Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Funny enough, I'm talking to this chick from Vladivostok, Russia that has a brother that works or worked for Sukhoi as some analyst. He even said that it would be stupid for Europeans to do anything with the Typhoon. He said they often laugh at how "impotent" the Typhoon/Eurofighter is. He said if it was so great, why are the Russians, Indians and Chinese producing fighters closer to the F22/F35 than the Typhoon?

I need to get in touch with him to see if he would join in the conversation.

From the perspective of airframe optimisations, the Typhoon is without doubt optimised for its two primary design objectives, which are supersonic BVR interception and close in combat at transonic speeds, with no obvious concessions made to the secondary objective of strike. The low wing loading will confer excellent climb performance for the installed thrust, and the the delta configuration lower supersonic drag, in comparison with the F/A-18. The low wing loading is not optimal for low level strike profiles, but the gust sensitivity will be alleviated by the large sweep angle and the use of artificial stability and canards. The airframe is rated to +9/-3G at an undisclosed combat weight, pylon G ratings have also not been disclosed.

The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance rather than cruise burn. Eurofighter claim the engine has a supercruise capability, although the duration of possible supercruise has not been disclosed. As the engine is technologically of the same generation as evolved teen series engines, expectations that it can deliver the kind of supercruise performance provided by uniquely designed supercruising powerplants like the US F119 and F120 are difficult to accept.

An experienced F/A-18 pilot who flew the Typhoon simulator commented to the author that the aircraft's manoeuvre/handling performance did not appear to be a dramatic improvement over the F/A-18, and rudder authority at high AoA did not match the F/A-18.

Published detection range performance for the NIIP N-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph (Su-30MK upgrades) and Agat 9B-1103M/9B-1348E R-77/R-77M seekers would suggest that a Typhoon loaded with external stores could be successfully engaged within the 50-65 NMI envelope.

SOURCE

Edited February 23, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[rksl-rock 1301]

Funny enough, I'm talking to this chick from Vladivostok, Russia that has a brother that works or worked for Sukhoi as some analyst. He even said that it would be stupid for Europeans to do anything with the Typhoon. He said they often laugh at how "impotent" the Typhoon/Eurofighter is. He said if it was so great, why are the Russians, Indians and Chinese producing fighters closer to the F22/F35 than the Typhoon?

I need to get in touch with him to see if he would join in the conversation.

Because its actually inservice and costs about 50-60% less than "Stealth" to own. :eek:

And given the feedback from various Test pilots and stories of mock dogfights with F-22s, SU-30MKI and Mig29s its actually a very capable aircraft. Far better than its critics would lead you to beleive.

BUT it does have its limitations. And if Eurofighter are to be beleived, they are working on them too.

SOURCE

Look at the date. The original articles comes from 2000. Before the actual Typhoon flew. At that point there were only the 7 Prototypes flying. The production aircraft were rather radically different in capability, performance and handling.

There are a few stories about the credibility of that site elsewhere too. I'll try and find some links when i finish work. But I - personally - think its not very accurate assessment. It just seems to be a rehash of all the criticisms ever leveled at Typhoon with no stats or facts... It makes no mention of any of the US, Norwegien or Japanese test pilots that have flown it. They published gushing reviews of its capability.

[Pyronick 21]

Don't forget that the Typhoon is only the first generation of Eurofighters. The consortium and the Typhoon at the moment are more like a sort of compromises.

The consortium is more or less a forced joint venture between air industries that already worked just fine.

But for a first-generation Eurofighter design and being commonly agreed-on 4.5th (rather than 5th) generation jet fighter it's really good. Especially when it is able to compete with 5th generation jet fighters.

It would obviously do a lot better if Dassault (and Saab) were in the consortium. And I hope for us Dutchies that Stork Aerospace could be a part of the Eurojet consortium.

I think we'll see the true potential of Eurofighter on their 6th generation (stealth multi-role) jet fighter design, which AFAIK would be their 2nd design.

[rksl-rock 1301]

Don't forget that the Typhoon is only the first generation of Eurofighters. The consortium and the Typhoon at the moment are more like a sort of compromises.

The consortium is more or less a forced joint venture between air industries that already worked just fine.

But for a first-generation Eurofighter design and being commonly agreed-on 4.5th (rather than 5th) generation jet fighter it's really good. Especially when it is able to compete with 5th generation jet fighters.

It would obviously do a lot better if Dassault (and Saab) were in the consortium. And I hope for us Dutchies that Stork Aerospace could be a part of the Eurojet consortium.

I think we'll see the true potential of Eurofighter on their 6th generation (stealth multi-role) jet fighter design, which AFAIK would be their 2nd design.

I'm not sure what you mean by their 2nd Design? After the 3rd Tranche deliveries and unless EuroFighter wins the Indian MMRCA competition thats it for any major design changes. Any other changes will be in the form of software updates and maybe a mid-life-update package in 10-15 years.

I've not seen anything about any future products from EuroFighter past the Typhoon. :confused:

[Baff1 0]

Aren't we expecting the next generation of fighter plane to be unmanned?

I would have thought however that Typhoon will see an extended period service. I would expect over it's lifetime to see upgrades of various sorts. Radar systems, engines, and stuff that hasn't been thought of yet.

Perhaps nothing drastic enough to alter it's external profile but highly significant nevertheless.

Superior radar/detection technology for example has the potential to neutralise any stealth advantages other airframes may have to offer.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Baff1

[Pyronick 21]

I'm not sure what you mean by their 2nd Design? After the 3rd Tranche deliveries and unless EuroFighter wins the Indian MMRCA competition thats it for any major design changes. Any other changes will be in the form of software updates and maybe a mid-life-update package in 10-15 years.

I've not seen anything about any future products from EuroFighter past the Typhoon. :confused:

With design I mean a full-blown design, a completely new aircraft. Not a design change.

Nobody hasn't seen new designs because the Typhoon is still being sold. When it reaches mid-life the Typhoon must eventually be replaced by a new Eurofighter.

That or Eurofighter would be bankrupt.

[rksl-rock 1301]

Aren't we expecting the next generation of fighter plane to be unmanned?

SO the analysts say but thats 25-30 years in the future.

I would have thought however that Typhoon will see an extended period service. I would expect over it's lifetime to see upgrades of various sorts. Radar systems, engines, and stuff that hasn't been thought of yet.

Perhaps nothing drastic enough to alter it's external profile but highly significant nevertheless.

Superior radar/detection technology for example has the potential to neutralise any stealth advantages other airframes may have to offer.

That just the Mid-Life Update sort of stuff. Its common, take a look at the Tornado's evolution: Fatigue life improvements, new avionics, sensors and engine improvements. Not really anything major.

With design I mean a full-blown design, a completely new aircraft. Not a design change.

Nobody hasn't seen new designs because the Typhoon is still being sold. When it reaches mid-life the Typhoon must eventually be replaced by a new Eurofighter.

That or Eurofighter would be bankrupt.

Ah I don't think you realise what EuroFighter Gmbh actually is. It isn't really a manufacturer. Its just a management company for its partners. BAE Systems and EADS and Alenia (Originally BAe, DASA, CASA and Alenia). Its just a legal "front" to manage contracts and sales.

Once the Typhoon contracts are complete it will be downsized and eventually disbanded just like Panavia was with the Tornado. Once that happens any support or after sales design changes etc will be handled by NETMA and the production nation. Eg all the Austrian Typhoons were sold via Germany. The Saudi Typhoon by the UK etc.

I seriously doubt there will be another EuroFighter product.

Edited February 23, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
Links

[Pyronick 21]

Ah I don't think you realise what EuroFighter Gmbh actually is. It isn't really a manufacturer. Its just a management company for its partners. BAE Systems and EADS and Alenia (Originally BAe, DASA, CASA and Alenia). Its just a legal "front" to manage contracts and sales.

Once the Typhoon contracts are complete it will be downsized and eventually disbanded just like Panavia was with the Tornado. Once that happens any support or after sales design changes etc will be handled by NETMA and the production nation. Eg all the Austrian Typhoons were sold via Germany. The Saudi Typhoon by the UK etc.

I seriously doubt there will be another EuroFighter product.

How would companies like Finmeccanica (Alenia) and EADS DSS be able to survive without joint cooperations?

It is unlikely to see the same formation of suppliers and other stakeholders. But since Alenia went independent it really got itself in a shit situation, I don't think Italy would like something like that to happen. Not after the privatisation that didn't make but costed an awful lot of money. Same for Dassault, MTU Aeroengines, Stork Aerospace, etc.

I don't think any of the local governments would like to see that. They'd rather waste tax money to keep those companies to pay their employees with ridiculous projects.

If it weren't for that companies like NXP, Philips, DSM, Carned, etc would have disappeared.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Euro fighter have released schematics and a description showing the localised nature structural strengthening requirements for the Navalised version of the Typhoon. Their limited nature is contrary to the views expressed by others in the thread, that I suspect are based on an advanced catapult version.

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/Content_Images/news_pics/Naval_Typhoon_cutaway.pdf

This version would suit the UK down to the ground as it would mean the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers would not have to endure the costly and time consuming catapult refit experiment that has been proposed as the method to allow the JSF to use them.

This comes as both the Italian Navy, Japan and the Koreans have expressed an interest in using the Typhoon.

Using tranche three of the already commited funds for the Typhoon would enable the UK to cut all funding to the troubled and behind schedule JSF project, that has already renaged on contracted work and technology transfer to the UK, thus breaking contract; and thus save the UK a considerable amount of money.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 9, 2011 by walker

[dm 9]

Herp-derp lets get swept up in more PR bullshit, rather than listen to the comments of people actually involved in the project :j:

This comes as both the Italian Navy, Japan and the Koreans have expressed an interest in using the Typhoon.

The Italians have 2 harrier-carriers and plan on a STOBAR carrier for F-35, the Japanese only have helicopter carriers and no plans for future carriers, the Koreans [gonna go ahead and assume South on this one] have no carriers and np plans for carriers.

Why do you keep citing these guys as potential customers for naval version when they are not. They are customers for the normal version, not some mystical navalised version...

Edited March 9, 2011 by DM

[rksl-rock 1301]

Hi all

Euro fighter have released schematics and a description showing the localised nature structural strengthening requirements for the Navalised version of the Typhoon. Their limited nature is contrary to the views expressed by others in the thread, that I suspect are based on an advanced catapult version.

Here we go again. Its PR material that makes it all sound a lot simpler than it really is.

If you think that PDF shows the actual limit of the design changes you are dreaming. Its true there would have to be two versions of Navalised Typhoon; Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery (STOBAR+) and Catapult Take Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR*). But changes aren't a simple as swapping out components for beefier ones. These "localised" changes have a huge effect on the components around them. And as a result the tooling and assembly.

+ Think Harriers and the current carrier the UK has/had

* Conventional naval aircraft with a nose gear catapult tow eg: F-18

This version would suit the UK down to the ground as it would mean the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers would not have to endure the costly and time consuming catapult refit experiment that has been proposed as the method to allow the JSF to use them.

Maybe it would have suited the CVF if we hadn't already committed to sharing decks with the French and the F-35C. STOBAR design is useless unless you have a ski ramp deck. And ski ramp decks are useless if you have a CATOBAR plane.

What "Catapult refit experiment"? The Electromagnetic Catapult design? Its mature technology. They've been using it on MagLev trains for 30+ years. (It is expensive though)

This comes as both the Italian Navy, Japan and the Koreans have expressed an interest in using the Typhoon.

Links to a credible news source for that please?

The Italian Navy claim in particular is farcical. They are fully committed to the F-35B. They even built a STOBAR only ship especially for it. Unless they are willing to commit another 3.2Bn Euros for another carrier of course.

Koreans - that's a new one on me. They don't even have a carrier! And as far as I am aware or can find don't plan on buying one. Which makes it rather improbable they will want to pay for an expensive Navalised aircraft.

And let's not forget that Typhoon was rejected by them some time ago. They went with more F-15K and future upgrades are likely to be variants of the Silent Eagle concept.

Japan was a maybe for the land based Typhoon in 2007. But they stated they wanted the F-22 capabilities to combat China's rising numerical superiority. As usual though, politics and technology transfer are issues. But in July 2010 they compromised and switch to the F-35A. But it is true to say they haven't made their final decision

And lets not forget, just like the Koreans they don't have carrier or plans for carriers that could operate a Navalised Typhoon. So I doubt your claim is based in any sort of fact either.

Using tranche three of the already commited funds for the Typhoon would enable the UK to cut all funding to the troubled and behind schedule JSF project, that has already renaged on contracted work and technology transfer to the UK, thus breaking contract; and thus save the UK a considerable amount of money.

If you look at the terms of the government's Tranche 3 Deal you will see that those funds cannot be used for anything else. But even if you could free them up and use them for something else in our cash starved economy it wouldn't cover the bill for developing and producing a Navalised typhoon.

And let's not forget... part of that budget is to upgrade the existing fleet to the Tranche 3 capability. You would be condemning the existing Typhoon fleet to obsolescence 5-10 years before its time.

Walker you need to learn to take a more cynical or pragmatic views of these PR articles. You're old enough to know that every sales pitch is 50% misdirection, 40% Showmanship and 10% lies. But of course the ratios change depending on how much the contract is worth.

Edited March 9, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
typo

[walker 0]

Hi RKSL-Rock

JSF is just an experimental White Elephant

The use of Tranche 3 as a Naval version, which are funds that are already committed and budgeted for; means we do not have to pay for the JSF White Elephant, simple as that.

Not only that but we do not have to pay and wait for the JSF catapult experiment.

Even its Stealth value is already being questioned with Russian and possibly Chinese technology able to detect semi stealth aircraft like the JSF. Heck even Iran is claiming to be able to detect such semi stealth aircraft. And it is obvious that the next step will be UCAVs so the next bunch of piloted aircraft are only a stopgap anyway.

It just makes far more sense to use an aircraft that is being produced in the factories already rather than rely on the JSF which is not yet at the factory production stage and that is based on technology that will not offer an advantage if and when it eventually gets produced.

JSF creates a Defense gap

As it stands the UK will suffer a defense gap of years because of the failures and slippage in the JSF project and at the rate the JSF project is slipping it could be a decade long defense gap.

Using a Navalised Typhoon would allow us to have an aircraft carrier with aircraft on it. Instead of waiting for the JSF as it continues to slip further and further behind schedule.

Economics

With the reduction of UK manufacturing input into the JSF project slashed down to fitting together flatpack kits from the US while an ever increasing portion of the maintenance goes to US firms, the balance of value to the UK has declined to where in, all honesty it is virtualy zero. The US has already broken the contract so it is perfectly reasonable for the UK to reassess its purchase position in that light.

A navalised Typhoon also opens up all those export markets of India, Italy, Spain, Japan and yes even Australia and Korea.

It just makes far more economic sense for the UK in terms of Jobs and maintaining UK manufacturing capacity to go down the easier Navalised Typhoon route.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 9, 2011 by walker

[dm 9]

JSF is just an experimental White Elephant

No more so than the navalised Typhoon, NO prototypes of which exist yet. Unlike JSF which has 13 airframes already built.

And no, the existing Typhoons do NOT count, since the airframes would have to undergo major redesign for navalisation.

The use of Tranche 3 as a Naval version, which are funds that are already committed and budgeted for

Except that all the cost of navalising them IS NOT PAID FOR. THAT MONEY WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. How are you still not getting that?

means we do not have to pay for the JSF White Elephant, simple as that.

Which would cost us more money and jobs in the long run.

As it stands the UK will suffer a defense gap of years because of the failures and slippage in the JSF project and at the rate the JSF project is slipping it could be a decade long defense gap.

Eurofighter was originally due in service before the millenium. But we all know that European companies keep their delivery dates to the second, right?

Navalising the Typhoon would NOT be an overnight process. It would have to go through the same design committee and validation processes, and would take just as long as procuring JSF.

Are you still trying to be ignorant, or does it come naturally?

Edited March 9, 2011 by DM

[rksl-rock 1301]

I can't really say any more than DM already has.

Five minutes using Google and all your claims can be debunked or at best proven to be seriously out of date. Walker I realise that you desperately have to be "right" all the time but you have lost this one.

GIve it up and move onto the next conspiracy. This is going nowhere.

[walker 0]

Hi all

We all know that the capabilities of the JSF were compromised to make it a semi stealth aircraft buit the reality is that with Aerostat based detection systems the days of stealth are already at an end.

Iran now produces the biggest aerostats in the Middle East and it is obvious that they are placing their Kolchuga attenas on them and Israel is selling its version of the system to Pakistan. Other more advanced technologies exist in Russia and probably China.

So the JSF's one big advantage has disapeared. Now in terms of capability the Typhoon beats the JSF hands down whether that be in weapons load out or dogfighting.

Not only is the JSF a White Elephant it is based on a platform that is worse than the Typhoon.

If we check out the 5th Generation Fighter checklist we find that the JSF does not live up to the hype.

The JSF was only ever a poor mans F22 and a one trick pony and even that trick is old and stale.

The Typhoon is obviously the correct aircraft for the UK's Navy.

kind Regards walker

Edited March 9, 2011 by walker

[EricM 0]

Since it's a topic about wild fantasy gun porn discussions...

By all accounts, the Brits should buy some Rafales. They are built in Europe, they are multipurpose aircrafts and they are already navalized. Oh and they look good...

(Don't shoot me...)

Being serious now, I'm clueless about it, so bare with me, but has it ever been considered ?

[rksl-rock 1301]

@ Walker give it up lad. Its been done to death. And everyone but you seems to acknowledge that its never going to happen.

Since it's a topic about wild fantasy gun porn discussions...

By all accounts, the Brits should buy some Rafales. They are built in Europe, they are multipurpose aircrafts and they are already navalized. Oh and they look good...

(Don't shoot me...)

Being serious now, I'm clueless about it, so bare with me, but has it ever been considered ?

Eric, read a little further back. Its been covered in this very thread a few times.

[EricM 0]

Has it ? I must have skipped a few pages...

Edit : Found it...

Edited March 9, 2011 by EricM

[walker 0]

Hi EricM

Use the thread search top right below the page numbers.

Kind Regards Walker

[Baff1 0]

Since it's a topic about wild fantasy gun porn discussions...

By all accounts, the Brits should buy some Rafales. They are built in Europe, they are multipurpose aircrafts and they are already navalized. Oh and they look good...

(Don't shoot me...)

Being serious now, I'm clueless about it, so bare with me, but has it ever been considered ?

They sunk the Italian fleet with Fairey Swordfish and defeated the Argentine airforce with Harriers.

Rafales would do fine.

Quite frankly anything is better than nothing at this point.

[Daniel 0]

I think we should buy Harriers. They've got a pretty good track record.

[mach2infinity 12]

Off-topic

You do not win a modern war by "killing them all", that's rarely needed nor really possible exept you want to start a new holocaust. Even WWII was not won by killing all german soldiers "in the field". Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan...the only way the coalition could "win" it was to declare it won...but it is still going on.

The only reason the Taliban are still in business is because of an insatiable demand for heroin, derived from their poppy plantations. In addition, Iran has been shipping weapons to the Taliban. A shipment was seized by "British special forces" according to Sky News today. Afghanistan is just another proxy war between Iran and NATO/U.S.

[Pyronick 21]

;1871058']Off-topic

The only reason the Taliban are still in business is because of an insatiable demand for heroin' date=' derived from their poppy plantations. In addition, Iran has been shipping weapons to the Taliban. A shipment was seized by "British special forces" according to Sky News today. Afghanistan is just another proxy war between Iran and NATO/U.S.[/quote']Not only between NATO and Iran, but the CSTO and especially Russia are involved aswell.

Only Russia is not clear on which side it wants to be. Either the side where Iran joins the CISFTA or the side of the NATO which should result in less heroin and cannabis problems in Russia.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

"Analysis Yesterday the UK National Audit Office published a detailed report on the current status of the infamous Eurofighter combat jet – nowadays officially known as Typhoon. We here on the Reg defence desk have always had a low opinion of the cripplingly expensive, marginally useful fighter: but even we were amazed by the new facts and figures. The Eurofighter, almost unbelievably, is turning out to be even worse value for money than we had thought."

ARTICLE

[spooky lynx 73]

Not only between NATO and Iran, but the CSTO and especially Russia are involved aswell.

Only Russia is not clear on which side it wants to be. Either the side where Iran joins the CISFTA or the side of the NATO which should result in less heroin and cannabis problems in Russia.

But amount of heroin and other drugs coming from Afghanistan increased after starting OEF. During Taliban rule it was significantly smaller than in 2001-nowdays. So we don't know what ISAF really does with drug problem. It seems like nothing.

The only reason the Taliban are still in business is because of an insatiable demand for heroin, derived from their poppy plantations. In addition, Iran has been shipping weapons to the Taliban.

I doubt that they get much money from their plantations. I even doubt that they have ones. If it was so than they would have far more modern weapons and equipment (ATGMs, MANPADS, communications, sniper rifles, modern mines and explosive devices). Mostly they have 70-80's era soviet and chinese weapons.