https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mS...WluniuG4bQ5hk-

Just saying !!

Thanks for confirming that you appear to be overdrawn at the spermbank

I'm guessing from your PPRUNE name that you may recall that during design and development EF was forbidden from referring to the twin seat version as a "trainer". The 2 seater always struck me as an odd requirement given the fidelity of modern simulation and the additional costs involved. I wondered whether it might have been that some senior officers were concerned about aircrews' ability to live the aircraft's performance from an aeromedical perspective. Some IAM people did hold opinions on this 'risk' causing some annoyance in the industry TP population. I think history shows that the risk wasn't very real.

EAP

PS as an aside to all, my Google lookup defines 'stochastic' as "having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely" which works quite well for me.

As a point of interest does anyone have an explanation as to why the French Air Force seem to have a roughly equal force of single and two seat Rafales?

I am assuming that the answer is not just the nuclear role as the Naval single seaters are nuclear capable.

Short sighted conservatism?

No, no, no. We need to hit the ground running, keep our eye on the ball, and make sure that we are singing off the same song-sheet. At the end of the day it is not a level playing field and the goalposts may move; if they do, someone may have to pick it up and run with it. We therefore must have a golf bag of options hot-to-trot from the word "go". It is your train set but we cannot afford to leave it on the back-burner; we've got a lot of irons in the fire right now.

We will need to un-stick a few potential poo traps but it all depends on the flash-to bang time and fudge factor allowed. Things may end up slipping to the left and, if they do, we will need to run a tight ship. I don't want to reinvent the wheel but we must get right into the weeds on this one. If push comes to shove, we may have to up-stumps and then we'll be in a whole new ball game.

I suggest we test the water with a few warmers in the bank. If we can produce the goods then we are cooking with gas. If not, then we are in a world of hurt. I don't want to die in a ditch over it but we could easily end up in a flat spin if people start getting twitchy.

To that end, I want to get around the bazaars and make sure the movers and shakers are on-side from day one. If you can hit me with your shopping list I can take it to the head honchos and start the ball rolling. I know you're not the sharpest tool in the box and may be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but together we'll be the best thing since sliced bread.

There is light at the end of the tunnel and I think we have backed a winner here. If it gets blown out of the water, however, I will be throwing a track. So get your feet into my in-tray and give me chapter and verse as to how you see things panning out. As long as our ducks are in a row I think the ball will stay in play and we can come up smelling of roses.

Before you bomb-burst and throw smoke it is imperative we nail our colours to the mast and look at the big picture. We've got to march to the beat of the drum. We are on a sticky wicket, we'll need to play with a straight bat and watch out for fast balls.

I've been on permanent send for long enough and I've had my ten pence worth. I don't want to rock the boat or teach anyone to suck eggs. We must keep this firmly in our sight picture and not under our hats or it will fall between the cracks. If the cap fits, wear it, but it may seem like pushing fog uphill with a sharp stick. Did you all get that?

Wow a masterpiece!!!

Meanwhile the RTP continues....:rolleyes:

Two-seat Rafales? Wikipedia is your friend:

Slightly sloppy language in that quote. As has been pointed out the ‘strike’ (nuclear) role can be carried out by a single-seat Rafale; that’s because the targets are (hopefully!) rigorously pre-planned and tend not to move. It’s dynamic conventional missions such as armed recce and interdiction which increase the challenge for a single pilot.

Remember that Typhoon was treated as a ‘pure’ fighter during its development, so the logic invoked by the FAF would not have applied despite the design decisions being taken in a similar timeframe. Back in those days the assumption was that Tornado would be replaced by something else, so if Typhoon grew into attack roles it would be only as a Jaguar (and possibly Harrier) replacement. Fast forward to F35 development, and improvements in sensor and computing technology saw ‘sensor fusion’ finally displace the second crew member for all mission types. This rather begs the question of Typhoon’s current suitability for the full range of air-to-ground missions, having neither the designed-in sensor fusion of the F35 nor the flexible computing power of a second brain. An upgrade from Litening III will probably be needed to ease the pilot’s task while tracking moving targets, which will need to be done very accurately if Typhoon is to be able to replicate Tornado’s Brimstone capability.

We’ll be unlikely to find out whether sensor fusion is sufficiently mature for F35 to have dispensed with a WSO until the type’s first combat results hit the media. No pilot is going to confess publicly to finding targeting a bit tricky! In the meantime, I was intrigued to see on a recent thread a French-German concept drawing of a stealthy combat aircraft... with two seats!

There were no 2 seat F117s or F22s were there?

ACW599-

Now that's what I call blue sky thinking.:ok:

We really do need a 'like' button

2 Seats vice 1 Seat
 

The FAF operate their Rafales very, very well indeed. Their MC will more often than not be found sitting in one of the back seats, running the mission without having to try and lead his four ship.

Equally, the Super Hornets thoroughly embarrassed the Typhoon guys out on exercise recently, not least down to the flexibility that 2 seats offer. Pilot in the front concentrating on the air picture whilst the guy is able to prosecute ground targets at the same time. They are significantly better at multirole than Typhoon is.

Sensor fusion is much improved now and both F22 and F35 probably take away the need for a guy in the back but, I think Typhoon could have done with someone in the back on multirole stuff. I’m sure the Typhoon mates will disagree!!

Flash to bang time is actually quite important if you are walking away from a blind having lit the safety fuse. And you would be surprised at how useful the stochastic modelling of explosive sensitivity is.

However, mentioning such things on this forum is never that wise as it introduces the concept that other people know clever stuff- and a small element of the 2 -winged master race just can't handle that.:E

Interesting. I remember being told that the typhoon pilot could easily handle the job of a back seater with modern software and equipment. Furthermore, I had been told that trials had been carried out which showed the ability of the pilot to handle more than one UCAV and fly his own mission at the same time. Guess the promises made have still some way to go before being reality.

Perhaps they should have tried harder at school?

;)

If they'd tried harder at school they wouldn't have had to become pilots...

:E :E :E

PDR

Interesting that so much jeering was triggered by a single use of the word "stochastic", yet no one commented on the clearly B/S use of "Sensor fusion" in respect to Typhoons. I went over to the hangar and checked - none of the sensors are fused to anything, and none of them are driven by (or in any way connected to) fusion reactors.

:)

PDR

Sensor Fusion had a better marketing manager?

As enny fule no