Eurofighter Typhoon

[LowObservable]

Upgrades are not funded under procurement accounts, and MYPs do not extend over 14 years, so I am not quite seeing your point.


Navair's dedication and commitment of resources to the SH Upgrade program has been unprecedented (certainly in Navair - how long did it take to get to the F-14D?) and the real changes that have resulted to the capability across the fleet have (rightly) changed people's view of the program.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

For NORAD continental defence the Typhoon probably isn't a bad choice. It's not like the Canadians are likely to need much penetration/strike capability over heavy A3D areas, we are talking about Canada here.

Indeed, but range is a serious issue. The Hornets are *barely* able to handle this mission, which is one of the many reasons the F-16 should have been selected over the F-18. (the key decision was AIM-7 support, which came only months later on the F-16 as part of the ANG/ADF upgrades). I think the ideal aircraft for the defense role would be one of the Su derivatives, which offer the sort of range you want, without the cost of the F-22.

But in practice something like 90% of combat time by the F-18 fleet was either some sort of BARCAP or ground attack. It is the later that I am most concerned about in regards to the Typhoon. I have little information on the topic, but it seems it has not been cleared for a very large variety of AG weapons? If this is the case, that would largely eliminate it in any event.

worry about other airframes and their capabilities (not just performance but weapons/datalinks etc).

This isn't really an issue, they already have 22/15/16/18 and previously F-4 and -102/106/101/104 in the mix. It's always been a bit of a dog's breakfast in that regard, and I'm sure the computers are capable of *that* at least.

I know that former defence officials are publicly very loud about Canada needing a twin engined jet.

Yes, but in my research, I'm not so convinced this was really important. I've written on this extensively:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighter_Aircraft_Project

It seems that the twin-engine issue was very public, but it does not appear it was the actual problem. Ironically, the only instance of an aircraft loss due to engine failure was a single-engine-out during landing, precisely the sort of situation that the twin-engine design was supposed to prevent!

F-35 proponents say that new super duper engines mean that MTBF means that the lightning is going to be just as reliable but that's a VERY big claim for a plane that can't fly an 8 hour ferry mission over the Atlantic at the moment but time may bare them out.

This sounds important... what is the issue here?

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Carlo Copp's article was exactly what i was looking for. Odd that I did not come across this on Google, my g-fu is usually pretty good.

The wing loading is astonishingly low, which leads me to believe the aircraft performance is far better than the human inside, and from strict numbers it's certainly better than any of the aircraft in consideration. There is this odd note though:

" In transonic manoeuvre, the automatic full span leading edge slats are used to adjust the wing camber and therefore reduce the lift induced drag at high G characteristic of classical deltas in this regime. Fuselage vortex generators on either side of the cockpit are employed to promote vortex formation at high AoA and low speeds, and thus increase lift."

Well, the reason for the "lift induced drag at high G characteristic of classical deltas" is *because* of vortex generation, so it's not clear what he's trying to say here.

As he goes on to note:

"The low wing loading is not optimal for low level strike profiles"

Indeed, but I'm not sure that's an issue any more. We Cannucks tend to end up using the USAF's sloppy seconds when it comes to A2G, so we're pretty well equipped with LGBs and similar. It's very rare for one of the CF-18's to go down that low as it is.

"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"

Interesting. The two major notes about F-18 performance you always hear is poor angle acceleration, and general pokiness. The rudder authority would seem to fall out of the F-18's rudder positioning, which was custom designed for this figure, so it's not surprising.

But none of this really answers the question directly. On paper the Typhoon should eat the F-18 for breakfast in practically any other measure. This statement does not really say otherwise, but definitely suggests it.

" a necessity for the intended use of ramjet BVR missiles with an 80 NMI class A-pole range."

This strikes me as a major advantage for the RCAF.

 

[marauder2048]

Upgrades are not funded under procurement accounts, and MYPs do not extend over 14 years, so I am not quite seeing your point.


Navair's dedication and commitment of resources to the SH Upgrade program has been unprecedented (certainly in Navair - how long did it take to get to the F-14D?) and the real changes that have resulted to the capability across the fleet have (rightly) changed people's view of the program.

I'm not quite seeing how it was difficult to predict in the 1999-2000 timeframe that a member of the US teen series would get some avionics upgrades none of which could or have
in fact really improved (as just about every DOT&E report has reminded us) the Super Bug's performance and in fact have degraded it by adding weight in undesirable places like the nose. Depending on the Lot number, the weight increase is in the 1,000 - 2,000 lbs range.

The O&S argument is an interesting one as well given the stubbornly high cannibalization rates the Super Hornet continues to demonstrate in both USN and RAAF service...

 

[Sundog]

Also, all things being equal, a canard design can be less costly than a conventionally tailed design; since, as has sort of been noted, you don't need a structure to support a conventional tail. As for EF vs F-18, aerodynamically, the EF is easily superior as a fighter. Of course, as usual, these things come down to how they're intended to be used. As good as the EF is it can't replace an SH until it learns to land on a carrier. In which case it's weight will go up and it's performance will come down.

Having said that, right now the EF should easily be superior in the A2A regime, whereas the SH is better as a multi-role aircraft. The EF just doesn't have the systems yet to match the SH in that regard, to the best of my knowledge. Though I would like to see how a match up between a Growler and and EF would turn up; I mean the Growler without the under wing ECM pods, just using internal systems and a standard A2A loadout.

It should also be noted that when the SH was being developed the canard variant was considered the most capable variant and it was said that it would provide 90% of the capability of what an EF is capable of achieving.

 

[phrenzy]

Maury Markowitz link=topic=22578.msg228818#msg228818 date=1408029800]

For NORAD continental defence the Typhoon probably isn't a bad choice. It's not like the Canadians are likely to need much penetration/strike capability over heavy A3D areas, we are talking about Canada here.

Indeed, but range is a serious issue. The Hornets are *barely* able to handle this mission, which is one of the many reasons the F-16 should have been selected over the F-18. (the key decision was AIM-7 support, which came only months later on the F-16 as part of the ANG/ADF upgrades). I think the ideal aircraft for the defense role would be one of the Su derivatives, which offer the sort of range you want, without the cost of the F-22.

But in practice something like 90% of combat time by the F-18 fleet was either some sort of BARCAP or ground attack. It is the later that I am most concerned about in regards to the Typhoon. I have little information on the topic, but it seems it has not been cleared for a very large variety of AG weapons? If this is the case, that would largely eliminate it in any event.

worry about other airframes and their capabilities (not just performance but weapons/datalinks etc).

This isn't really an issue, they already have 22/15/16/18 and previously F-4 and -102/106/101/104 in the mix. It's always been a bit of a dog's breakfast in that regard, and I'm sure the computers are capable of *that* at least.

I know that former defence officials are publicly very loud about Canada needing a twin engined jet.

Yes, but in my research, I'm not so convinced this was really important. I've written on this extensively:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighter_Aircraft_Project

It seems that the twin-engine issue was very public, but it does not appear it was the actual problem. Ironically, the only instance of an aircraft loss due to engine failure was a single-engine-out during landing, precisely the sort of situation that the twin-engine design was supposed to prevent!

F-35 proponents say that new super duper engines mean that MTBF means that the lightning is going to be just as reliable but that's a VERY big claim for a plane that can't fly an 8 hour ferry mission over the Atlantic at the moment but time may bare them out.

This sounds important... what is the issue here?
[/quote]

Just that although I agree the nescesity of a twin engine aircraft for Canada was more of a public debate issue than anything else, the claim they a single f135 will be as reliable/survivable as 2 f414s seems like a stretch.

As for NORAD interoperability my point really isn't the number of aircraft types as all of those you mention are US designs with US electronics designed to coordinate with US systems. Not that incorporating ET would be a massive issue but going American would be one less thing to worry about.

 

[malipa]

The F-35's stealth will only help at GREAT range... If it comes in range of the EF IRTS the F-35 is going to have a very hard time. And don't forget that the F-35 has great stealth at the front, but at the sides and especially at the back it isn't that stealthy according to other fora...

 

[malipa]

The EF has already proven equally agile as the F-22. The F-35 is not that agile at all! And the EF has proven to be able to kill the F-22... using it's IRTS

 

[donnage99]

....

 

[sferrin]

Don't feed it.

 

[tacitblue]

Isn't the EF more comparable to an F-16? If memory serves, the yf-16 beat the yf-17 in the fly off. The navy eventually selected to the build the F-18 because it was more carrier suitable over the lawn dart.. Not because it was "better" in the air, but because it could operate from a ship. And also because the navy didn't want a single engine plane.

 

[Jemiba]

Please, stay with the original title and don't mix in the F-22 or even the F-35 !
We know, what the likely results would be ... :

 

[sferrin]

Isn't the EF more comparable to an F-16? If memory serves, the yf-16 beat the yf-17 in the fly off. The navy eventually selected to the build the F-18 because it was more carrier suitable over the lawn dart.. Not because it was "better" in the air, but because it could operate from a ship. And also because the navy didn't want a single engine plane.

The C/D would be more F-16-ish. Sorta. The F/A-18A/D is slightly larger (and much heavier) than the YF-17 was. The F/A-18E/F is effectively a new aircraft altogether. It's much larger than the standard Hornet let alone the Cobra.

 

[tacitblue]

Yeah I know the differences between the two bugs. But the thread is not about the superbug to eurofighter comparison.... again, it doesnt make sense to compare the two as they are apples and watermelons. The -16 is better than any -18 in close in a2a, which should have lead the op to ask for the comparison between ef and -16.

 

[sferrin]

Yeah I know the differences between the two bugs. But the thread is not about the superbug to eurofighter comparison

Check post #1.

 

[LowObservable]

The Navy picked Northrop/McDonnell Douglas partly because they offered amazing capability (some of which was delivered and some of which was not, at least in A/B) and partly because the Vought/GD naval F-16 was a mess. One reason for the second factor is that the twin could easily go to 32,000 lb thrust but that simply was not available from any single engine at the time: the P&W F401, on which at least one VFAX F-16 was based, was unsatisfactory.

 

[Sundog]

The Navy picked Northrop/McDonnell Douglas partly because they offered amazing capability (some of which was delivered and some of which was not, at least in A/B) and partly because the Vought/GD naval F-16 was a mess. One reason for the second factor is that the twin could easily go to 32,000 lb thrust but that simply was not available from any single engine at the time: the P&W F401, on which at least one VFAX F-16 was based, was unsatisfactory.

Wasn't the fact that it was a twin engine also a factor in the decision, in terms of getting back to the boat if there is a problem? Or was it strictly due to the thrust available as you noted?

 

[perttime]

The -16 is better than any -18 in close in a2a,

Unless the Viper driver is dumb enough to get slow enough that the Hornet's capability of high angles of attack comes into play.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1782&start=135

 

[F-14D]

The Navy picked Northrop/McDonnell Douglas partly because they offered amazing capability (some of which was delivered and some of which was not, at least in A/B) and partly because the Vought/GD naval F-16 was a mess. One reason for the second factor is that the twin could easily go to 32,000 lb thrust but that simply was not available from any single engine at the time: the P&W F401, on which at least one VFAX F-16 was based, was unsatisfactory.

The GD/Vought naval F-16 was not as good for naval use as the F/A-18 design, for a number of reasons. Packing in enough fuel was a problem, approach speed and configuration gave Navy some pause, and you couldn't drop the engine the the aircraft's shadow, an important consideration for shipboard maintenance but which is also lacking on the F-35C in the interests of "commonality". The amazing capability was mainly a function of the APG-65 and other avionics, the F/A-18A/B being significantly more capable than the F-16A/B in this regard.

Regarding thrust, the 32,000 lbs of thrust of the two F-404-GE-400s was not that big a factor n the decision. It didn't matter that no single engine of the time could produce the thrust of two F404s because a single engined aircraft didn't need as much thrust as a twin. They didn't have a problem with the F100's promised 25,000 lb of static thrust (actually derated in service to 23,00 lbs. static). Of more interest to the Navy was GE's goals of carefree engine handling, resistance to compressor stalls and with an expected price 1/2 that of the F100, the two engines wouldn't hurt them that much costwise.

As you mentioned the F-16/F401 proposal wasn't really a player; the Navy had pulled out of that engine program over cost and reliability concerns.

 

[F-14D]

The Navy picked Northrop/McDonnell Douglas partly because they offered amazing capability (some of which was delivered and some of which was not, at least in A/B) and partly because the Vought/GD naval F-16 was a mess. One reason for the second factor is that the twin could easily go to 32,000 lb thrust but that simply was not available from any single engine at the time: the P&W F401, on which at least one VFAX F-16 was based, was unsatisfactory.

Wasn't the fact that it was a twin engine also a factor in the decision, in terms of getting back to the boat if there is a problem? Or was it strictly due to the thrust available as you noted?

Twin engine was a factor, but not that much. Witness the number of single engine aircraft USN has bought.

 

[F-14D]

The -16 is better than any -18 in close in a2a,

Unless the Viper driver is dumb enough to get slow enough that the Hornet's capability of high angles of attack comes into play.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1782&start=135

The Viper pilot doesn't have to slow down for hornet's AoA to come into play. What the Bug could do is slow down and use high AoA performace to point the nose at the opponent better than the other guy could at him. Even if the other guy didn't slow down, the Hornet could still use its better (in the case of vs the F-16 much better) high AoA capabilities to point and shoot at angles that negated some of the other guy's speed advantage. So tactics used against the Hornet would recognize this and exploit the price of that High AoA tactic, namely slower speed and significant loss of energy, which the Hornet didn't recover all that quickly and which could be a concern if the Bug's shot missed.

This has become less of a factor with the advent of High OBS missiles and HMCS. It's why that even though it recovers energy very fast and is really agile, the Typhoon generally stays below 25 degrees AoA, they don't think the higher angles are actually worth the price any more.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11057330/German-fighter-jets-unable-to-fly-and-mechanics-forced-to-borrow-spare-parts-claims-magazine.html

Par for the course with the Merkel government. [sighs]

 

[Maury Markowitz]

and you couldn't drop the engine the the aircraft's shadow, an important consideration for shipboard maintenance

Sorry, what is this?

 

[AeroFranz]

If an aircraft is parked with the tail sticking out of the edge of the deck, you can't pull the engine out aftwards in the same manner employed by the AirForce. Dropping it down is the standard Navy way.

 

[F-14D]

If an aircraft is parked with the tail sticking out of the edge of the deck, you can't pull the engine out aftwards in the same manner employed by the AirForce. Dropping it down is the standard Navy way.

True. It's also a consideration on shipboard wherever you do maintenance, space is always at a premium. On deck and even more so on the hangar deck it's much more troublesome to get all the extra space needed to pull/install/maintain/maneuver an engine if you have to pull it out the back. It also directly impacts what's going on with adjacent aircraft/activities.

This was one of the compromising the Navy was forced to accept when the JSF program was mandated. In the interests of commonality the F-35C's engine goes in and out from the back.

 

[kcran567]

Not to forget about the Eurofighter...wasn't it originally designed to be more like the F-16XL? An extremely impressive multirole aircraft that the Europeans really wanted to emulate at the time of the EFs development? I remember reading about this comparison, and I want to find that link.

 

[datafuser]

From AW&ST, 19 June 2000.

 

[fightingirish]

New aerodynamic upgrade kit for the Eurofighter! B)

It entails primarily the addition of fuselage strakes and leading-edge root extensions, which increase the maximum lift created by the wing by 25% - resulting in an increased turn rate, tighter turning radius, and improved nose-pointing ability at low speed – all critical fighter capabilities in air-to-air combat.

Link: http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/news-media/press-releases/Airbus-Group/Financial_Communication/2015/07/20150715_airbus_defence_and_space_eurofighter_aerodynamic_upgrades.html

 

[totoro]

Would this also suggest that current variant of eurofighter is somewhat behind rafale in certain aspects of maneuverability? like low speed nose turning, subsonic sustained turn rate, etc?

 

[sferrin]

Would this also suggest that current variant of eurofighter is somewhat behind rafale in certain aspects of maneuverability? like low speed nose turning, subsonic sustained turn rate, etc?

I'm wondering what the point of this expense would be. Is it enough to enable it to outmaneuver a HOBS missile? Nope. Is it enough to prevent an adversary from getting a shot off with a 5th gen HOBS missile (the kind with full spherical coverage)? Nope. Sounds more like a desperate marketing gimmick to squeeze out a few more sales. Objectively, and realistically, what added capability does this give? If anybody thought this kind of incremental upgrade in maneuverability was worth it we'd see 3D TVC on everything, canards on F-15s, and AFTI F-16 configurations flying. We don't. Even the Russians ditched the canards on their latest Flanker version.

 

[mrmalaya]

Alternatively its a cheap and effective way to enhance the aircraft's performance with a wide range of weapons underwing and across the flight envelope.

 

[shedofdread]

Devices like that obviously increase Clmax and therefore reduce take-off distances and approach speeds. Hmmm....

 

[sferrin]

Devices like that obviously increase Clmax and therefore reduce take-off distances and approach speeds. Hmmm....

So let's build 40 carrier versions. That'll be cheap.

 

[Avimimus]

A carrier version would be kindof neat - an alternative to the JSF?

Yes, but the Russians are putting 3d TVC on everything...

The Russians are hardly "everybody". And two aircraft do not constitute "everything".

Well, obviously it is a bit more complicated. The Su-34 retained the canards for takeoff performance, that Su-30, Su-35, Mig-35 and PAK-FA all have TVC...


But I basically agree with you.

 

[shedofdread]

Devices like that obviously increase Clmax and therefore reduce take-off distances and approach speeds. Hmmm....

So let's build 40 carrier versions. That'll be cheap.

Quite... But who's paying for this work package (it won't be being done speculatively)? That might point to why it's believed to be needed.

 

[sferrin]

Devices like that obviously increase Clmax and therefore reduce take-off distances and approach speeds. Hmmm....

So let's build 40 carrier versions. That'll be cheap.

Quite... But who's paying for this work package (it won't be being done speculatively)? That might point to why it's believed to be needed.

Does anybody actually believe it's needed? As Boeing's "Silent Eagle" and "Silent Hornet" show, a lot of the time there is no need, the manufacturer is just trying to drum up sales and convince people there is a need.

 

[Granit]

Well, obviously it is a bit more complicated. The Su-34 retained the canards for takeoff performance, that Su-30, Su-35, Mig-35 and PAK-FA all have TVC...

Canards appeared on the descendants of Su-27 because the center of gravity shifted forward.

 

[red admiral]

[quote author=sferrin]
Sounds more like a desperate marketing gimmick to squeeze out a few more sales. Objectively, and realistically, what added capability does this give? If anybody thought this kind of incremental upgrade in maneuverability was worth it we'd see 3D TVC on everything, canards on F-15s, and AFTI F-16 configurations flying. We don't. Even the Russians ditched the canards on their latest Flanker version.
[/quote]

Probably more just keeping some of the German team in jobs.

Worth noting that none of the partner nations are buying this. The money is going into weapons integration, AESA and building aeroplanes.

 

[mrmalaya]

It's being included in the upcoming P4E negotiations so not something that partners are going to hand out cash for at the moment.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Topic relevance? You remember, the Typhoon? Removed some off topic posts.