Eurofighter
- Thread starter Norbert666
- Start date
Soldato
Nate--IRL-- said:I would be very interested in seeing a vid of that if available. Wouldn't mind being wrong for once
Nate
I would but my lecturer at uni would give his vidoes out.
KaHn
Permabanned
KaHn said:
At this point, the manoeuvrability of the JSF or JSA is an unknown quantity.
KaHn said:
The Harrier is a very manoeuvrable aircraft, thanks in part to its "Viffing" capability. Read Sharky Wards book of his account of the Falklands and also when SHAR's did an exercise against the cream of the USAF F15's and pilots, they beat them in mock combat hands down.
KaHn said:
Oh no they wont - that varient of the SU-30 has 3d thrust vectoring... Able to turn tighter and faster than any currently in service aircraft. And these are in service...
Personally if it gets closer than BVR - my money would be on the Soviet aircraft to get out alive. The stealth technology on the current generation of stealth aircraft is being reduced in effectivity many times over.
Eurofighter is massively over priced and underperforming and exceedingly late - and is missing the stealth aspect of the US aircraft
TBH - the American have been focussing too much on stealth and have lost the lead to the Soviets. The SU-30 MKI should have been the future of this countrys air defence - at $45 million each - they're a steal tbh.
Kill ratio against the US F-15's of 9:1 in the hands of the Indian Air Force kind of proves how good they are.
With the next generation of missiles coming on line soon for them as well - the Eurofighter looks less and less sensible.
Shame - been saying the same sort of thing fore the last 10 years! Had a chap from British Aerospace some to give us a chat when I was at uni doign Aerospace Systems. Wasn't convinced by the late Eurofighter then either.
At that time BAe were just entering talks to sell the Gripen *whould would have made a good stop-gap aircraft* and the Dassault Rafale was just around the corner as well...
Both massively cheaper than Eurofighter and 95% as effective - and available for production almost immediately.
Still... Держите камрадов веры!
Simon/~Flibster
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Sorry but this aircraft is and always will be seen as one of the most ridiculous wastes of military funds EVER (Excluding the Polaris). Didn't they admit that it's already stupidly out of date and that it can't fly in rain or something?
NathanE said:Like as if they weren't ****ing themselves enough just from the sight of an armada of Her Majesty's Ships steaming in their direction?
And having totally ineffective bombing carried out on them by Vulcans on the Black Buck missions.
As impressive as it was - forgetting to arm the bombs is a bit a boob after flying god knows how many thousand miles just to show we could bomb anywhere.
Still having those things flying over would be enough to scare the crap out of most people.
'Sharky' Ward's book is superb - but it does also show all the screw-ups that went on - no chaff dispencers?? Solution - shredded tin foil in the air brake.
Simon/~Flibster
Soldato
lucifersam said:
There's only one navy in the world which would call it a war.
Will said:I'll be honest and say that the idea of how IFF works in combat totally confuses me, hopefully given your sig (fighter controller etc) you might be able to shed a bit more light on it?
As I understand it, all aircraft have a transponder that can be set to a given frequency so when queried by a radar signal, it will 'squark' and emit an electronic signal identifying itself, as friendly, or as an 'unknown' frequency. Or do the enemy generally not bother turning on any IFF at all? Or could they use it to deceive - could, for example, an enemy/red MiG-29 have its IFF set to such a mode that it could mimic an allied aircraft - surely the enemy could eventually identify the required IFF response of allied/blue aircraft, given the way the signal is emitted?
Also, in combat, how does all this play out? Because from all I've read AWACs often gets called to ID a contact, even when the interrogating friendly fighter has an IFF system. Do rules of engagement mean both AWACs and the fighter must ID a bogey as unknown/enemy before they can open fire?
Apologies for going somewhat OT but it seems everyone else is going off on one about aircraft, so i figure I may as welll
While not being a Fighter Controller myself, I was part of the team that designed and wrote the software that they use, so I can offer some insights.
Modern radars use two methods of detection - primary and secondary radar. Primary is the standard one you lear about at school - you fire a beam of energy off and measure the reflections. Secondary radar is more of a 'Who's out there?' request. Appropriately equipped aircraft receive the request and actively send back a pulse containing various IFF codes - Mode 1, Mode 2, Mode 3/C. Mode one is generally selectable by the pilot, and typically corresponds to a filed flight plan, Mode 2 is typically linked to the physical aircraft, and Mode3/c is used to indicate height, which can be used with the output of a primary radar to triangulate position more accurately.
Typically, in peacetime, it is required to close to visual range before engagement, since the likelihood of the UK being attacked by foreign air power is low. In a military situation, typically allied aircraft under control of AWACS or TACC will be limited to cartefully controlled sectors and coridoors, so friendly air controllers can easily identify aircraft that are potentially hostile.
Soldato
The Eurofighter makes me do a sex wee in my pants.
Soldato
NicktheNorse said:
as it does with me dude, but i prefer the raptor due to pimpage by my lecturer
KaHn
Associate
Killerkebab said:
well it was a 45 minute war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War
twas a bit pointless but the british were used to getting their way back then
Soldato
KaHn said:as it does with me dude, but i prefer the raptor due to pimpage by my lecturer
KaHn
bah, my lecturers are mostly on Airbus payrolls, so we dont get much military pimpage
Soldato
NicktheNorse said:bah, my lecturers are mostly on Airbus payrolls, so we dont get much military pimpage
BAE here, we had a lecture every week by a representive, either that or Rolls Royce :barf:
KaHn
Permabanned
Flibster said:'Sharky' Ward's book is superb - but it does also show all the screw-ups that went on - no chaff dispencers?? Solution - shredded tin foil in the air brake.
Simon/~Flibster
Yup. Sharky's book was very revealing on a lot of fronts, here is an excerpt of his Sea Harriers V F5 and F15's from his book, the formatting has been messed up, so please excuse that, but its good reading.
Click
Last edited:
If only Labour did their traditional thing when they got into power...
Labour in power in 1968 - Killed the TSR2
Seemed likely to have been the finest aircraft the British aircraft incustry would have ever produced - surpassing even the Lightning, Vulcan and Spitfire
Shame they didn't do the same thing in 1997.
Simon/~Flibster
Labour in power in 1968 - Killed the TSR2
Seemed likely to have been the finest aircraft the British aircraft incustry would have ever produced - surpassing even the Lightning, Vulcan and Spitfire
Shame they didn't do the same thing in 1997.
Simon/~Flibster
Nice aircraft, shame it's so damn late! & also shame about the fiasco about it not having a gun, then spending more on concrete ballast to replace the gun as the fly-by-wire had been programmed with the weight parameters of the aircraft with gun fitted than the gun cost originally, then the bright idea of fitting the gun but not buying ammunition for it to safe 'a few quid' 
Just ask the F-4 B/C/D Phantom pilots in Vietnam how they managed in dogfights without a gun(!) One guy - a WW2 Mustang veteran of all people, stated that he could have shot down 9 more than his actual total of 4 MiGs if they'd fitted a gun to the F-4 from the start (& not just the E & F models). & as for ground attack....
Also, the Labour government: cancels TSR-2 and the P.1154 (Supersonic, true multi-role Harrier) & purchases F-111 Aardvaark & F-4 Phantom aircraft from US to substitute for them. F-111 turns out to be a major flop, massively over-budget & 10 years late in delivery, making TSR-2 look a bargain in comparison. To 'save' some british jobs the F-4s are re-engined with RR Spey engines - an installation which due to the extent of modifications to the F-4 airframe proves a massive disappointment - the RAF had the biggest, most powerful & slowest(!) Phantoms in the world! Way to go Harold Wilson & Denis Healey
The only positive that came out of that fiasco was the Buccaneer
Just ask the F-4 B/C/D Phantom pilots in Vietnam how they managed in dogfights without a gun(!) One guy - a WW2 Mustang veteran of all people, stated that he could have shot down 9 more than his actual total of 4 MiGs if they'd fitted a gun to the F-4 from the start (& not just the E & F models). & as for ground attack....
Also, the Labour government: cancels TSR-2 and the P.1154 (Supersonic, true multi-role Harrier) & purchases F-111 Aardvaark & F-4 Phantom aircraft from US to substitute for them. F-111 turns out to be a major flop, massively over-budget & 10 years late in delivery, making TSR-2 look a bargain in comparison. To 'save' some british jobs the F-4s are re-engined with RR Spey engines - an installation which due to the extent of modifications to the F-4 airframe proves a massive disappointment - the RAF had the biggest, most powerful & slowest(!) Phantoms in the world! Way to go Harold Wilson & Denis Healey
The only positive that came out of that fiasco was the Buccaneer
The JSF program is likely to be cancelled if the yanks don't get over themselves and decide to share the source codes with the lead partners - if they don't, the lead partners will pull out, with the British being the first (straw himself has commented on this in the past).
The F-22 Raptor is not up for sale, so no point to even think about it being exported, but just to join in in the number game, the flyaway cost of a Raptor is roughly about $100M to $130M each, whereas the Austrians bought their Eurofighters at €62M. But Britain will buy more, hence it will be slightly lower.
As for the Eurofighter being a waste of money - a much bigger waste of money is not replacing Phantoms and Tornados. The Eurofighter is a perfectly capable modern aircraft that can do its job more than adequately.
The gun - that was an MoD decision, NOT a consortium decision. Everyone else purchasing the Typhoon has also ordered a gun.
As for the Raptor being "so much better" - what good is a fighter that can't open its canopy properly and where the wings need to be reattached because someone didn't design it properly?
The F-22 Raptor is not up for sale, so no point to even think about it being exported, but just to join in in the number game, the flyaway cost of a Raptor is roughly about $100M to $130M each, whereas the Austrians bought their Eurofighters at €62M. But Britain will buy more, hence it will be slightly lower.
As for the Eurofighter being a waste of money - a much bigger waste of money is not replacing Phantoms and Tornados. The Eurofighter is a perfectly capable modern aircraft that can do its job more than adequately.
The gun - that was an MoD decision, NOT a consortium decision. Everyone else purchasing the Typhoon has also ordered a gun.
As for the Raptor being "so much better" - what good is a fighter that can't open its canopy properly and where the wings need to be reattached because someone didn't design it properly?
Soldato
Ex-RoNiN said:As for the Raptor being "so much better" - what good is a fighter that can't open its canopy properly and where the wings need to be reattached because someone didn't design it properly?
Come on then, im half cut but lets see your reasoning,
KaHn