Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[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.

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'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.

Avionics integration. The platforms you mention don't have the integration of hardware the tiff has. It has to be taking into account when designing the jet. Bolt-on hardware may look as if it is equivalent, but is more discrete in nature than the fully integrated hardware. You get less benefit from a retrofit that was not thought of at the design stage. Example: F-35 avionics integration is something that cannot be retrofitted to any "4th gen" jet. This is an area where the tiff should be able to offer more over the examples you mention.

Operational. Sustained sortie generation. The tiff is from a design generation and is meant for a scenario/war where sustained sortie generation over time matters. You will get more sorties from a tiff one week into a major campaign than from any of those you mention. This is also a feature of the SH, Gripen, etc. It an attribute of the design and cannot be retrofitted.

LO. There are significant LO features on the tiff that cannot be retrofitted to the ones you mention. Inlet design, hidden comprsessor blades, burial of engines. The LO features of the SH cannot be retrofitted to the legacy Hornet.

There are other points, but these are some of the main.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Cheap, no. Not if less than 200 are produced. Cheap, yes when you consider it's ability to dominate the sky and make any other aircraft it flies with more effective.

Faultless. No, that claim belongs to tiffie according to the fans.

Only the ignorant use procurement cost as a measure of cost. You have to use life cycle cost. Also, how many F-15C/D, F-117A, E-3C, F-16CJ, RC-135 and other assets do the F-22 make unnecessary because of it's unique capabilities. The F-117 has already demonstrated the benefits of this. F-22s can penetrate into airspace that would take a wings worth of legacy fighters and supporting assets to fight there way into. So we also have to factor in how many lives on both sides and CSAR sorties the F-22 saves.

By not having this capability at least until the arrival of the F-35, Europe will have to spend many times more money in operations cost and risk many times more assets to do things that only a handful of F-22s and whatever support they need could do.

"Penny wise, pound foolish"

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Avionics integration. The platforms you mention don't have the integration of hardware the tiff has. It has to be taking into account when designing the jet. Bolt-on hardware may look as if it is equivalent, but is more discrete in nature than the fully integrated hardware. You get less benefit from a retrofit that was not thought of at the design stage. Example: F-35 avionics integration is something that cannot be retrofitted to any "4th gen" jet. This is an area where the tiff should be able to offer more over the examples you mention.

Operational. Sustained sortie generation. The tiff is from a design generation and is meant for a scenario/war where sustained sortie generation over time matters. You will get more sorties from a tiff one week into a major campaign than from any of those you mention. This is also a feature of the SH, Gripen, etc. It an attribute of the design and cannot be retrofitted.

LO. There are significant LO features on the tiff that cannot be retrofitted to the ones you mention. Inlet design, hidden comprsessor blades, burial of engines. The LO features of the SH cannot be retrofitted to the legacy Hornet.

There are other points, but these are some of the main.

The only platform that applies to is the F/A-18C/D which has a near term retirement date IMV. Other than that the late model and proposed Vipers/Migs such as the F-16I, F-16 blk 52/60, F-16IN, Mig-35 all offer similar levels of performance over all. There are areas where the Eurofighter exceeds them and vise versa. But all are in the same ball park. And the LO features on all these jets are platform specific. The effectiveness is again all ball park. For example, the Eurofighters unstealthy radar vs the LPI AESA and the Eurofighters S-curve intakes vs exposed blades on the blk 60. Both carrying external ordinance? Which is better. I don't think anyone can say other than these platforms are unique in their approach but in the same category of advanced 4th Gen jets. The Super Hornet is in a completely different class and should be compared separately IMV. Do you agree or disagree?

Also, can you show where the Eurofighters sortie generation exceeds any of these platforms? Not that I doubt you and I agree such things are very critical.

-DA

 

[Grand Danois]

The only platform that applies to is the F/A-18C/D which has a near term retirement date IMV. Other than that the late model and proposed Vipers/Migs such as the F-16I, F-16 blk 52/60, F-16IN, Mig-35 all offer similar levels of performance over all.

My argument is that you're looking at discrete technologies as opposed to holistic performance.

There are areas where the Eurofighter exceeds them and vise versa.

The vice versa at the moment is primarily based on that Eurofighter tarries with the weaps integration and some avionics (CAESAR).

But all are in the same ball park.

However, if a Eurofighter developed to full potential beats the ones you mention, developed to full potential, even marginally, at all counts, then you overall have the much superior jet in the Eurofighter.

And the LO features on all these jets are platform specific.

VLO/LO is platform specific. LOL!

The effectiveness is again all ball park. For example, the Eurofighters unstealthy radar vs the LPI AESA and the Eurofighters S-curve intakes vs exposed blades on the blk 60. Both carrying external ordinance? Which is better. I don't think anyone can say other than these platforms are unique in their approach but in the same category of advanced 4th Gen jets. The Super Hornet is in a completely different class and should be compared separately IMV. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. The SH wasn't on your original list. The SH is currently ahead due to better LO, weaps integration and on some counts better avionics integration. However, you're comparing it to the currently fielded tiff. However the tiff can be upgraded to be on par, the difference is the better LO on the SH vs the better kinematics of the tiff. For the others - they're at the end of their development path, whereas the tiff is at the beginning. The immaturity of the tiff makes the others competitive as pure capability - my initial argument.

Also, can you show where the Eurofighters sortie generation exceeds any of these platforms? Not that I doubt you and I agree such things are very critical.

It's a feature of aforementioned jets. EF, Gripen, SH et al. and not the previous design generation. Specific numbers are not out, but enough for a general idea is osint. (try googling operations research plus sgr)

IIRC the Gripen was the first fielded with this attribute, which I consider a 4th gen quality. (not sure, perhaps it was the legacy hornet, hmmm)

 

[DarthAmerica]

• My argument is that you're looking at discrete technologies as opposed to holistic performance.
• The vice versa at the moment is primarily based on that Eurofighter tarries with the weaps integration and some avionics (CAESAR).
• However, if a Eurofighter developed to full potential beats the ones you mention, developed to full potential, even marginally, at all counts, then you overall have the much superior jet in the Eurofighter.
• VLO/LO is platform specific. LOL!
• Disagree. The SH wasn't on your original list. The SH is currently ahead due to better LO, weaps integration and on some counts better avionics integration. However, you're comparing it to the currently fielded tiff. However the tiff can be upgraded to be on par, the difference is the better LO on the SH vs the better kinematics of the tiff. For the others - they're at the end of their development path, whereas the tiff is at the beginning. The immaturity of the tiff makes the others competitive as pure capability - my initial argument.
• It's a feature of aforementioned jets. EF, Gripen, SH et al. and not the previous design generation. Specific numbers are not out, but enough for a general idea is osint. (try googling operations research plus sgr)
• IIRC the Gripen was the first fielded with this attribute, which I consider a 4th gen quality. (not sure, perhaps it was the legacy hornet, hmmm)

I generally agree with your points so perhaps it's just a matter of presentation style. The only quibble I have is certain platforms being at the end of their development path. Specifically the F-16. Although, the typical F-16 customer isn't looking for the most advanced capability possible but rather a good bang for the buck. Also, the USAF is going to shift it's attention to the F-35A so it's unlikely that the F-16 will have much room in the budget to keep up with the latest and greatest technologies. The Eurofighter being at the beginning of it's service life will certainly continue to get the best systems EADS can cram into it. So I agree with you that the Eurofighter will eventually exceed legacy platforms like the F-16 and F/A-18C in the avionics category and in a lot of ways it already does.
It will stay on Par with the Gripen, Rafale and possibly the late model Su-27s and Mig-29 variants keeping in mind the different doctrines and design approaches.

The Super Hornet is a bit different. It is also at the beginning of it's service life and will remain one of the USN's premier platforms for some time. It does enjoy LO, Avionics and weapons integration advantages and IIRC may even receive a version of the GE414 that makes up to 29,000lbs of thrust and additional LO features. The Kinematic advantages of the Eurofighter are hard to quantify in terms of operational effectiveness. The Super Hornet has so many roles to fill and is designed with that in mind. The Eurofighter is clearly the sports car of the two while the Super Hornet is more like a high performance SUV. It's like comparing the X5 to the 5 series BMW sedan. EADS and Boeing both had reasons for picking the aeroshells.

One thing though is the technology and money behind the Eurofighter and the Super Hornet. Lets discuss the radars and LO of the two for a minute. The Super Hornet has the more technologically advanced radar right now. A radar that's continually being improved while the Eurofighter hasn't made the technological leap to AESA yet. Do you see the Eurofighter closing this gap? The same applies to the LO features. Then, the Super Hornet is almost always at war. Well actually it's been at war it's entire service life thus far. So it is always continuously being upgraded and refined and funds are always pouring in for that. Is Europe doing the same thing for the Eurofighter? Even if they are, can they match the R&D money the USA throws at the Super Hornet considering that the SH is critical to the National Security strategy of the United States(a.k.a. dominating the worlds oceans)? Finally, the Super Hornet will also benefit from Australian expertise and experience. These are not insignificant differences IMHO.
In sum, the differences between a Super Hornet and a Eurofighter are significant currently. Is that likely to remain the case or do you see them becoming marginal or even on par with each other?

-DA


NOTE: I consolidated my responses. Please forgive the length of my post...

 

[JWCook]

JWCOOK, your argument makes no sense. Why are they planning to give EF an AESA, why is super getting an IRST? Don't you continually develop and improve on successful aircraft? Could that be the reason why Raptor is getting an upgraded data link?

There giving them because they don't have them... I used the word lacking when talking about the F-22, the secure omni link was what the f-22 was lacking.

Because it is relatively inexpensive. It utilizes off the shelf equipment. It enhances Raptor's capability as a force multiplier. These are items you seem to overlook. The fact is that the new link does not necessarily make the Raptor itself more potent. It always could receive L16 data and it has always had a two way data link that works amongst F-22s. The new system enables supporting, non VLO aircraft such as Typhoon or F-15s to be more effective by giving them access to real time sensor and targeting information provided by a VLO platform flying higher, faster and closer to the threat than they are.

That was exactly my point.. The F-22 is a great gatherer of info, it was/is lacking a means to distribute it in a timely secure manner with other aircraft..

First supersonic VLO fighter. First deployment of LPI radar in a fighter. Thrust vectoring. Extensive IR suppression. True, useful super cruise. Internal weapon and fuel carriage. Pretty leading edge.

The F-35 is now leading edge, witness the technology flow is now reversed, The F-35 was built on lessons learned from the F-22, these were then developed and are now flowing back into the F-22 program.

Cheap, no. Not if less than 200 are produced. Cheap, yes when you consider it's ability to dominate the sky and make any other aircraft it flies with more effective.

It has nearly crippled the US fighter industry, and still threatens to do so. Hope now rests with the F-35 if it falters then all bets are off, if it runs on rails i.e. on time, on budget, on spec, then it will dominate the fighter market for the next decade, but this is a very very tall order.

Faultless. No, that claim belongs to tiffie according to the fans.

nfloorl:

I have never called the Typhoon faultless and i'd like to see a post where that claim has been made!, FYI its weapons integration is painfully slow, it has had FC and avionic software probs, it has been known to shed a wheel cover, faulty landing gear parts, obsolescence of computer equipment and The Rafale is better looking!.

It has its faults as every aircraft does, its hard for some people to hear those faults pointed out...

Cheers

 

[swerve]

... The Eurofighter being at the beginning of it's service life will certainly continue to get the best systems EADS can cram into it.
... The Eurofighter is clearly the sports car of the two while the Super Hornet is more like a high performance SUV. It's like comparing the X5 to the 5 series BMW sedan. EADS and Boeing both had reasons for picking the aeroshells....

A couple of quibbles:

1. EADS is one of three firms in Eurofighter GmbH, the others being BAe & Alenia Aeronautica, which between them have a bigger share than EADS. Therefore, it isn't what EADS crams into it, but all the partners.

2. EADS didn't exist when the Eurofighter was designed, so didn't pick anything. The EADS share of the consortium was then divided between CASA (now EADS-CASA) & MBB (now EADS Deutschland).

 

[gf0012-aust]

IMHO the issue with F-22 is not its performance, but its abysmal maintenance requirement.
IMV this is why production was discontinued.

The decision on production is yet to hit the 11 o'clock mark.

Maintenance burdens are relative. eg the original maint requirements for the B2 were in man hour terms - awful. The technolog base to maintain the B2 however ha changed dramaticallly over the last 18 months. At the end of the day, irrespective of the maint requirements - the planes capability and capacity to change events has still made it worthwhile. The F-22 has gone through similar development evolution at the maintenance level,

the burden or logistical impact has to be measured against battlespace benefit. availability is relative, because capability is also measured against and with other blue force platform capability overlap (force compression issues) etc.....

 

[gf0012-aust]

The F-22 is a great gatherer of info, it was/is lacking a means to distribute it in a timely secure manner with other aircraft..

i think this is one of the problems when discussing this aircraft in part. the omission by commision was also due to the fact that their own doctrine changed or was finessed in the last 5 years or so.

a couple of events changed that:

the F-117 shootdown
the F-117 comms impediments during GW1
Hand-off trials with UAV's
Significant changes in weapons hand-off concepts
Developments in comms technology which made comms concepts at the discretionary level with this aircraft less useful.

in real terms however, all of this was triggered by platform doctrine evolution.

 

[Scorpion82]

Guys this discussion has been very interesting. Please don't turn it into a personal fight.

EDIT: My two cents is that if it doesn't provide capabilites that are an order of magnitude above the previous, then it's not really a new generation. The Raptor and JSF do this, and the Typhoon does not which would make it fourth gen. albeit very late fourth gen.

There is a difference between designing an aircraft with specific capabilities and technologies in mind and just putting stuff into an existing airframe. The teen/teenski series had to upgraded much more than previous generation fighters as development of the next generation fighters took much longer. That's the reason why you see a lot of new stuff being integrated into the teen/teenski series. Would you call a F-4 upgraded with latest cockpit, avionics and weapons a 4th generation fighter?

 

[Scorpion82]

Gen Jumpers judgement limited? Does that even make sense to you? Also, how can you say that you aren't calling him incorrect then in the same breath call him "simply wrong"? Then how can you say it does in configurations that you know?

Well taking a ride in an aircraft doesn't mean you know that aircraft from inside out. He also just flew in an early block 1 aircraft which was missing a lot of stuff.

If you know then where is your explanation or proof? Are you suggesting that your credentials grant you access to information Gen Jumper can't get even though his specific stated purpose was to make an assessment of technology trends that could affect the U.S. Military? This seems like bias to me.

There are things which aren't released to the public and I won't change that. Honestly I don't care if you believe it or not. But even in public sources you can find some references. The Typhoons deployed to Singapore for example were stock block 1 twin seaters from the RAF and no test aircraft.

The point is that Europe is on a different technology roadmap to address it's fighter requirements. The EJ200 wasn't made to do what some seem to think it does. I'm sure that EADS can see the operational benefits of supercruise and wants to include that into a future Tranche. This is why I suspect they constantly refer to upgraded engines. We know that F-16 could be made to supercruise and a variant was proposed that would do this. We know the Russians are working on new engines to supercruise. But in order to achieve this a new engine and design are required as sustained supersonic speeds have unique demands on the machine.

The Typhoon can supercruise right now with current engines. Future tranche might further improve that. And it's not all about the engines only.

This is why I ask for operational reference to this capability rather that test data. Some of the data from the Streak Eagle and T-10 are rather incredible. Just like the extreme performance of some Mig-25s. All are test aircraft rather than combat configured warplanes. It does make a difference. Again, none of this is a knock on the engineers who were tasked to build a very specific capability into the machine. We need to recognize that in order to make accurate consistent assessments.

Lol sorry but you are comparing apples to oranges! The Streak Eagle or P-42 were heavily modified aircraft just for settings performance records. There was never any compareable Typhoon just modified for such performance records. The test aircraft were even heavier than the operational aircraft due all their test instrumentation.

The only quibble I have is certain platforms being at the end of their development path. Specifically the F-16. Although, the typical F-16 customer isn't looking for the most advanced capability possible but rather a good bang for the buck.

M had to give the F-16 additional spin extension and the airframe is pretty much overweight for its size. On the other side aerodynamics haven't been changed to scope with this additional weight, engine thrust is only one thing.

 

[JWCook]

The decision on production is yet to hit the 11 o'clock mark.

Maintenance burdens are relative. eg the original maint requirements for the B2 were in man hour terms - awful. The technolog base to maintain the B2 however ha changed dramaticallly over the last 18 months. At the end of the day, irrespective of the maint requirements - the planes capability and capacity to change events has still made it worthwhile. The F-22 has gone through similar development evolution at the maintenance level,

the burden or logistical impact has to be measured against battlespace benefit. availability is relative, because capability is also measured against and with other blue force platform capability overlap (force compression issues) etc.....

These are valid points.

The reason I brought up the Raptors poor maintainance was that it is number 4 of LM's definitions of being 5th gen, significantly more reliable/maintanable that the previous generation!, the F-22 with a mean of less than 1 hour between maintainance actions doesn't fit the bill, (the target is 3 hours).
add the fact the F-22 fleet is not exactly homogeneous, You'd be hard pressed to find a build 'standard' within the fleet.

I found this quite funny.

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

I posted this elsewhere...

That 3.0 hr MTBM is quite interesting... if one looks at this FY06 appropriation:

Description/Justification
Provides for retrofit to incorporate pattern failure fixes to achieve the Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM) requirement of 3.0 flight hours (FH) at 100,000 total flight hours. MTBM of 3.0 FH is an Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) requirement. MTBM directly influences other Key Performance Parameters (KPP) and ORD requirements such as Sortie Generation Rate, C-17 loads and manpower spaces per aircraft. Install kit quantity exceeds aircraft breakdown total quantity due to multiple kit procurement/installation per aircraft in support of various MTBM initiatives.

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070221-107.pdf

p. 28-11 (303)

and compare with this presentation from 2007:

Estimate O&S and Initial Spares of Different F-22 MTBMs (Constant 2006 )

(1) Mean Time between Maintenance. F-22 ORD established MTBM threshold at 3 hours.
(1a) MTBM of 0.65 hours achieved in Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E).
(1b) IOT&E MTBM score 0.45 hours. F-22 will achieve MTBM of 0.825 hours at maturity (100,000 FH), if its reliability growth rate is similar to the historical rates of existing fighter aircraft programs.
(1c) Air Force Program Office projects F-22 to achieve 1.5 hours MTBM at maturity.
(2) O&S cost for 148 Primary Aerospace vehicle Authorization (PAA), 336 flying hours per aircraft per year for 24 years. Initial spares requirement for 182 Total Active Inventory (TAI), computed at $120M recurring flyaway cost each.
(3) Baseline assumes the Air Force projected 1.5 hours MTBM at maturity. At the F-22 ORD MTBM threshold of 3 hours, the estimated life cycle cost would be $4B lower than the baseline in constant 2006 dollars

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007psa_apr/seglie.pdf

p. 19

This begs the question: does the 1.5 hr MTBM include the expected improvements from the FY06 appropriation, i.e. was the LCC savings beyond the 1.5 hr MTBM the rationale for the appropriation, or does the AF Program office only expect 1.5 hr MTBM at maturity?

 

[Grand Danois]

BTW, as I understand it MTBMA can be many things and it can be discussed how appropriate a measure of maintenance intensity it is.

Perhaps MT & TAT under operational conditions is a better measure as a benchmark that can be fed into a model of battlefield impact?

 

[DarthAmerica]

The Typhoon can supercruise right now with current engines. Future tranche might further improve that. And it's not all about the engines only.

Sure it can. The most senior pilot in the USAF who has flown it confirmed it publicly. A future Tranche may indeed actually give it something more than a very brief capability that other 4th Gen planes have to sprint past M1.0 and actually cruise at supersonic speeds. But not before the issues of fuel and purpose built engines are addressed.

-DA

 

[JWCook]

Sure it can. The most senior pilot in the USAF who has flown it confirmed it publicly. A future Tranche may indeed actually give it something more than a very brief capability that other 4th Gen planes have to sprint past M1.0 and actually cruise at supersonic speeds. But not before the issues of fuel and purpose built engines are addressed.

-DA

Perhaps this will help Darth, when Eurofighter GmbH was asked these questions about the Typhoon around the beginning of 2006:-

Thank you very much for your interest in our aircraft.

Unfortunately this area of interest is rather classified. So I advise you to
contact the UK MoD or RAF for more information. I cannot confirm any of the figures, but can say that Supercruise (flying at supersonic speed without use of afterburner) is not directly time limited, but is a function of fuel reserves and distance from home base.

This ability was not required by the customer, but the aerodynamic design
work of our engineers simply was so good that as a spin-off the capability
is there.



Kind Regards

Wolfdietrich Hoeveler
Vice President Communications
Eurofighter GmbH
Am Söldnermoos 17
85399 Hallbergmoos
Tel.: +49-(0)811-801555
Fax: +49-(0)811-801557

I hope this finally puts to bed the nonsense of it being incapable of any worthwhile supercruise capability and goes way past "a very brief capability" that some have grudgingly admitted.

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

I hope this finally puts to bed the nonsense of it being incapable of any worthwhile supercruise capability and goes way past "a very brief capability" that some have grudgingly admitted.

Cheers

Mr. Cook,

Tell yourself whatever you have to. Saying it's not time limited while in the same breath saying it's a function of distance from base and fuel reserves is what I've been trying to tell you since day one. Also, I don't need anybody to confirm what I already know myself. Although to have a General Officer like Gen Jumper who has flown it and has access to classified technical intelligence analysis on the Typhoon confirm it is reassuring that the money I spent to become an Engineer wasn't wasted and Prof El Shahabi wasn't simply trying to confuse me.

I am also fortunate enough to be stationed with quite a few UK MoD personnel some of whom are actually in the RAF. I even have a personal friend who is a former member of the RAF and now works as a private contractor. The email you got is typical and really means read the media kits and don't ask us. The reason has nothing to do with classification or OPSEC because supercruise is nothing new or revolutionary in the case of the Typhoon. The real reason is that Typhoon is involved in serious competition for sales to India, Japan and perhaps others. Because of that, EADS wants to put their best foot forward and let the buyer decide how useful the Typhoons capabilities are. I can't say I blame them considering the competition(F/A-18E, F-16, Rafale, Mig-35 and it's nemesis the F-15E).

I mention all that to say that I have an idea about what I'm talking about. I have public and private sources of information and I am also capable of approximating on my own how significant this capability is. It hasn't been significant enough several times in the recent past. Without serious modifications that will not change. When those modifications occur, I promise you that classification will not stop EADS from proclaiming very loudly and publicly that the Typhoon supercruises and in great detail. After all there is also the F-35 to try and undermind and money to be made. Until that time what you have heard previously is marketing hype. A lot like when people thought Mig-25s could fly to M3.2. Well I suppose they can if you don't mind buying engines a lot more often. But in practice they don't do it because doing so destroys the engines so they limit the speed a bit.

Now, something you really should pay close attention to...

" This ability was not required by the customer, but the aerodynamic design
work of our engineers simply was so good that as a spin-off the capability
is there."

...a quote from your email. I'll help you to interpret that. The EJ200 is a conventional turbofan and really powerful for it's size. Because it is pushing a very efficient aeroshell. It is able to exceed M1.0 dry under some circumstances. However, this capability was not required and the technology and fuel necessary to sustain this performance is not in the Typhoon. Technology that is a part of the F119 which was purpose built to do that. Fuel, 18,000 lbs worth or 26,000lbs with two drop tanks is in the F-22 which was designed to fight this way to give it huge advantages over traditional late model fighters of the cold war. Supersonic flight is not easy. Sustained supersonic flight is very demanding and has to be a part of the design philosophy because it poses specific challenges. The Typhoon does not supercruise. By that I mean sustained supersonic flight without afterburners for durations that would be tactically useful.

If after all of this you still disagree, then I accept your disagreement and you are welcome to believe what you choose. Without something a bit more substantive from you, we should agree to disagree and let others decide on their own one way or the other.


-DA

 

[simdude97]

"but can say that Supercruise (flying at supersonic speed without use of afterburner) is not directly time limited, but is a function of fuel reserves and distance from home base."

I hope this finally puts to bed the nonsense of it being incapable of any worthwhile supercruise capability and goes way past "a very brief capability" that some have grudgingly admitted.

No, not really. All it proves is that Tiffie can fly above M 1.0 w/out reheat. So can a clean F-15, F-16, SU-30 and many other 4th gen jets. The real question for super cruise are as follows. Speed above M1.0 to be tactically significant. Ability of the engines (designed from the start) to be able to handle speeds in excess of M1.0 for entire duration of operation. Ability to carry a significant war load and fuel equivalent to what most modern fighters carry both internally and externally. Ability to exceed M1.0 without reheat in level flight at a very wide range of altitudes.

It's not just about aerodynamics and it does not happen by accident. The best indicator of Tiffies ability to fly w/out reheat is on the German Luftwaffe website where all it says is that speeds up to M1.2 are possible without the use of reheat.

The F-35 is now leading edge, witness the technology flow is now reversed, The F-35 was built on lessons learned from the F-22, these were then developed and are now flowing back into the F-22 program.

Agreed, but F-35 is not in front line service yet. F-22 is.

Europe will have to spend many times more money in operations cost and risk many times more assets to do things that only a handful of F-22s and whatever support they need could do.

Lets be honest. That's not going to happen. They have uncle to do those things. Thats why they can get away with procurement fiascoes like Tiffie.

 

[obrescia]

It's important to be mindful of the fact the F-22 can only "supercruise" at altitude. The efficiency (power-to-weight ratio) of its low bypass engines drop dramatically at mid/low heights, (combat radius?). Hence the extensive use of reheat (afterburner) for energy during air show displays.

 

[Scorpion82]

Saying it's not time limited while in the same breath saying it's a function of distance from base and fuel reserves is what I've been trying to tell you since day one.

...a quote from your email. I'll help you to interpret that. The EJ200 is a conventional turbofan and really powerful for it's size. Because it is pushing a very efficient aeroshell. It is able to exceed M1.0 dry under some circumstances. However, this capability was not required and the technology and fuel necessary to sustain this performance is not in the Typhoon. Technology that is a part of the F119 which was purpose built to do that. Fuel, 18,000 lbs worth or 26,000lbs with two drop tanks is in the F-22 which was designed to fight this way to give it huge advantages over traditional late model fighters of the cold war. Supersonic flight is not easy. Sustained supersonic flight is very demanding and has to be a part of the design philosophy because it poses specific challenges. The Typhoon does not supercruise. By that I mean sustained supersonic flight without afterburners for durations that would be tactically useful.

DA you seem to have a tremdous ability to misinterprete things your own way. "not time limited" means the Typhoon can do it every time in certain conditions and not just for a very brief period of time only. Typhoon was able to demonstrate this even in extrem climatical conditions were other aircraft failed to do so. The aircraft was from the outset designed with high supersonic performance in mind as it was considered to be important for the types overall effectivness in BVR combat. The stress on the airframe is easily higher when flying faster using reheat. Fuel load is irrelevant if you don't consider the fuel fraction, consumption etc.. Despite its fuel load being almost twice as high as for the Typhoon the F-22s range on internal fuel isn't that much higher. About 20% when relying on the openly available figures.

Also, I don't need anybody to confirm what I already know myself. Although to have a General Officer like Gen Jumper who has flown it and has access to classified technical intelligence analysis on the Typhoon confirm it is reassuring that the money I spent to become an Engineer wasn't wasted and Prof El Shahabi wasn't simply trying to confuse me.

You obviously don't know that much when it comes to the Eurofighter, but I won't further elaborate on it.

I am also fortunate enough to be stationed with quite a few UK MoD personnel some of whom are actually in the RAF. I even have a personal friend who is a former member of the RAF and now works as a private contractor.

Having some contacts doesn't necessarily mean you are in the know and judging from what you post they seem not to help you at all to go further with your information about this very particular type.

Without serious modifications that will not change. When those modifications occur, I promise you that classification will not stop EADS from proclaiming very loudly and publicly that the Typhoon supercruises and in great detail.

Customers and the manufacturer openly claims that and you can believe what you want, but the manufacturer has to be close lipped about some details even if they would like to speak more about it for marketing purposes.