Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[DarthAmerica]

Survivability comes in 3 flavors
1)Speed
2)Visibility
3)Manouverbility

And in that order.

The first pilot axiom is "speed is life"
2nd axiom is "loose the sight-loose the fight"

Also stealth has always been key to winning wars since Cain snuck up on and killed Able.

Genesis [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

-DA
[/FONT]

 

[Dr Freud]

Admin: Last warning. come back in 30 days.

 

[JWCook]

No it wasn't. The Eurofighter design goes back a decade further. Due to inefficiency it took a decade longer to get into service however. But it's design goes back to the 1970s about when the F/A-18 and F-16 were being created. It's also Europe's multirole successor to the F-4 which was the previous platform.

-DA

I have no Idea where your getting your dates from.. care to explain why your using a AST 396 as the start date for typhoon?? (bear in mind this was for a STOVL aircraft)

European Collaboration started in 1979 when BAe and MBB put forward a joint proposal for the ECF but this died!! in 1981.

Eurofighters earliest roots are in 1982 another proposal for the"Experimental Aircraft Program" EAP was drafted - equivalent to the start of the ATF program.

Raptor - the ATF program in 1975 wanted small scale demonstration programs like the EAP these were to fly in 1979-1980 but funds were not available. April 1980 started the real ATF when some specs were changed.

NOTE the Dates....

basic googling will reveal this.

Cheers

 

[JWCook]

well, scratch that jam-proof thing then, i just pasted a phrase.
It is my understanding that 4.5 gen vs 4 gen is that 4.5 gen allows each aircraft formation to constantly share sensor and radar data with the others via a digital radio network. (like other fighters and AEW).
+ 1 of 2 capabilities, 1) Supercruise, 2) VLO.
If it has both Supercruise and VLO, its 5 gen.

So the F-35 doesn't super cruise so isn't 5th gen.

Raptor doesn't share its data with other fighters types or AEW it only shares data with other Raptors so its also not even 4.5 gen well not until they get this as standard. source http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=142636

Take note DARTH this is how the Typhoon at least matches the F-22 if not beats it in Information Fusion for Net-Centric Operations as the f-22 doesn't have datalink to send info to AEW Jstars f-16/f-15 etc etc etc.

bet thats a bit of a surprise to Lockheed Martin.. if you have to put that many ifs and buts into a definition then having "generations" are a waste of time.

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

I have no Idea where your getting your dates from.. care to explain why your using a AST 396 as the start date for typhoon?? (bear in mind this was for a STOVL aircraft)

European Collaboration started in 1979 when BAe and MBB put forward a joint proposal for the ECF but this died!! in 1981.

Eurofighters earliest roots are in 1982 another proposal for the"Experimental Aircraft Program" EAP was drafted - equivalent to the start of the ATF program.

Raptor - the ATF program in 1975 wanted small scale demonstration programs like the EAP these were to fly in 1979-1980 but funds were not available. April 1980 started the real ATF when some specs were changed.

NOTE the Dates....

basic googling will reveal this.

Cheers

Sorry, your dates and facts are incorrect. The AST 396 was dropped for AST 403 where the spec was revised and STOVL requirement was dropped. That is the Genesis of the Eurofighter(1972). Basic Googling will reveal that.

-DA

 

[gf0012-aust]

Raptor doesn't share its data with other fighters types or AEW it only shares data with other Raptors so its also not even 4.5 gen well not until they get this as standard. source http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=142636

Not true. It has two other systems in place that comm with other non rapter units - and not just air.

If you have a military email address to validate some things at my end I am happy to send it to you

 

[DarthAmerica]

So the F-35 doesn't super cruise so isn't 5th gen.

Raptor doesn't share its data with other fighters types or AEW it only shares data with other Raptors so its also not even 4.5 gen well not until they get this as standard. source http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=142636

Take note DARTH this is how the Typhoon at least matches the F-22 if not beats it in Information Fusion for Net-Centric Operations as the f-22 doesn't have datalink to send info to AEW Jstars f-16/f-15 etc etc etc.

bet thats a bit of a surprise to Lockheed Martin.. if you have to put that many ifs and buts into a definition then having "generations" are a waste of time.

Cheers

This is not true Mr. Cook. The net is a good source of information but rarely does it provide all the relevant data for reasons of OPSEC or sometimes people just don't post it because it's not as exciting as flying M2.0 with no burner ect.

Also, as I said before, do not assume things about the F-35. Very soon you may have to make retractions of assertions you have made here.


-DA

 

[kato]

Err, on the basis of AST-403, the ECF was developed... which failed in 1981. EAP and EFA weren't initiated until 1983. At most, i'd put structured EF2000 developement beginning with ACA in 1982 - there's a distinct break between ECF and ACA.

The requirement for a future fighter was out there even before 1972 - Germany only bought the F-4F in 1971 as an interim fighter after all until a new design could be acquired.

 

[swerve]

Sorry, your dates and facts are incorrect. The AST 396 was dropped for AST 403 where the spec was revised and STOVL requirement was dropped. That is the Genesis of the Eurofighter(1972). Basic Googling will reveal that.

-DA

You are using statements of requirements as the beginning of design of the Eurofighter, which is plain silly. An Air Staff Target is a "we would like" document. It can sit on a shelf forever, be batted around for years before getting to the point where industry is asked for proposals, or be cancelled. AST 403, which you date as the start of the Eurofighter design process, was cancelled - in 1981. And everything started again.

Dating Eurofighter design from AST 403 is much the same as dating F-35 design from the early 1970s AST 409. After all, F-35B meets the requirement laid down in AST 409, & there is a chain of proposals from AST 409 onwards, weaving back & forth between the UK & USA, which were eventually subsumed by the JSF project.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Err, on the basis of AST-403, the ECF was developed... which failed in 1981. EAP and EFA weren't initiated until 1983. At most, i'd put structured EF2000 developed to begin with ACA in 1982 - there's a distinct break between ECF and ACA.

The requirement for a future fighter were out even before 1972 - Germany only bought the F-4F in 1971 as an interim fighter after all until a new design could be acquired.

Again, the Eurofighters roots are in 1972 with AST -403. We all started as a twinkle in our fathers eye even before he uttered a word to mom. Now, I know the real serious work came much later due to politics. But the aircraft was expected to enter service in the 1980s along with it's contemporaries and it's roots are in the early 1970s.

-DA

 

[JWCook]

Oh, any one of a variety of upgraded F-15s that have been bought by say Singapore or Korea. Recent models of Super Hornet. Some of the hotter versions of SU-30s...etc, etc., etc.

You don't get it do you.. some of those aircraft may have something better that the typhoon, but pick one and I'll show you where the typhoon betters it, the Typhoon is a good all round package.

e.g. F-15 are falling out of the sky, end of production lifecycle, much larger rcs, much more maintainance, less agile, slower, limited or no supercruise.

We don't know yet, but then production Tiffies only does M1.2 according to the only reliably published source the German Luftwaffe.
Lets take it a bit further, for how long, at what altitude band and what is the external loading of Tiffie when it does M1.2? Do you really think that an aircraft that can carry a very usable war load and all of it's fuel internally will not have a huge aerodynamic advantage over one that carries external stores?

You'd think that wouldn't you, the F-22 guzzles fuel even when subsonic, even its huge aerodynamic advantage of being clean doesn't get it much further.

And the M1.2 supercruise was demonstrated in Singapore-

A M1.3 supercruise loadout =
two 1000ltr external tanks
four Amraams
two Asraams

The fact of the matter is that the Typhoon is the most over hyped aircraft of recent times. In fact Carlo Kopp sums up it's disadvantages quite well.

"The Typhoon's weaknesses are its F/A-18C class weight and thrust and the implications of this in combat at extended operational radii, and the longer term sensitivity of its BVR weapons advantage to equivalent technological developments in opposing fighters."

Carlo is wrong! dry thrust is ~20% more, radii are much better, I have conversed extensively with Carlo, and he has put the F-22 on a pedestal, and had very limited knowledge on the Typhoon, which included using out of date specifications.

"Its design incorporates none of the features seen in very low observable types, nor does the EJ200 incorporate the unique design features of the F119 and F120 powerplants."

Carlo is wrong! the Ej200 does contain superb cooling features - hollow corded blades with air barrier cooling and thermal barrier coatings which allow supercruise, check out here:- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/engines.html its most of the open info we have on the EJ200, note the fan blades cross section.

BTW one of the F119 unique features is its fuel consumption.

Oh and try to avoid using Carlo as a source, he has some very strange ideas.

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

You are using statements of requirements as the beginning of design of the Eurofighter, which is plain silly.

No it isn't silly. Also I said it was the Genesis or Origin. I even said the design was delayed due to politics. It's not silly, it's the truth. What is silly is this continuous need to defend the Eurofighter and portray it and its history as something other than what it is. A late, overpriced Coldwar era fighter built to specifications that are no longer valid that is still in development in a lot of ways that exist primarily as a job program rather than serious attempt at 21st Century Fighter with all the implications thereof.

Dont take my word for it. Mr. Cook even agrees and says so on his websight...

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/history.html
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/disclaimer.html

...Ok? My point is to address Europe shortcoming on 5th gen fighters and how they have forced upon themselves dependence on LM for true first day of war air power against the most sophisticated threats. That's dangerous and irresponsible IMV.


Regards
-DA

 

[JWCook]

Not true. It has two other systems in place that comm with other non rapter units - and not just air.

If you have a military email address to validate some things at my end I am happy to send it to you

Re the email - Not anymore ;-(.

I'll have assume your referring to its satellite comms and the radar burst mode.

I was under the impression that recent exercises other air units only got voice comms from the Raptors for vectors not real time datalinks.

Cheers

 

[kato]

We all started as a twinkle in our fathers eye even before he uttered a word to mom.

Except the ... parental composition... switched around a lot between the generations of children. ;-)

 

[DarthAmerica]

You don't get it do you.. some of those aircraft may have something better that the typhoon, but pick one and I'll show you where the typhoon betters it, the Typhoon is a good all round package.

e.g. F-15 are falling out of the sky, end of production lifecycle, much larger rcs, much more maintainance, less agile, slower, limited or no supercruise.

A few old USAF F-15Cs falling out of the sky and the USAF is skillfully using the media to lobby congress for more F-22s. These new F-15Ks being built today that S Korea determined to be better suited for it's requirements in the 21st Century...

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/photorelease/q2/DVD-1120-1.jpg

...are doing just fine. Moreover, the Typhoons maneuverability is operationally no better and irrelevant in with HOBS and JHMCS ect. The Typhoon is also not faster than an F-15 and like the Typhoon the F-15 has allegedly cruised at mild supersonic speeds in dry thrust.

You'd think that wouldn't you, the F-22 guzzles fuel even when subsonic, even its huge aerodynamic advantage of being clean doesn't get it much further. As to which is better? The F-15 anytime they have directly competed against a requirement.

We are also waiting to read something that confirms the operational utility of the Typhoons "supercruise".

-DA

 

[JWCook]

No it isn't silly. Also I said it was the Genesis or Origin. I even said the design was delayed due to politics. It's not silly, it's the truth. What is silly is this continuous need to defend the Eurofighter and portray it and its history as something other than what it is. A late, overpriced Coldwar era fighter built to specifications that are no longer valid that is still in development in a lot of ways that exist primarily as a job program rather than serious attempt at 21st Century Fighter with all the implications thereof.

Dont take my word for it. Mr. Cook even agrees and says so on his websight...

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/history.html
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/disclaimer.html

...Ok? My point is to address Europe shortcoming on 5th gen fighters and how they have forced upon themselves dependence on LM for true first day of war air power against the most sophisticated threats. That's dangerous and irresponsible IMV.


Regards
-DA

OK Darth we'll play by your rules...

The Raptor program started with the 1969 TAC-85 this study led to the concept of operations in 1971 for the ATF. Game set and match huh!

and BTW the website is the history of the eurofighter and its European collaboration is part of it. the collaboration started way back then. but the Typhoon came later after the collapse of the earlier program and the exit of the French.. you have to actually read it past the first paragraph or two..

Its also irresponsible for The US to let its tanker capability wither to the extent that they can't build a decent tanker and that the newer 5th gen fighters will have to rely on European tankers!! That's dangerous and irresponsible IMV. (please note the irony simply oozing from this)

Cheers

 

[JWCook]

This is not true Mr. Cook. The net is a good source of information but rarely does it provide all the relevant data for reasons of OPSEC or sometimes people just don't post it because it's not as exciting as flying M2.0 with no burner ect.

Also, as I said before, do not assume things about the F-35. Very soon you may have to make retractions of assertions you have made here.


-DA

Understood Darth - I can't say some things too. so i can only post what been revealed openly. and not all my sources are from the net, I just use it for references.

Look forward to any information coming out that makes things clearer.

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

OK Darth we'll play by your rules...

The Raptor program started with the 1969 TAC-85 this study led to the concept of operations in 1971 for the ATF. Game set and match huh!

and BTW the website is the history of the eurofighter and its European collaboration is part of it. the collaboration started way back then. but the Typhoon came later after the collapse of the earlier program and the exit of the French.. you have to actually read it past the first paragraph or two..

Its also irresponsible for The US to let its tanker capability wither to the extent that they can't build a decent tanker and that the newer 5th gen fighters will have to rely on European tankers!! That's dangerous and irresponsible IMV. (please note the irony simply oozing from this)

Cheers

You see, unlike you, I'm in no way biased toward any platform. I don't even like the F-22 "best". To me, the F/A-18E/F is my personal favorite fighter in operational service. I may change this opinion once more F-35 data becomes available. I'm also objective enough to say that while I like the F/A-18E/F, the F-22 is clearly a superior a2a platform. So I'll look at the TAC-85 study and get back to you on whether or not I disagree. And yes, it is very irresponsible for the USA to let our support assets wither and we should know better considering our expeditionary nature and OPTEMPO.


-DA

 

[swerve]

Again, the Eurofighters roots are in 1972 with AST -403. We all started as a twinkle in our fathers eye even before he uttered a word to mom. Now, I know the real serious work came much later due to politics. But the aircraft was expected to enter service in the 1980s along with it's contemporaries and it's roots are in the early 1970s.

-DA

Nonsense. An aircraft (actually, more - there were other ASTs) was wanted for the 1980s, but it was cancelled without ever having been fully defined, let alone designed. A new requirement was then drawn up, after long arguments which saw France leave the defining group, and an aircraft, different from the one envisaged by AST 403, designed to fit it.

A statement of requirements which was later cancelled & replaced by another, different one is not a design. Your original claim was that the design of Typhoon dates from the early 1970s. You've changed your ground, as that's been proven wrong too obviously even for you to pretend otherwise, & are now presenting a different argument.

You're trolling, chum.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Nonsense. An aircraft (actually, more - there were other ASTs) was wanted for the 1980s, but it was cancelled without ever having been fully defined, let alone designed. A new requirement was then drawn up, after long arguments which saw France leave the defining group, and an aircraft, different from the one envisaged by AST 403, designed to fit it.

A statement of requirements which was later cancelled & replaced by another, different one is not a design. Your original claim was that the design of Typhoon dates from the early 1970s. You've changed your ground, as that's been proven wrong too obviously even for you to pretend otherwise, & are now presenting a different argument.

You're trolling, chum.

I've stated my position and nothing has changed. I'm not trolling but you are name calling. Probably because you are losing an argument and become emotional or you lack the intellect to make your point otherwise. The Typhoons genesis was in the early 1970's, thats a fact. What variations and changes happened to the program in the between that time and IOC was not my point. The plane OBVIOUSLY was conceived and designed at a time where VLO was not an option to the manufacturer and built to Cold War specs that have some serious shortcomings on todays environment. You may not like me saying that, but it cannot be denied in good faith. I'm sure you are just simply mistaken and perhaps in time you might see on your own my point.


-DA

P.S. Define Trolling. I've supported every point I've made here with some evidence that at least demonstrates how I could come to my conclusions. There are others who have simply asserted aircraft x is just plain better or that "they know" or "heard" said aircraft can do something with no proof whatsoever. Thats bias my friends.