Typhoon replacement.

[Spetsznaz]

this is hilarious after russia yet again has to ground its fleet(su27 this time)after crashes attributable to the aircraft....

the only reason they are attempting to diss the typhoon is because they are terrified of it taking its export sales around the world...after all,would you buy a lada or a rolls royce given the choice???:ar15

Please use correct spelling so that people will understand you.

Correct me if I am not wrong, but if you are talking about the pair of Su-27 fighters that crashed Dzemga airbase For reasons that are not yet known. This proves nothing. Many people believe the Su-27 were sabotaged. How does the Su-27 radar signature just disappear??? This is obviously not a technical problem but more like a planned out attack.

 

[jaffo4011]

Please use correct spelling so that people will understand you.

Correct me if I am not wrong, but if you are talking about the pair of Su-27 fighters that crashed Dzemga airbase For reasons that are not yet known. This proves nothing. Many people believe the Su-27 were sabotaged. How does the Su-27 radar signature just disappear??? This is obviously not a technical problem but more like a planned out attack.

yes,thats right rudyard kipling,its obvious that a pair of fighter aircraft were sabotaged after taking off from a heavilly guarded russian base on russian soil........what was i thinking of?

to be fair though,thats what must have happened to the typhoons front nose wheel too.....sabotaged by pesky russian lada salesmen trying to dent its sales to foreign markets......it all makes sense now,thanks for putting me right on that one shakespear.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

As as been noted earlier, it may be a bit premature to start planning the Typhoon's replacement. Technology is exponentially evolving, and a project started now will be far behind the curve when it finally enters service. I can't see the replacement program starting until the 2020s at the earliest.

That said, there's no reason why we can't try to postulate what the Typhoon's replacement might look like.

It will be multi-role for sure, since I can't see EU nations opting for separate Strike and Air Superiority programs.

Given the modern trend towards efforts at RCS reduction, I'm sure LO will be an objective, but European experience in this area seems limited. In the 80s the Germans built the Lampryidae ("Firefly") as a testbed for LO, but the project was canceled. In my opinion the "Next Eurofighter" will have at best a reduced RCS, rather than F-35 or F-22 level LO.

MBB Lampyridae Stealth
Lampyridae

Supercruise seems desirable, especially as a way to allow a limited number of fighters cover a lot of airspace. But my expertise on the relevant tech is limited, and I don't know if Europe has the engine tech to do it. If the US agreed to export engines or allow for license production, it might help.

UAVs are certainly an option, but pilots die hard. Maybe two variants of the Next Eurofighter, an manned and an unmanned one will be produced.

And a fair amount of it comes down to what the Russians do. If they don't put the Su-47 or its successor into widespread production, Typhoon operators might opt to just stick with the Typhoon for the next several decades rather than make a massive upgrade to a new aircraft.

 

[PeterCrisp]

Surely the engines is one area the UK at least should be fairly good at as they can give Rolls-Royce a call. I know they are mostly passenger jet engines but I'm confident they could whip up a decent enough engine to get to at least supercruise and even maybe hypersonic by 2020?

 

[Feanor]

Guys keep it on topic please. The crashes have already been brought up in the Russian Airforce thread. Take the discussion there.

It is truly rather ironic, especially if you see some entertaining the thought that on the contrary countries like Russia, China and India will. But then again not everybody seems to be concerned by the hard facts of the politcal, economical, technological and industrial status quo

In the foreseeable future European nations will be viable contenders when it comes to aircrafts, unmanned or manned, military or civilian.

Key word being forseeable. 30 years is not the forseeable future. It's the very long term future that we can't accurately predict.

 

[riksavage]

Its in Russia's interests to bad-mouth the Typhoon, after all it represents the dominant figher on its Western doorstep. However the recent RAF expereince at Red-Flag and during exchanges with the Indian airforce (who use modern Russian airframes) did not leave them sweating in their bunkbeds at the thought of taking on the mighty Russian airforce!

Remind me again when was the last time a Russian airframe faired better than one built in the West? Combine that with the pitifully low flying hours of the average Russian pilot compared to his/her NATO counterparts and you have the potential for turkey shoot.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Its in Russia's interests to bad-mouth the Typhoon, after all it represents the dominant figher on its Western doorstep. However the recent RAF expereince at Red-Flag and during exchanges with the Indian airforce (who use modern Russian airframes) did not leave them sweating in their bunkbeds at the thought of taking on the mighty Russian airforce!

Remind me again when was the last time a Russian airframe faired better than one built in the West? Combine that with the pitifully low flying hours of the average Russian pilot compared to his/her NATO counterparts and you have the potential for turkey shoot.

Could you please provide some proof or a source when you say Russian Pilots have small amounts of flying hours, to the NATO counterparts?

 

[Bonza]

Could you please provide some proof or a source when you say Russian Pilots have small amounts of flying hours, to the NATO counterparts?

Asia Times Online :: Central Asian News and current affairs, Russia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan

Pertinent line:

Moreover, Zelin said Russian air force pilots at present fly an average of 60-70 hours annually, which represents an improvement on the lower standards of the 1990s but is less than half the North Atlantic Treaty Organization minimum of 180 hours, which is often much higher within many of the member states' air forces. The reduction in the numbers of flight personnel and improved fuel supplies has contributed to this higher figure.

Additional link discussing the same issue:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20090823.aspx

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to roll your eyes at people, mate.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Its in Russia's interests to bad-mouth the Typhoon, after all it represents the dominant figher on its Western doorstep. However the recent RAF expereince at Red-Flag and during exchanges with the Indian airforce (who use modern Russian airframes) did not leave them sweating in their bunkbeds at the thought of taking on the mighty Russian airforce!

Remind me again when was the last time a Russian airframe faired better than one built in the West? Combine that with the pitifully low flying hours of the average Russian pilot compared to his/her NATO counterparts and you have the potential for turkey shoot.

While I do agree with you that Russian aircraft have definitely come out on the short end in most combat engagements (Gulf War, Vietnam, Israeli Wars etc.) , it is important to note that many of these aircraft were flown by pilots below the caliber of the average Soviet pilot.

Yes, I would agree that Russian pilots are generally undertrained and on average of lower quality than most NATO pilots, they do fly formidable fighters, and the Russians have a lot of them. Underestimating one's opponent can be a cardinal sin.

As for your point on Red Flag. DACT training isn't really an effective way of gauging how one fighter will fight against the other. EW, radar, and simulated weapons are nerfed significantly for security reasons. And even though the Indian Su-30s were Su-30s, they were flying with Indian tactics and Indian doctrine and thus they are not an exact analog to the GCI-focused Russian fighter doctrine.

Yes, the experience with the Su-30s at Red Flag does give the West a chance to experience how the Su-30 might fight, but the results need to be understood in context.

Gf0012-aust has an interesting post on DACT/Red Flag-type missions http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/dissimilar-air-combat-training-dact-1157/

As you can see, the results of these exercises (especially those released to the public) are quite likely not accurate. And, for one side or the other to claim victory in one of these exercises is either dishonest or just plain ignorance. Normally, the results are released as a series of politically correct statements such as those we've seen by the authorities after Cope India. Both sides are happy, they learned a lot, and can't wait to do it again.

"I'm certainly not trying to stifle the spirited debate that goes on here. It's fun reading the arguments for and against various aircraft, however, be careful when you're quoting the results of some exercise when making your point!

I'm only saying that without details, all of this, "my airplane kicked your airplane's butt" is entertaining, but silly. One valuable part of the exercise is simply watching how the other side operates, what kind of tactics they use (they may have been "modified" along with the weapons), how they talk on the radio, etc. Obviously, the technology represented by the Su-30s is of great interest to the USAF also."

A USAF article on Cope India 04, not 100% relevant, but nonetheless a good article on Air-to-air exercises and understanding their outcomes. USAF explains 'Cope India' Results

 

[Spetsznaz]

While I do agree with you that Russian aircraft have definitely come out on the short end in most combat engagements (Gulf War, Vietnam, Israeli Wars etc.) , it is important to note that many of these aircraft were flown by pilots below the caliber of the average Soviet pilot.

Yes, I would agree that Russian pilots are generally undertrained and on average of lower quality than most NATO pilots, they do fly formidable fighters, and the Russians have a lot of them. Underestimating one's opponent can be a cardinal sin.

As for your point on Red Flag. DACT training isn't really an effective way of gauging how one fighter will fight against the other. EW, radar, and simulated weapons are nerfed significantly for security reasons. And even though the Indian Su-30s were Su-30s, they were flying with Indian tactics and Indian doctrine and thus they are not an exact analog to the GCI-focused Russian fighter doctrine.

Yes, the experience with the Su-30s at Red Flag does give the West a chance to experience how the Su-30 might fight, but the results need to be understood in context.

Gf0012-aust has an interesting post on DACT/Red Flag-type missions http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/dissimilar-air-combat-training-dact-1157/

As you can see, the results of these exercises (especially those released to the public) are quite likely not accurate. And, for one side or the other to claim victory in one of these exercises is either dishonest or just plain ignorance. Normally, the results are released as a series of politically correct statements such as those we've seen by the authorities after Cope India. Both sides are happy, they learned a lot, and can't wait to do it again.

"I'm certainly not trying to stifle the spirited debate that goes on here. It's fun reading the arguments for and against various aircraft, however, be careful when you're quoting the results of some exercise when making your point!

I'm only saying that without details, all of this, "my airplane kicked your airplane's butt" is entertaining, but silly. One valuable part of the exercise is simply watching how the other side operates, what kind of tactics they use (they may have been "modified" along with the weapons), how they talk on the radio, etc. Obviously, the technology represented by the Su-30s is of great interest to the USAF also."

A USAF article on Cope India 04, not 100% relevant, but nonetheless a good article on Air-to-air exercises and understanding their outcomes. USAF explains 'Cope India' Results

Excellent post, you managed to point out a very good fact, that I missed about the pilots not being Soviet Caliber, another factor, is that some of the MiG and Sukhoi aircraft the Soviet Union Supplied to the middle east (ESPECIALLY THE MIDDLE EAST) did not have the same technology as the non-export models which were known to be more expensive and have better radar.:smokie

 

[Bonza]

Excellent post, you managed to point out a very good fact, that I missed about the pilots not being Soviet Caliber, another factor, is that some of the MiG and Sukhoi aircraft the Soviet Union Supplied to the middle east (ESPECIALLY THE MIDDLE EAST) did not have the same technology as the non-export models which were known to be more expensive and have better radar.:smokie

The irony of you complimenting his post (in which he points out that aircraft x vs aircraft y arguments are pointless) and then immediately going straight back to extolling the virtues of Soviet fighters is unbelievable. Okay, so non-export models had better radar sets. SO WHAT? What does this have to do with replacing the Typhoon?

I gave you a source on low flight hours in the Russian Air Force, as you requested (which you subsequently ignored), so I realise I've gone off-topic as well. But you're beginning to seem as though you're only interested in pounding your chest and ranting about Russian capabilities. As such, you're being provocative and derailing the thread. Please stop it.

 

[Spetsznaz]

The irony of you complimenting his post (in which he points out that aircraft x vs aircraft y arguments are pointless) and then immediately going straight back to extolling the virtues of Soviet fighters is unbelievable. Okay, so non-export models had better radar sets. SO WHAT? What does this have to do with replacing the Typhoon?

I gave you a source on low flight hours in the Russian Air Force, as you requested (which you subsequently ignored), so I realise I've gone off-topic as well. But you're beginning to seem as though you're only interested in pounding your chest and ranting about Russian capabilities. As such, you're being provocative and derailing the thread. Please stop it.

No, no. When I complemented his post, is that he pointed out a factor that I never have been brought attention to, its more or less something new I learned

As for the flying hours, thanks for the links I am better informed

 

[Feanor]

What the state of the VVS has to do with a Typhoon replacement is beyond me. Guys get back on topic. If you don't have something on topic to say, don't say it. If you want to discuss the VVS, take it to the Russian airforce thread.

 

[Firn]

Key word being forseeable. 30 years is not the forseeable future. It's the very long term future that we can't accurately predict.

Of course not. But on the other hand I strongly doubt that for example Camerun will be able to do something on the scale of the Typhoon. After all the future evolves from the present.


Firn

 

[riksavage]

You cannot underestimate the intellectual capacity, engineering & manufacturing expertise and proprietary science capabilities contained within Europe. Companies like EADS, Rolls Royce, BAE et al have huge proprietary resources at their disposal, far more than Russia, India and China. Plus their collective budget is huge. The only issue is cooperation and removal of duplication.

One thing for sure Europe is way ahead of the above named countries in regard to UCAV technology (Neuron, Taranis). These represent overt test demonstrators, and I'm sure there are other platforms in the covert domain, which will venture into the public-eye in the not to distant future. I suspect what ever replaces Typhoon will be a manned/unmanned combination, Europe may decide to bin indigenous manned platform development (buy off the US instead) and focus on complimentary UCAV's. Once the F35's come on line I believe we will see most European heavy-hitters focus all their efforts on unmanned projects (BAE are already doing this) because it will be too expensive to invest R&D $ in both manned and unmanned high-tech products. This will become even more of an issue if asymmetrical warfare continues to dominate the battle space, unmanned platforms with long loiter times will become ever more vital in the 'war of the flea'.