Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[Dr Freud]

EF Typhoon internal fuel ~10,000 lbs, (2 x EJ200 engine)
~27,000 lbs Mil thrust @ ~0.78 lb/lb.hr = ~0.4748 hr= 28.5 min
(add 1 1200 L, 2116 lbs tank for droptank to get w/droptank)

GRIPEN NG Internal fuel ~6900 lbs (1xF414)
~15000 lbs Mil Thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr = ~0,657 = 40 min
(It was confirmed by both pilot and the General of Gripen international and "and will enable supercruise performance of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air weapons, says marketing director Magnus Lewis-Olsson." that it can do M1.1 w/droptank +a2a loadout) (i included 1 droptank accordinly) http://www.flightglobal.com/article...raft-to-highlight-gripen-ng-capabilities.html

The range and speed on F22 was taken from a moderator here, i dont know specific fuel consumption on F22s engines

 

[obrescia]

"is that one of ours?"

Your right what was I thinking: Stealth fighters that:

Produce thermal heat from friction alone
Produce contrails
Produce IFF emissions
Produce weapon data update pulses
Produce comm traffic chatter
Require afterburner at mid-low altitudes (fuel)
Require tanker support (fuel)

I made my point(s) along time ago.

Just after 'bingo' fuel Raptor flight can watch as a KS-172 streaks past them towards their tanker. The only certainty is uncertainty. You just keep reading that F-22 glove box brochure.

Ummm...

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=143030&postcount=34

What did you think was being discussed? My advice to you would be to calm down, listen and stop making a fuel of yourself. Also, you might want to think about what it means for Flankers with lots of fuel in the #1 and #4 tanks flying around at 15000ft and M0.4 in friendly territory unaware they are being set up for an engagement by stealth fighters with a speed, altitude and situational awareness advantage.


-DA

 

[Dr Freud]

Is it just me or does defencetalk have some serious problems with the site ? i'm havin problem to view the site lately

 

[DarthAmerica]

EF Typhoon internal fuel ~10,000 lbs, (add 1 1200 L tank for droptank to get w/droptank) (2 x EJ200 engine)
~27,000 lbs Mil thrust @ ~0.78 lb/lb.hr = ~0.4748 hr= 28.5 min

GRIPEN NG Internal fuel ~6900 lbs (It was confirmed by both pilots and the General of Gripen international and "and will enable supercruise performance of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air weapons, says marketing director Magnus Lewis-Olsson." it can do M1.1 w/droptank +a2a loadout) (1xF414) ~15000 lbs Mil Thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr = ~0,657 = 40 min (i included 1 droptank accordinly) http://www.flightglobal.com/article...raft-to-highlight-gripen-ng-capabilities.html

The range and speed on F22 was taken from a moderator here, i dont know specific fuel consumption on F22s engines

Dr. Freud,

So the Typhoon is going to spend the entire 10,000lbs of fuel supercruising for 28 minutes? Does that include while it's taxing, climbing to ~30,000ft+, accelerating to supersonic speed, fighting then returning to base and landing? Do you see how that changes the entire endurance equation assuming it could actually do this? We are talking about low single digit endurance numbers at best. The Typhoon is a fast jet indeed but it is designed to fight like other 4th Gen fighters and spend the majority of its time subsonic, fights transonic and for extreme situation uses an afterburner to go supersonic for brief durations.

I'll hold my opinion on the Gripen NG for now since it hasn't flown yet.

-DA

 

[Grand Danois]

Your right what was I thinking: Stealth fighters that:

Produce thermal heat from friction alone

Neglible, managed, restrictions on IR detection tech.

Produce contrails

Not necessarily. But don't have time to explain this one this time around. Later.

Produce IFF emissions

An IFF transmission require a radar to detect the stealth jet, then interrogate for return signal. Basically, the stealth jet will not be asked to return an IFF signal as it will not be detected, so might as well switch it off. EMCON. Otherwise, corridors/blue force tracking.

Produce weapon data update pulses

LPI transmission. Hard to detect. This is not early F-14 age technology.

If it is detected, it might give the attacked jet a small chance to implement countermeasures. However, the F-22A does not use Phoenix missiles, but deadly AMRAAMs designed to take down fighters, which the Phoenix was not. Detection of updates does not provide other knowledge than a F-22A is around and has fired a missile at YOU. Good to know, eh?

Produce comm traffic chatter

EMCON, directional LPI and satcom, ie extremely small chance of detection.

Emissions management is part of stealth technology.

Require afterburner at mid-low altitudes (fuel)

However, the Raptor doesn't have to dogfight at mid-low altitudes. Raptors shoot missiles from high above, for best performance. That's the whole idea of the Raptor.

Require tanker support (fuel)

As all other tactical jets in offensive operations.

I made my point(s) along time ago.

Just after 'bingo' fuel Raptor flight can watch as a KS-172 streaks past them towards their tanker. The only certainty is uncertainty. You just keep reading that F-22 glove box brochure.

You live in the 70-80s period, IMV.

 

[Dr Freud]

Dr. Freud,

So the Typhoon is going to spend the entire 10,000lbs of fuel supercruising for 28 minutes? Does that include while it's taxing, climbing to ~30,000ft+, accelerating to supersonic speed, fighting then returning to base and landing? Do you see how that changes the entire endurance equation assuming it could actually do this? We are talking about low single digit endurance numbers at best. The Typhoon is a fast jet indeed but it is designed to fight like other 4th Gen fighters and spend the majority of its time subsonic, fights transonic and for extreme situation uses an afterburner to go supersonic for brief durations.

I'll hold my opinion on the Gripen NG for now since it hasn't flown yet.

-DA

Well, i have to agree EF doesnt have a whole lot of endurance, (i.e F22 is ~35% better) but Gripen NG will have no more drag then the current version, so the numbers will hold their ground.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Well, i have to agree EF doesnt have a whole lot of endurance, but Gripen NG will have no more drag then the current version, so the numbers will hold their ground.

I still have to look at the Gripen a bit closer. It's an impressive plane. The Typhoon however, like most 4th Gen aircraft of the Cold War, is clearly to me optimized for defense of smaller European sized countries. Thats something that has to be taken into consideration. For example I wouldn't want to get caught by one close to it's base of operations or just after tanking. But if it's been on station a while or if you catch it at lower altitude and your fuel status is green you would possibly have an advantage. Something to consider if you are fighting Sukhoi's or the larger Migs.

-DA

 

[Dr Freud]

Well, yeah, i got both surprised and dissapointed when i saw the relatively poor endurance of EF at Mil. Germans should know better!

 

[DarthAmerica]

Well, yeah, i got both surprised and dissapointed when i saw the relatively poor endurance of EF at Mil. Germans should know better!

They did. The EUROfighter, emphasis on EURO, was built for the Cold War defense of European countries against attacking Soviet Aircraft. The engineers did a good job. But the requirements changed. It was then at the end of the Eurofighters development that a decision could have been made to cancel the program and put the resources to a more 21st century aircraft. One that could have taken advantage of more LO technology, true supercruise, AESA and of course about double the fuel. Thats if EADS was interested in a heavy fighter in the class of the F-15, F-22, F-35, Su-27 or F/A-18E/F. It would have paid off IMHO.

-DA

 

[JWCook]

Another double post.. !!.

 

[JWCook]

EF Typhoon internal fuel ~10,000 lbs, (2 x EJ200 engine)
~27,000 lbs Mil thrust @ ~0.78 lb/lb.hr = ~0.4748 hr= 28.5 min
(add 1 1200 L, 2116 lbs tank for droptank to get w/droptank)

You may wish to redo some of those % figures...


Check the fuel loadout for the Typhoon its ~5000Kg internal - so ~11,000lbs and the speed is M1.3 with dangly bits and a max of M1.5 i.e. nearly empty with no drop tanks and only conformal missiles.
AIUI the Typhoon can supercruise with 3x1000ltr fuel tanks but I don't know at what speed.
It cannot supercruise with any 1500ltr tanks attached as they are subsonic only.

The Raptor will be flying at ~M1.5 to do that range, IIRC it approximately doubles its fuel consumption to cruise at M1.5 over its subsonic cruise.

see http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2005/0105raptor3.jpg for the f-22 figures.

It suggest the Raptor is flying roughly 3 to 7 mins of supercruise time in these mission profiles.

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Re Typhoon.

Conformal fuel tanks at the upper wing root should be able to carry 4500 lbs. Combine that with a centreline 1k L fuel tank, and you'd roughly have the same fuel as with with 3 x 1k L fuel tanks (a bit more perhaps), but with less drag. Add in an EJ230.

It is far from fully developed...

edit: rough calc - 4500 lbs + 1k L tank = 6100 lbs of external fuel. 3 x 1k L tanks = 4700 lbs.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Re Typhoon.

Conformal fuel tanks at the upper wing root should be able to carry 4500 lbs. Combine that with a centreline 1k L fuel tank, and you'd roughly have the same fuel as with with 3 x 1k L fuel tanks (a bit more perhaps), but with less drag. Add in an EJ230.

It is far from fully developed...

Agreed. But one only needs to look at late model F-16s/Mig-29/F/A-18C to get an idea of it's potential.

-DA

 

[Grand Danois]

Agreed. But one only needs to look at late model F-16s/Mig-29/F/A-18C to get an idea of it's potential.

-DA

I'm of the view that you can develop the Typhoon further than any of the above, though the slow development of avionics/weaps integration/cfts of the Tiff at the moment casuses it to face unnecessary competition from the above.

I think the tiff is an excellent plane, but i share the same basic view with you: when the berlin wall fell, it was time to dump the tiffy design and develop a jet more flexible and appropriate for the future, ie a jet with VLO and more internal fuel. Not necessarily with the same internal weaps carriage of the F-35/F-22, but enough for basic offensive a-a sorties i full VLO.

If the euro def aerospace industry was tasked with it at the time, europe was most certainly able to build one.

I suspect the temptation to realize/capitalize the developments already made on the tiff, systemic thinking and industrial politics made the tiff go ahead.

The time has passed for making a euroraptor/eurolightningII; the "remedy" is to mix in stealthy UAVs/UCAVs/cruise missiles and make the best of it. It is still a most potent combination and will do.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I'm of the view that you can develop the Typhoon further than any of the above, though the slow development of avionics/weaps integration/cfts of the Tiff at the moment casuses it to face unnecessary competition from the above.

I think the tiff is an excellent plane, but i share the same basic view with you: when the berlin wall fell, it was time to dump the tiffy design and develop a jet more flexible and appropriate for the future, ie a jet with VLO and more internal fuel. Not necessarily with the same internal weaps carriage of the F-35/F-22, but enough for basic offensive a-a sorties i full VLO.

If the euro def aerospace industry was tasked with it at the time, europe was most certainly able to build one.

I suspect the temptation to realize/capitalize the developments already made on the tiff, systemic thinking and industrial politics made the tiff go ahead.

The time has passed for making a euroraptor/eurolightningII; the "remedy" is to mix in stealthy UAVs/UCAVs/cruise missiles and make the best of it. It is still a most potent combination and will do.

I'm not sure how the Tiffy could be developed further than them. It's a size thing. The F/A-18C I understand because it is soon to retire. But the Viper is still in production IIRC and the Mig as well. New technologies are constantly being poured into them from the leading defense aviation manufacturers in Russia and America. It's not just stiff competition, its a blowout on the market. On top of all that, the USA and Russian's make multiple types of fighters. So if Boeing develops a technology LM doesn't have. They can buy it and put it into the Viper. The same of Mig and Sukhoi. Then there is the benefit of internal competition.

The Tiffy IMV offers nothing you can't get from much cheaper more numerous mature 4th Gen alternatives and THAT is why the market has treated it so harshly IMV.

I do agree that UCAV/UAV, stealthy cruise missiles and stand off weapons are a partial solution to the limitations of the Typhoon. Lets not forget advanced a2a weaponry like the METEOR too. However Europe seems unwilling to bet all it's eggs in the band-aid approach and is procuring true stealth planes by importing the F-35.

-DA

 

[Grand Danois]

However Europe seems unwilling to bet all it's eggs in the band-aid approach and is procuring true stealth planes by importing the F-35.

The only countries that build the 4th gens in europe to get F-35s are primarily buying the B version for naval aviation (UK, Italy, spain?). So I don't think it is that obvious.

However, if the balloon goes up, and a need for euro high-end expeditionary offensive air occurs, the nations in possesion of F-35As will be important to get on board a coalition. Suddenly there will be some smallish nations in possesion of some very key assets.

 

[JWCook]

The Tiffy IMV offers nothing you can't get from much cheaper more numerous mature 4th Gen alternatives and THAT is why the market has treated it so harshly IMV.

-DA

Interesting view but reality doesn't agree with you.

Eurofighter has cornered 17% of the world fighter market in the 2003-1013 timeframe of the US$142 billion business.

Thats not harsh in anyones book, and you are comparing it to the JSF that hasn't yet been priced, (AIUI there may be a fixed price later this year for the JSF), this is fraught with danger, the mere presence of the Typhoon will hopefully keep Lockheed honest, but the JSF will potentially start to lose customers if its costs more that US$65M, or delivery slips much more.

if you can't see any benefits of a Typhoon over 4th gen aircraft then your not really looking hard enough.

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

The only countries that build the 4th gens in europe to get F-35s are primarily buying the B version for naval aviation (UK, Italy, spain?). So I don't think it is that obvious.

However, if the balloon goes up, and a need for euro high-end expeditionary offensive air occurs, the nations in possesion of F-35As will be important to get on board a coalition. Suddenly there will be some smallish nations in possesion of some very key assets.

Well lets look at the European situation. Free from an obvious Soviet threat, at the time, the Eurofighter takes care of the immediate need of an airforce even if limited compared to the state of the art. Naval Aviation however is always potentially in harms way due to the expeditionary nature of Naval Air. They NEED the most survivable advanced platforms they can get. You never know when a carrier is going to be ordered to park itself of the coast of an enemy that might be sporting a highly developed IAD system and modern fighters.

I will say this though. If European nations find themselves suddenly facing a new threat. There will be a next generation manned European fighter. I read people going on about Taranis nEUROn and such but those are tech demos and not full fledged programs intended to go into operational service. We are talking 2025 or later before spawn of those UCAVs could be reasonably expected to reach IOC. That could be a huge problem. As far fetched as this sounds people need to take a look at whats going on in Russia and Eastern Europe. Politics aside Russia has become very active militarily there and has fundamental interest that are legitimate concerns should NATO continue to move East. If things got rough over the skies of a new NATO member the Russians can put very significant firepower into the air that close to home. I don't mean swarms of Migs necessarily. I'm simply referring to Western aversion to negative press and casualties.

Is it worth it to lose half a dozen Typhoons over Georgia to advanced SAMs and Migs? As we saw with Spain, things like that can have big consequences.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Interesting view but reality doesn't agree with you.

Eurofighter has cornered 17% of the world fighter market in the 2003-1013 timeframe of the US$142 billion business.

Thats not harsh in anyones book, and you are comparing it to the JSF that hasn't yet been priced, (AIUI there may be a fixed price later this year for the JSF), this is fraught with danger, the mere presence of the Typhoon will hopefully keep Lockheed honest, but the JSF will potentially start to lose customers if its costs more that US$65M, or delivery slips much more.

if you can't see any benefits of a Typhoon over 4th gen aircraft then your not really looking hard enough.

Cheers

Then I'm in very distinguished company because several major defense chiefs had a chance to make a direct comparison of the Typhoon next to its peers and they are flying F-15s now. The Saudis saved the Typhoon from being the EUROfighter. But then again they are not the best example to use since they tend to buy a bit of everything. So in fact reality does agree with me to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars.

17% of $142 Billion? Thats like admitting to stealing when you consider that there are about ~87 Typhoons on order outside of partner nations with 72 of those being Saudi. A testament to how overpriced it is and how rich the Saudi's are.


-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

RE the F-35 Price and Losing Customers


Not likely IMV.

1. The F-35 cost are under control.

2. The F-35 offers performance and survivability you can't get unless you are the USAF and fly the F-22.

People buying the F-35 NEED its capabilities. LM is in an envious position. For their sake they better manage the greed and waste very well.

-DA