribly well with some of our potential Middle Eastern customers......"
Germany: "Ach so. Perhaps then ve should agree on 'Taifun'!"
UK: "Yes. ‘Typhoon’ it is then. Spot of lunch, old chap?"
Germany: "Danke"
Italy: "Lunch? Si, we agree."
Spain: "¿Qué?"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lockheed Martin press release:
Norway Recommends Lockheed Martin F-35, Multi-National JSF Partnership Remains Strong | Lockheed Martin
Norway Recommends Lockheed Martin F-35, Multi-National JSF Partnership Remains Strong | Lockheed Martin
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Liverpool
Age: 38
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it has been announced that the British Armed Forces will now be buying 330 F-35b's rather than the original 140 - odd or however many it is.
With majority going to the Royal Navy, who need it to replace the ever ageing Harrier GR9 (how many times MORE will they update it?).
But there is a desperate need to get the F-35.
Also, let us note, us Brits are not AGAINST the americans, if you didn't have us (and vice versa) then we would be in a chaotic crisis situation!
Regards, Matt.
With majority going to the Royal Navy, who need it to replace the ever ageing Harrier GR9 (how many times MORE will they update it?).
But there is a desperate need to get the F-35.
Also, let us note, us Brits are not AGAINST the americans, if you didn't have us (and vice versa) then we would be in a chaotic crisis situation!
Regards, Matt.