Tornado Replacement
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now what were you leading to with respect to the F-35?
Just trying to get my finger on the pulse of the critical need for agility, which seems to be hyper important to some folks here. F-35 has traded agility for other priorities and Tornado ADV never had it. F-35 will be operating along with F-15/16s (ignoring F-22) and Typhoon which have agility. But Tornado ADV never had an agile fighter to work alongside it. It'll be interesting to see how this all works out in the end operationally rather than just theoretically.
genuine question?
what proportion of Typhoons pretty spectacular manouverability was engineered into the aircraft after it became clear that F2/F3 just couldn't cut the fighter mustard?
how much of that manouverability is a result of it being at the top of the 'it must do this..' list when pencil first touched paper, and how much was a welcome, but not neccesarily demanded by-product of other design philosophies...?
what proportion of Typhoons pretty spectacular manouverability was engineered into the aircraft after it became clear that F2/F3 just couldn't cut the fighter mustard?
how much of that manouverability is a result of it being at the top of the 'it must do this..' list when pencil first touched paper, and how much was a welcome, but not neccesarily demanded by-product of other design philosophies...?
Easy question, cokecan. It was always going to be agile from the earliest UK and German requirements way back in the 70s. The lessons about high wing loaders were still fresh in the mind from Vietnam and requirements for new fighter designs were developed accordingly.
The fundamentals in the Typhoon's design pretty much demonstrate that - delta wing, canards, high thrust to weight, excellent pilot viz, etc. It just took an awfully long time to get there because of the difficulties of getting four nations (well, five actually) to agree to anything.
Oh, and it didn't become clear that Tornado couldn't cut the fighter mustard, it was never supposed to or expected to. It was always an interceptor.
The fundamentals in the Typhoon's design pretty much demonstrate that - delta wing, canards, high thrust to weight, excellent pilot viz, etc. It just took an awfully long time to get there because of the difficulties of getting four nations (well, five actually) to agree to anything.
Oh, and it didn't become clear that Tornado couldn't cut the fighter mustard, it was never supposed to or expected to. It was always an interceptor.
As for the need for agility - your adversary has a vote. If the opposition intends to fight into and through the merge, you will need (a) pre-merge dominance so he never gets there, (b) a magic all-aspect weapon that defeats him or his weapon (think DEW) or (c) competitive agility so that he doesn't control the engagement.
JSF people have claimed all three - stealth, EO-DAS/HOBS and comparable maneuverability. Unfortunately none are in the least valid.
JSF people have claimed all three - stealth, EO-DAS/HOBS and comparable maneuverability. Unfortunately none are in the least valid.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Please note that the Typhoon was never designed as a Tornado F3 replacement, that was supposed to be a different programme. The Typhoon was designed under AST414 as a Jaguar and F4 replacement, with the operating location as an F4 AD replacement being in Germany in the CR and in the southern North Sea, as such iit was designed for combat with the Mig-29, hence the need for agility.
It was intended the F3 would be replaced with another long range twin seat interceptor for NQRA/Atlantic fleet defence tasks.
It was only after the end of the cold war and the demise of the UK F-4 force that the plan changed to replace the Lightning/F3 force in order to keep the programme going and maintain production share.
It was intended the F3 would be replaced with another long range twin seat interceptor for NQRA/Atlantic fleet defence tasks.
It was only after the end of the cold war and the demise of the UK F-4 force that the plan changed to replace the Lightning/F3 force in order to keep the programme going and maintain production share.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have never flown it and only operate with second hand info.
You might be very well be correct, I don't know either, but it is fallacious to present that statement as fact rather than as an opinion from an amateur aircraft spotter.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF people have claimed all three - stealth, EO-DAS/HOBS and comparable maneuverability. Unfortunately none are in the least valid.
Please, do tell me more! [fetches popcorn]
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from the RAF FTRS vacncies website
So the Saudis will be flying the Tonka until 2030 - 56 years after it first flew in 1974. Not bad for 'Mother Riley's Cardboard Aircraft' (MRCA) 
LJ
A vacancy has arisen for a Group Captain (Engineer (AS)) to serve as the Tornado Transition Manager (TTM) at Cromwell House, London on Full Time Reserve Service (LC) Terms and Conditions of Service (TCoS).
As Gp Capt TTM you will be responsible for leading a transition team to develop and implement a programme within MODSAP to support the continued operation of the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) Tornado Force until 2030. Proposals will take into account requirements by BAES, the RSAF and NETMA and the extant requirements for services and SQEP support with drawdown of the RAF Tornado Force.
As Gp Capt TTM you will be responsible for leading a transition team to develop and implement a programme within MODSAP to support the continued operation of the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) Tornado Force until 2030. Proposals will take into account requirements by BAES, the RSAF and NETMA and the extant requirements for services and SQEP support with drawdown of the RAF Tornado Force.
LJ
To expand:
Stealth: JSF is susceptible to detection and tracking by IRST and VHF radar, which in turn permits cued search in higher radar bands. Unless its own LPI/radar technology is magically good, it may also be susceptible to detection by modern ESM.
HOBS/EO-DAS: Even if EO-DAS gives reliable, unambiguous tracking of highly agile targets, JSF doesn't carry a HOBS weapon in its LO configuration.
Agility: Case closed last year and confirmed by an ACC officer in November.
Stealth: JSF is susceptible to detection and tracking by IRST and VHF radar, which in turn permits cued search in higher radar bands. Unless its own LPI/radar technology is magically good, it may also be susceptible to detection by modern ESM.
HOBS/EO-DAS: Even if EO-DAS gives reliable, unambiguous tracking of highly agile targets, JSF doesn't carry a HOBS weapon in its LO configuration.
Agility: Case closed last year and confirmed by an ACC officer in November.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, to expand,
Your statement was that all three were absolute; i.e.
Sorry, beg to differ:
1 - Stealth. Nothing is impervious to detection of some sorts. We all know this. I can see an F-35 with my eyeball. It is band-dependant (a subject covered over and over again). It is often a system of systems. To unknowingly imply that you don't believe stealth to be "in the least valid" is disingenous and I refer you to Tourist's point that you have never flown F-35 and your knowledge is second hand; your assertion on stealth confirms these.
2 - Hobs etc. Nobody in their right mind would post classified weapon system capabilities on a public forum. I'll leave it at that but suffice to say your view is a very overly simplistic one and therefore you cannot state absolutely that it is, "in the least valid". There are some pretty mind-boggling capabilities out there right now.
3 - Maneuvrability. The only one of the three issues I agree with you on, and this has been thrashed out in the public media over and over again. Indeed, it is the dead horse that tends to get re-flogged when there's nothing else to moan about. Monsieur Sprey loves this one, but in a modern war the likelihood of needing high agility in a sustained turning fight is far, far less than it was in 1960-1990.
To qualify my earlier response I believe your assumptions in making the statement that none are, "in the least valid" is wrong. One of your three is partially correct, but not all three.
Your statement was that all three were absolute; i.e.
Unfortunately none are in the least valid.
1 - Stealth. Nothing is impervious to detection of some sorts. We all know this. I can see an F-35 with my eyeball. It is band-dependant (a subject covered over and over again). It is often a system of systems. To unknowingly imply that you don't believe stealth to be "in the least valid" is disingenous and I refer you to Tourist's point that you have never flown F-35 and your knowledge is second hand; your assertion on stealth confirms these.
2 - Hobs etc. Nobody in their right mind would post classified weapon system capabilities on a public forum. I'll leave it at that but suffice to say your view is a very overly simplistic one and therefore you cannot state absolutely that it is, "in the least valid". There are some pretty mind-boggling capabilities out there right now.
3 - Maneuvrability. The only one of the three issues I agree with you on, and this has been thrashed out in the public media over and over again. Indeed, it is the dead horse that tends to get re-flogged when there's nothing else to moan about. Monsieur Sprey loves this one, but in a modern war the likelihood of needing high agility in a sustained turning fight is far, far less than it was in 1960-1990.
To qualify my earlier response I believe your assumptions in making the statement that none are, "in the least valid" is wrong. One of your three is partially correct, but not all three.
OK:
I accept your statement that I'm correct on item 3. Of course I and other skeptics have been saying this for years, based on physical comparisons to other aircraft, with the enthusiasts and marketeers loudly claiming we were wrong.
Likewise, the band-dependent bit, now written off as old hat ("covered over and over again") was raised years ago, and roundly dismissed, by those of us who could see what was being developed in Russia and China, as was the potential of IRST. Also, I didn't say that stealth was not valid; I said that F-35 stealth is not valid in this case, which is to provide A2A dominance (first look/shot/kill) over a contemporary adversary. (F-22-versus-Su-27 is a different kettle of fish.)
As for HOBS - if there is a Secret Squirrel AAM that comes off the internal launcher and schwacks anything within 360-deg., cool. But to say I'm skeptical of anyone playing the "it's secret" card is an understatement, because there is no historical precedent, that I know of, for a nonblack aircraft in peacetime to have had a major capability that was kept secret through service entry.
I accept your statement that I'm correct on item 3. Of course I and other skeptics have been saying this for years, based on physical comparisons to other aircraft, with the enthusiasts and marketeers loudly claiming we were wrong.
Likewise, the band-dependent bit, now written off as old hat ("covered over and over again") was raised years ago, and roundly dismissed, by those of us who could see what was being developed in Russia and China, as was the potential of IRST. Also, I didn't say that stealth was not valid; I said that F-35 stealth is not valid in this case, which is to provide A2A dominance (first look/shot/kill) over a contemporary adversary. (F-22-versus-Su-27 is a different kettle of fish.)
As for HOBS - if there is a Secret Squirrel AAM that comes off the internal launcher and schwacks anything within 360-deg., cool. But to say I'm skeptical of anyone playing the "it's secret" card is an understatement, because there is no historical precedent, that I know of, for a nonblack aircraft in peacetime to have had a major capability that was kept secret through service entry.
A1bill, your "you haven't flown it" argument could be applied to every single contributor here - including you. So does your statement invalidate all your claims? Or does your ability to post links to YouTube override your requirement to have flown the aircraft?
What is your Service background, by the way?
What is your Service background, by the way?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF doesn't carry a HOBS weapon in its LO configuration.
1. Does AIM-120 have HOBS capability?
2. Can F-35 carry AIM-120 internally?
Or did you mean "doesn't carry an IR guided HOBS weapon in its LO configuration"?
Yes it does, technically, but you need to have a means of telling it where the Q is and, if necessary, data linking that to the mx. You could give it all the gen pre-launch, but you've got a big uncertainty box, which would be dangerous close in with friendlies close by.
Of course, there are similar risks with launching a HOB IR round if it has to go lock after launch. You lose the ability to confirm the mx has the right target before pulling the trigger.
Pitbull with your wingmen around?
Of course, there are similar risks with launching a HOB IR round if it has to go lock after launch. You lose the ability to confirm the mx has the right target before pulling the trigger.
Pitbull with your wingmen around?
AIM-120 has some HOBS capability, but not as you'd understand it on (for instance) AIM-9X, IRIS-T or Python 5. Kinematics and the sensor are fundamentally different.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a1bill,
Thank you for posting the excellent video. 'Hemo' is obviously a company man, but gave a very interesting presentation, nonetheless!
With anything JSF, the 'real' capabilities are classified. That said, it doesn't take much to question some of its relevance, particularly in the counter-air role against certain potential adversaries.
Thank you for posting the excellent video. 'Hemo' is obviously a company man, but gave a very interesting presentation, nonetheless!
With anything JSF, the 'real' capabilities are classified. That said, it doesn't take much to question some of its relevance, particularly in the counter-air role against certain potential adversaries.