Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[JWCook]

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.

Well this is patently false as the Raptor also has this exact same limit its a function of distance and fuel not any inherent F119/EJ200 engine problems.

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.

You are so nearly right.. well apart from being wrong.. you are directly contradicting what was in the Email and I'll repost it to aid in comprehension

but the aerodynamic design work of our engineers simply was so good that as a spin-off the capability is there.

Please also note the question that was asked... "is the EJ200 time limited in supercruise, or will will it start spitting turbine blades after a while". and the answer was :-
Supercruise (flying at supersonic speed without use of afterburner) is not directly time limited.

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.

For a simple example :- Concordes engines were a development from the subsonic Vulcan olympus engines (via the TSR2) they were not 'purpose built' to a design philosophy.

Bristol Aero engines developed the Olympus BE.10 as a high power (10000lb) two spool turbojet for the RAF V-bombers to meet spec TE.1/46. By various modifications, including adding a zero stage, thrust was raised to 20000lb. It entered service on the Vulcan bomber, but had such potential, it was further developed as a supersonic powerplant for the TSR2 strike aircraft.

<sigh> you will no doubt try to wriggle out of this too, but remember the EJ200 is designed to be a supersonic engine, just as a spinoff it doesn't need reheat to get there, thats not too big a leap is it!!

The Typhoon does not supercruise. By that I mean sustained supersonic flight without afterburners for durations that would be tactically useful.

The USAF thinks 3.5 to 7 minutes in a sortie is tactically useful, are you seriously suggesting that the Typhoon is incapable of this?.

what distance do you think is tactically useful for supercruise, not time supercruising, not speed supercruising, but actual distance in nautical miles??

Every time I post anything to support the Typhoon supercruising the counter argument never contains anything at all substantive just your assertions that your clever, trained, in the know etc etc, all the things which you have never accepted as 'credable evidence' from anyone else.

I have shown you official Eurofighters sites stating M1.5 supercruise, Independent observations of M1.2 in Singapore, An email from a Eurofighter spokesman saying the engines are capable of sustained supercruise... and you come back with I need something "a bit more substantive".
nfloorl:

IMHO If a whole squadron of Eurofighter Typhoons passed you supercruiseing, while singing the supercruising song, with me waving a supercruising banner, on a "looky here at the Eurofighter supercruising" background then you'd either miss it/claim they were F-22's in disguise/or need something a bit more substantive..



Cheers

 

[Feanor]

The immaturity of the tiff makes the others competitive as pure capability - my initial argument.

None the less it's performance increase doesn't give it an advantage great enough, nor is it's performance comparable to, a 5th gen. fighter jet. It's not AESA, it's not stealth. It's supercruise exists but isn't on par(I think that's what all the arguments basically boil down to).

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?

That depends on how much better it becomes as a result. Would an F-4 with new engines, avionics, cockpit, and weapons, be on par with a late model F-15 or Su-27?

 

[Fritz]

what distance do you think is tactically useful for supercruise, not time supercruising, not speed supercruising, but actual distance in nautical miles??

This one hit the head of the nail.
We need to define tactically useful supercruise.
A] It is a given that it has to include weapons loadout.
B] As every speed increase is tactically useful, specific speed will not be the defining factor.
C] Nor does it matter if it is with done with extra fuel tanks,- as long as it can sustain speed in excess of Mach 1 without reheat in level flight. If Typhoon can strap on a supertanker and still exceed M1, -good for him!

That leaves range and/or time.

 

[obrescia]

designed to fill set criteria

The Raptor is designed to operate over foreign hostile airspace. Because of this requirement by the USAF, it needs to be a difficult target for SAMs. The best way to do that is to operate at high altitude (and maybe use some stealth?) to keep its aircrews at arms length from the SAM launchers. Lockheed built what the USAF asked for. The Typhoon was built based on what the Europeans needed, and is likely in key areas totally different than what the USAF uses airplanes for...it’s just that simple. Engine selection/airframe/systems/weapons are designed to fill whatever the set criteria are as defined by the purchaser, (the fact there is indeed development work proceeding on a longer range "D" AMRAAM is proof in of itself there is a weapon engagement range "issue" with the AIM-120). The AMRAAM "D" range assertions are in essence the same reason for the Raptors need for speed (and stealth) @ hi altitudes....to create some distance from the threat...so if they see you – it’s hoped it will be at a non optimal engagement profile, so one has a (or some) better probability to defeat that missile.

 

[gf0012-aust]

are in essence the same reason for the Raptors need for speed (and stealth) @ hi altitudes....to create some distance from the threat...so if they see you – it’s hoped it will be at a non optimal engagement profile, so one has a (or some) better probability to defeat that missile.

actually, the doctrine embraces the opposite concept.

the whole idea of LO is to enable the shooter to come in and be able to launch its weapons systems closer to the target so as to increase chances of reaching the NEZ.

the whole idea of the interplatform link is to enable the team to handoff to another asset that could be engaging in a completely different envelope

all of the data available on jet fighter engagement relevant to the platform revolves around mid level and higher engagement.


ALL:
I don't know how many times we have to say it, but here goes again.

It's about SYSTEMS - NOT PLATFORMS.

Platforms are built to a requirement - not solely a platform matrix, but also a systems matrix.

If this thread does not lift in quality REAL SOON, it will be closed off like all the other F-22 threads that turned into glorified "teenager fight nights".

 

[obrescia]

Can anyone with a (neutral?) link enlighten us on the F-22 bay environment issues regarding AMRAAM? Apparently the Raptor bay environment is (has been?) hostile to AIM-120 during carriage, with a typical sortie causing unacceptable AMRAAM malfunction rates due to what described as 'weapon bay harmonics'.

 

[JWCook]

If this thread does not lift in quality REAL SOON, it will be closed off like all the other F-22 threads that turned into glorified "teenager fight nights".

Its not _all_ negative..

I think this is quite a good thread, we have had sorted out many of the basics now. there were different definitions that needed clarification this was the major cause of 'confusion', we have had some excellent links from open sources to support the case for and against each posters position, and its been quite a wide range in its topics.

Definitions that have been discussed.
What makes a 5th gen.
What is supercruise.
What is tactically useful supercruise.
Fighter generations - is it marketing hype or practical pigeon holes.

And all done without breaching any major security rules or confidences or any real name calling!!.

Hmm we have ILA coming up in the next couple of days, perhaps there will be news ;-).

Cheers

 

[obrescia]

saying the same thing

actually, the doctrine embraces the opposite concept.

the whole idea of LO is to enable the shooter to come in and be able to launch its weapons systems closer to the target so as to increase chances of reaching the NEZ.

the whole idea of the interplatform link is to enable the team to handoff to another asset that could be engaging in a completely different envelope

all of the data available on jet fighter engagement relevant to the platform revolves around mid level and higher engagement.


ALL:
I don't know how many times we have to say it, but here goes again.

It's about SYSTEMS - NOT PLATFORMS.

Platforms are built to a requirement - not solely a platform matrix, but also a systems matrix.

If this thread does not lift in quality REAL SOON, it will be closed off like all the other F-22 threads that turned into glorified "teenager fight nights".

Well yeah. You can fly in (thru) their SAM engagement envelope and do whatever! The interlink/situational awareness tech stuff, may or may not work as envisioned under combat conditions, (i.e. shooter still uses own IFF gear even if AWACS or other has "verified"). For the record, LO platforms still require heavy jamming support by EA-6B, EF-111 or EF-18 type aircraft.

 

[gf0012-aust]

For the record, LO platforms still require heavy jamming support by EA-6B, EF-111 or EF-18 type aircraft.

They don't require it. They get it because its a force delivery multiplier. If you have it - you use it.

Like everything this has to be analysed in context.

F-117's were not heavily supported in GW1 as the corridors were cleared by all blue aircraft at ingress. IADS was decapitated and AEW ground based systems were decapitated or dislocated before insertion (which is how it's supposed to work)

F-117's in Serbia were supported as it was part of the package support. The package support was to also pick up other emission "tells".

Support is not an isolated platform specific issue - it's a system event - and it's done for a reason. LO or not, doctrine dictates that entering any contested space max available and relevant support is given.

 

[Grand Danois]

None the less it's performance increase doesn't give it an advantage great enough, nor is it's performance comparable to, a 5th gen. fighter jet. It's not AESA, it's not stealth. It's supercruise exists but isn't on par(I think that's what all the arguments basically boil down to).

The discussion I had with Darth was with regard to some specific platforms (F-16/MiG-29/F/A-18C). I haven't argued that the tiff was "5th gen". It was about what jet holds most future potential.

That depends on how much better it becomes as a result. Would an F-4 with new engines, avionics, cockpit, and weapons, be on par with a late model F-15 or Su-27?

No! That's has been one of my arguments. So we agree.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well yeah. You can fly in (thru) their SAM engagement envelope and do whatever!

If you look at any of the LO package delivery events over the last 20 years you'll note that NONE of them fly through IADS.

The missions are planned around SAM perimeters and any overlaps are dealt with by temporal triggered jamming or 2nd party suppression. They don't run primary.

LO aircraft (like conventionals) go through the same planning requirements - they don't force an event just because they have LO capability.

the same rules apply to them all.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Well yeah. You can fly in (thru) their SAM engagement envelope and do whatever! The interlink/situational awareness tech stuff, may or may not work as envisioned under combat conditions, (i.e. shooter still uses own IFF gear even if AWACS or other has "verified"). For the record, LO platforms still require heavy jamming support by EA-6B, EF-111 or EF-18 type aircraft.

Obrescia,

What points are you trying to make? It's not news that LO aircraft benefit from EW. They are actually better suited for it by nature. Also, the EF-111 is no longer in service. Regarding IFF, it is a procedure, not a specific technology. IFF can be having no fire zones, free fire zones, NCTR, visual and various other means. Like stealth, it's not technology dependent.

Also, the AMRAAM D has nothing to do with the AMRAAM C being inferior. It's normal and expected that over the life of a missile program the requirements change and upgrades are applied to keep the weapon system effective in a dynamic environment. How many variations of the AIM-9 have there been for example. That also applies to the fighters that carry the weapons. You would find that current Su-27s are different from the ones flying in the 1980s and 1990s. Well a few a least. The point is that modern weapons are always improved over time.

-DA

 

[gf0012-aust]

The interlink/situational awareness tech stuff, may or may not work as envisioned under combat conditions, (i.e. shooter still uses own IFF gear even if AWACS or other has "verified").

How does the shooters IFF determine fire solutions? It doesn't. It's there to identify it to all other blue friendlies that it's not from the red team. It has no impact on whether it prosecutes against another platform in its response matrix.

The issue of tech failure has to impact upon the package - not the platform.

eg the platform has dbl to triple redundancy
it's companion blue members are also on and have redundancy.
if it's a system event (and the US works in systems events) then its just as likely that the comms bubble includes, compass, rivet, AWAcs and then depending on the battlespace, any other Link 11, Link 16, Link 22, LEO SAT, maritime, OTHR such as X band etc.... in the mix.

comms space is complex - none of it is on isolation - and all of it is redundant either internally or on a systems overlap.

The US doesn't play fair in the battlespace - it saturates the comms space so that it can maximise its chances of winning

 

[DarthAmerica]

The discussion I had with Darth was with regard to some specific platforms (F-16/MiG-29/F/A-18C). I haven't argued that the tiff was "5th gen". It was about what jet holds most future potential.

If I may jump in for a second. I do think that the Typhoon will hold more potential over time. At the system level it's going to hold more capability considering who will be flying and supporting (Typhoon/F-16/MiG-29/F/A-18C) over time(ie the F-16/18C are being phased out of tier 1 airforces for the F-35/EF). The Mig is a bit different considering the differences in doctrine and probably should not be in this group.



-DA

 

[Grand Danois]

If I may jump in for a second. I do think that the Typhoon will hold more potential over time. At the system level it's going to hold more capability considering who will be flying and supporting (Typhoon/F-16/MiG-29/F/A-18C) over time(ie the F-16/18C are being phased out of tier 1 airforces for the F-35/EF). The Mig is a bit different considering the differences in doctrine and probably should not be in this group.



-DA

The USAF doesn't consider F-16's as an option for future procurement because they have reached the point of diminishing returns as far as development goes. They don't wan't them to fill any gaps there may occur for this reason. Fortunately, dilligence has been paid and the F-35 is on its way. It seems there will be a gap, even if the F-35 hits 130/yr at full production, though.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The discussion I had with Darth was with regard to some specific platforms (F-16/MiG-29/F/A-18C). I haven't argued that the tiff was "5th gen". It was about what jet holds most future potential.

If i may drop my 2C in on this interesting discussion, I hope you don't mind.

The future potential of a platform is a misleading concept, capability needs to be considered in contemporary terms ( i think Darth briefly raised this point). Tiffies future potential may indeed be great, but in contemporary terms at the moment it lacks behind, say F-15E BII or F/A-18EF BII in several avionics and weapons options. Now when both reach the peak of their development curve, Typhoon may be comparable or better, but in contemporary terms both F-15E BII and F/A-18EF BII provide the user with a 3rd gen LPI AESA and a significantly larger & more advanced weapons fit (J series PGM's vs Paveways, harpoon vs nothing and SLAM vs nothing ect). Typhoon will eventually be equipped with an AESA (CAESAR) radar and comprehensive A2G weapons fit, but will it reach the same point in its development curve as FXX BII at the same time? Considering the significant lead they already hold and the huge R&D effort behind their evolution i personally doubt it. Therefore I'm questioning the relevance of a platforms total future potential without considering the development timeline.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The USAF doesn't consider F-16's as an option for future procurement because they have reached the point of diminishing returns as far as development goes. They don't wan't them to fill any gaps there may occur for this reason. Fortunately, dilligence has been paid and the F-35 is on its way. It seems there will be a gap, even if the F-35 hits 130/yr at full production, though.

We have enough redundancy at the system level to deal with any gaps. The USAF is big on survivability and the margin of diminishing returns is in that respect IMV. F-16s could be made faster, longer ranged, carry better radars, carry better avionics, better weapons ect. But stealthy the F-16 is not. It's the same decision that Europe should have made with regard to the Typhoon IMV. Relying on stand off munitions and hoping Taranis/nEUROn(which are demos) bears fruit is not wise. Some are going with the F-35 though.

-DA

 

[Grand Danois]

If i may drop my 2C in on this interesting discussion, I hope you don't mind.

The future potential of a platform is a misleading concept, capability needs to be considered in contemporary terms ( i think Darth briefly raised this point). Tiffies future potential may indeed be great, but in contemporary terms at the moment it lacks behind, say F-15E BII or F/A-18EF BII in several avionics and weapons options. Now when both reach the peak of their development curve, Typhoon may be comparable or better, but in contemporary terms both F-15E BII and F/A-18EF BII provide the user with a 3rd gen LPI AESA and a significantly larger & more advanced weapons fit (J series PGM's vs Paveways, harpoon vs nothing and SLAM vs nothing ect). Typhoon will eventually be equipped with an AESA (CAESAR) radar and comprehensive A2G weapons fit, but will it reach the same point in its development curve as FXX BII at the same time? Considering the significant lead they already hold and the huge R&D effort behind their evolution i personally doubt it. Therefore I'm questioning the relevance of a platforms total future potential without considering the development timeline.

I certainly don't mind.

I don't think we're in disagreement. Contemporary terms, yes, but my comparison was full potential f-16 etc. to full potential tiff, not SH. WRT to SH, money is an issue, which is why I bemoan the agonizingly slow progress of the tiff.

It is what can be done to and with a platform in the future.

You'll have noticed Darth also touched upon radars. The short version from my perspective is, that the euros probably master the software side of AESA - the latency or tech portfolio that is so sought after ... What the US is really ahead on, is the implementation of hardware, which makes it interesting as to who will develop and field viable GaN MMICs first. UMS or Raytheon.

This is general sense of things, of course.

 

[gf0012-aust]

F-16s could be made faster, longer ranged, carry better radars, carry better avionics, better weapons ect. But stealthy the F-16 is not.

The cogent lesson is Israels F-16's used in the strike on Syria. Weasels and their kin can still deal with co-ordinated ADS.

again, the message is not about focussing on the platform - it's how coherent the package is that counts.

 

[Grand Danois]

The cogent lesson is Israels F-16's used in the strike on Syria. Weasels and their kin can still deal with co-ordinated ADS.

again, the message is not about focussing on the platform - it's how coherent the package is that counts.

It's just so darn complicated.

Here's a perspective: IIRC Europe's got no stand-off power jamming capability; can assemble 6-8 sqns of escort jammers (when I did the tally a few years ago); is very proficient in self defence system, but does not field to full potential. Europe looks fine wrt stealthy cruise missiles and is lacking at the moment on the UAV/UCAV side, though this looks to be remedied. ELINT looks reasonable.

Now fit a typhoon into this package of half-hearted support measures - so my view is that it matters more how an individual platform performs in an euro context.

OTOH the yanks got it all in numbers AND stealth. (OT comment: Stealth is not all eggs in one basket, as some will lay it out.)