Eurofighter Typhoon question
Guest
Posts: n/a
Roc,
I was referring to munitions.
34DD
Of course, on a lighter note and in view of your call-sign, perhaps it was not the canards at all that were obscuring your view of the ground!
Hope you're good with banter - no offence intended.
Toodle Pip!
I was referring to munitions.
34DD
Of course, on a lighter note and in view of your call-sign, perhaps it was not the canards at all that were obscuring your view of the ground!
Hope you're good with banter - no offence intended.
Toodle Pip!
Guest
Posts: n/a
This thread seems to be assuming that the deletion of the Typhoon gun, in UK destined versions, is as a result of a new interpretation of air combat tactics ....
The Daliy Telegraph - Mon May 1st 2000
Britain scraps Eurofighter gun to save money
By Tim Butcher, Defence Correspondent
THE RAF's new Eurofighter combat aircraft will be unable to strafe targets because the Ministry of Defence has scrapped the plane's cannon to save money.
RAF insiders say that the Government has decided that it cannot afford the ground support equipment needed to operate the 27mm Mauser cannon fully. The first jets to enter service with the RAF in 2002 will carry the 220lb gun, but only as ballast. It may be replaced in later versions by a lump of lead.... etc
Full article at :-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000.../1/ngun01.html
The article goes on to say that strengthening is going to be incorporated anyway so the gun may be re-retro-fitted at a later date, and that the Mauser cannon is the latest upgrade to the original German Tornado version, so it's hardly brand new.
Q1 RAF insiders say that the Government has...
Is this story actually factual ?
Q2 will carry the 220lb gun, but only as ballast
!!!!!! Will that be with or without ammunition, as ballast ?
Q3 Lump of lead
!!!!!!
This is an agile fighter, equiped with newly developed avionics and missile systems and we can't afford the gun ?
Errr ?
PA-28
The Daliy Telegraph - Mon May 1st 2000
Britain scraps Eurofighter gun to save money
By Tim Butcher, Defence Correspondent
THE RAF's new Eurofighter combat aircraft will be unable to strafe targets because the Ministry of Defence has scrapped the plane's cannon to save money.
RAF insiders say that the Government has decided that it cannot afford the ground support equipment needed to operate the 27mm Mauser cannon fully. The first jets to enter service with the RAF in 2002 will carry the 220lb gun, but only as ballast. It may be replaced in later versions by a lump of lead.... etc
Full article at :-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000.../1/ngun01.html
The article goes on to say that strengthening is going to be incorporated anyway so the gun may be re-retro-fitted at a later date, and that the Mauser cannon is the latest upgrade to the original German Tornado version, so it's hardly brand new.
Q1 RAF insiders say that the Government has...
Is this story actually factual ?
Q2 will carry the 220lb gun, but only as ballast
!!!!!! Will that be with or without ammunition, as ballast ?
Q3 Lump of lead
!!!!!!
This is an agile fighter, equiped with newly developed avionics and missile systems and we can't afford the gun ?
Errr ?
PA-28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt K
No probs. Many years ago my second husband insisted I went on something called the “2 TAF quick wit and ready repartee course” . If you are not familiar with that you may need to speak to your Dad.
Back to flying: two things I have noticed – being strapped in makes it easier to keep my balance and more g improves my forward and downward view.
34DD
------------------
Forward CGs are better than aft ones
No probs. Many years ago my second husband insisted I went on something called the “2 TAF quick wit and ready repartee course” . If you are not familiar with that you may need to speak to your Dad.
Back to flying: two things I have noticed – being strapped in makes it easier to keep my balance and more g improves my forward and downward view.
34DD
------------------
Forward CGs are better than aft ones
Guest
Posts: n/a
Captain Kirk,
I did mis read your post..I'm really surprised about the underwing pylons especially since the internal weapons bay is a huge part of the programs goals..all I can surmise is that the F-22 is under alot of scrutiny in congress right now and by adding an air to ground capability it may seem like more bang for the buck to some lawmaker. Your JSF comment is true, it is intended to be an F-16 replacement, air to mud being its primary role, so to compare it with the typhoon is apples and oranges. My bet is that we will never see an F-22 with external weopons, as this would totally negate the stealth, supercruise and reason it is being built.
I did mis read your post..I'm really surprised about the underwing pylons especially since the internal weapons bay is a huge part of the programs goals..all I can surmise is that the F-22 is under alot of scrutiny in congress right now and by adding an air to ground capability it may seem like more bang for the buck to some lawmaker. Your JSF comment is true, it is intended to be an F-16 replacement, air to mud being its primary role, so to compare it with the typhoon is apples and oranges. My bet is that we will never see an F-22 with external weopons, as this would totally negate the stealth, supercruise and reason it is being built.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are/were three considerations being looked to extend the capability of the F22.
Firstly, as stated, to add the possibility of pylons. The reasoning being to use the aircraft in stealth mode whilst taking down the SAW/C2 system, but being able to load non-stealthy weapons to be able to make full use of the airframe in later stages of the conflict.
Secondly, there is is investigation into extending the size of the internal bay. I believe the reports said that there was already sufficient leeway to add 6" internally and that tests were being done on changing the doors/underside to add another 6".
Thirdly, of course, there is all the work being done on a new generation of smaller PGMs sized to fit within the bays.
-----------------------------------
With reference to the discussion about the relative values of DCA and OCA. I would like to start with a few definitions for thoe non-experts.
DCA is purely defensive. It involves the use of passive and active measures. The active measures are fighters and SAW embedded in the AD structure (ADGE, comms, CAP, FAOR etc). They only time you engage the enemy is when he crosses into your airspace.
OCA is offensive. It includes not only SEAD/ARM and runway denial but also fighters on sweep, loose/embedded escort etc and is conducted inside enemy territory/airspace.
Air Supremacy is the achievement of total domination of the air in the theatre of war covering the entire airspace 24 hours a day.
Air Superiority is the achievement of domination of the air over part of the airspace for a limited time period for tactical reasons.
Right then,
The USA believes in Air Supremacy. They have since Korea, and their claim is that not one soldier has died due to (enemy) air attack since that period. They achieve this through the use of EW and OCA using SEAD/HARM and long range fighters with AWACS to engage enemy fighters whilst their bombers destroy the C2 infrastructure.
The number of aircraft you need to achieve this is massive. You can only start to reduce the numbers needed in the air after you have sufficiently degraded the enemy C2, SAW and AD fighters so that he will not be able to achieve air superiority at any stage by concentration of his assets.
During DS, the initial concept to achieve air supremacy was to keep the enemy bottled up on the ground until the stealth, F-111s etc had taken down the C2 system and degraded the SAW. This stretched into several days. To this was then added a sustained campaign of LGB attacks visiting every HAS on every airfield. This proved ineffective in achieving confirmed hard kills of enemy aircraft.
Here I would like to digress and add the concept of Hard and Soft Kills.
A Hard Kill is when you have hard proof of the destruction of the enemy. For a fighter you shoot it down; for a SAW you blow it up. In both cases you need the film to prove it. Using the hard proof and a known orbat you can reliably estimate the remaining threat.
A Soft Kill is when you use your munitions but cannot confirm a kill. If you use a LGB on a HAS,was there an aircraft inside? If the doors blow off it may be drums of fuel/oil used as a deception. If a HAS has been targetted does that mean it is empty? They can have cleared it out, down rapid repair and put an aircraft back inside. When you fire a HARM have you destroyed the radar or SAW? It became obvious that the number of soft kills were vastly overstated. (As they later were in Kosovo/Serbia).
It also became plain that even LGB attacks can be frustrated by placing the targets next to schools, hospitals, mosques etc and placing prisoners/hostages in the area.
The conclusion reached was that the best place to destroy enemy aircraft is in the air. You get a hard kill and, hopefully, no collateral damage. In DS, this conclusion was reached too late. The enemy had reached the same conclusion and refused to co-operate. Large numbers of aircraft had to be maintained in theatre and, to this day, there are still large numbers missions being conducted to, apparent, little effect.
I think it likely, therefore, that in any future conflict the use of runway denial will be limited, if used at all, and the use of fighters in sweep and escort will predominate with every effort being made to persuade the enemy to respond and to destroy his forces in the air.
What about SAW? As I said, the trouble with SEAD with weapons like HARM is that there is no hard kill. The enemy just has to turn on an emitter for a few seconds and turn it off again to ensure you have to maintain a permanent EW and SEAD presence. Even now this is still required over Iraq with ARM and PGM attacks a regular occurence. The US, therefore, is now moving to the concept of DEAD rather than SEAD. The Destruction of Enemy AD. The concept being of 2 to 3 platforms providing a long baseline and pinpointing an emitter with great precision. A suitable platform (Predator, Global Hawk?)then fires a high speed/hypersonic PGM from overhead the battlefield before the target can move.
The final question being, how does this apply to the RAF and EFA?
It is impossible to conduct OCA at medium level over enemy territory without EW and SEAD. The DASS, perhaps, solves one of these problems; but consideration should be given to a dedicated capability. The other needs an ARM capability.
To engage enemy fighters over their own territory needs a large fuel margin. (It is far easier to get into a fur-ball than to get out alive when the low fuel light starts flashing.) The EFA is not the longest range aircraft in the world. Range extension is a critical need.
If the use of EFA to achieve air superiority for the period of a COMAO/strike package is not possible, we will have to continue to rely on low level penetration, runway denial and self defence SEAD (Alarm) for the GR1 force.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 29 October 2000).]
Firstly, as stated, to add the possibility of pylons. The reasoning being to use the aircraft in stealth mode whilst taking down the SAW/C2 system, but being able to load non-stealthy weapons to be able to make full use of the airframe in later stages of the conflict.
Secondly, there is is investigation into extending the size of the internal bay. I believe the reports said that there was already sufficient leeway to add 6" internally and that tests were being done on changing the doors/underside to add another 6".
Thirdly, of course, there is all the work being done on a new generation of smaller PGMs sized to fit within the bays.
-----------------------------------
With reference to the discussion about the relative values of DCA and OCA. I would like to start with a few definitions for thoe non-experts.
DCA is purely defensive. It involves the use of passive and active measures. The active measures are fighters and SAW embedded in the AD structure (ADGE, comms, CAP, FAOR etc). They only time you engage the enemy is when he crosses into your airspace.
OCA is offensive. It includes not only SEAD/ARM and runway denial but also fighters on sweep, loose/embedded escort etc and is conducted inside enemy territory/airspace.
Air Supremacy is the achievement of total domination of the air in the theatre of war covering the entire airspace 24 hours a day.
Air Superiority is the achievement of domination of the air over part of the airspace for a limited time period for tactical reasons.
Right then,
The USA believes in Air Supremacy. They have since Korea, and their claim is that not one soldier has died due to (enemy) air attack since that period. They achieve this through the use of EW and OCA using SEAD/HARM and long range fighters with AWACS to engage enemy fighters whilst their bombers destroy the C2 infrastructure.
The number of aircraft you need to achieve this is massive. You can only start to reduce the numbers needed in the air after you have sufficiently degraded the enemy C2, SAW and AD fighters so that he will not be able to achieve air superiority at any stage by concentration of his assets.
During DS, the initial concept to achieve air supremacy was to keep the enemy bottled up on the ground until the stealth, F-111s etc had taken down the C2 system and degraded the SAW. This stretched into several days. To this was then added a sustained campaign of LGB attacks visiting every HAS on every airfield. This proved ineffective in achieving confirmed hard kills of enemy aircraft.
Here I would like to digress and add the concept of Hard and Soft Kills.
A Hard Kill is when you have hard proof of the destruction of the enemy. For a fighter you shoot it down; for a SAW you blow it up. In both cases you need the film to prove it. Using the hard proof and a known orbat you can reliably estimate the remaining threat.
A Soft Kill is when you use your munitions but cannot confirm a kill. If you use a LGB on a HAS,was there an aircraft inside? If the doors blow off it may be drums of fuel/oil used as a deception. If a HAS has been targetted does that mean it is empty? They can have cleared it out, down rapid repair and put an aircraft back inside. When you fire a HARM have you destroyed the radar or SAW? It became obvious that the number of soft kills were vastly overstated. (As they later were in Kosovo/Serbia).
It also became plain that even LGB attacks can be frustrated by placing the targets next to schools, hospitals, mosques etc and placing prisoners/hostages in the area.
The conclusion reached was that the best place to destroy enemy aircraft is in the air. You get a hard kill and, hopefully, no collateral damage. In DS, this conclusion was reached too late. The enemy had reached the same conclusion and refused to co-operate. Large numbers of aircraft had to be maintained in theatre and, to this day, there are still large numbers missions being conducted to, apparent, little effect.
I think it likely, therefore, that in any future conflict the use of runway denial will be limited, if used at all, and the use of fighters in sweep and escort will predominate with every effort being made to persuade the enemy to respond and to destroy his forces in the air.
What about SAW? As I said, the trouble with SEAD with weapons like HARM is that there is no hard kill. The enemy just has to turn on an emitter for a few seconds and turn it off again to ensure you have to maintain a permanent EW and SEAD presence. Even now this is still required over Iraq with ARM and PGM attacks a regular occurence. The US, therefore, is now moving to the concept of DEAD rather than SEAD. The Destruction of Enemy AD. The concept being of 2 to 3 platforms providing a long baseline and pinpointing an emitter with great precision. A suitable platform (Predator, Global Hawk?)then fires a high speed/hypersonic PGM from overhead the battlefield before the target can move.
The final question being, how does this apply to the RAF and EFA?
It is impossible to conduct OCA at medium level over enemy territory without EW and SEAD. The DASS, perhaps, solves one of these problems; but consideration should be given to a dedicated capability. The other needs an ARM capability.
To engage enemy fighters over their own territory needs a large fuel margin. (It is far easier to get into a fur-ball than to get out alive when the low fuel light starts flashing.) The EFA is not the longest range aircraft in the world. Range extension is a critical need.
If the use of EFA to achieve air superiority for the period of a COMAO/strike package is not possible, we will have to continue to rely on low level penetration, runway denial and self defence SEAD (Alarm) for the GR1 force.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 29 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I seem to remeber something about the Cloggies having a close in, and fairly close, fight with some Mig 29s in Kosovo - Can't remember the details (Pi**ed in G**se when I last discussed it). Anyway, if memory serves, it was a fairly short range AMRAAM shot that saved the day. Anyone out there hear about it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flight 21 Nov:
Roke Manor, the UK Research and development consultancy, is pursuing a method of detecting stealth aircraft using mobile telephone base station transmission, and a development of of commercial ATC equipment.
Peter Lloyd, Roke Manor project manager, says coded signals transmitted by the base stations would be scattered by passing aircraft. A modified version of the company's civil Height Monitoring Equipment (HME) civil equipment would detect these signals. A number of returns would then triangulate the target's position.
He say's the system would act as a bi-static radar Base stations continuously transmit coded signals to permit the mobile phone network to operate and, say's Lloyd, do not need mdification to become part of a counterstealth radar..........
.............the base stations already exist, Lloyd say's an operational system is close to reality. The detection system is small enough for a mobile unit to be developed.
Lloyd say's the US proposed a similar system using TV transmissions. However, TV networks do not require large amounts of transmitters and can be easily targeted third generation mobile phone systems will provide thousands of transmitters.
--------------
So, problems for stealth? Look at the the widespread use of GSM, nation civil networks even in third world nations (revenue flow)and add in the small cost indicated by the article.
It shouldwork even better for non-stealth.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 24 November 2000).]
Roke Manor, the UK Research and development consultancy, is pursuing a method of detecting stealth aircraft using mobile telephone base station transmission, and a development of of commercial ATC equipment.
Peter Lloyd, Roke Manor project manager, says coded signals transmitted by the base stations would be scattered by passing aircraft. A modified version of the company's civil Height Monitoring Equipment (HME) civil equipment would detect these signals. A number of returns would then triangulate the target's position.
He say's the system would act as a bi-static radar Base stations continuously transmit coded signals to permit the mobile phone network to operate and, say's Lloyd, do not need mdification to become part of a counterstealth radar..........
.............the base stations already exist, Lloyd say's an operational system is close to reality. The detection system is small enough for a mobile unit to be developed.
Lloyd say's the US proposed a similar system using TV transmissions. However, TV networks do not require large amounts of transmitters and can be easily targeted third generation mobile phone systems will provide thousands of transmitters.
--------------
So, problems for stealth? Look at the the widespread use of GSM, nation civil networks even in third world nations (revenue flow)and add in the small cost indicated by the article.
It shouldwork even better for non-stealth.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 24 November 2000).]
I've been out of this loop for a few years taking the bucket and spade brigade to the sun and can't hack some of the current banter, but I remember a few truisms.
Most air to air victims never saw the bloke that did it.
Belly checks are good.
If it doesn't look good stick together and blow through.
F4j's made F3's look silly.
Miss Biggie was ok.
Tactics not politics.
Be careful out there!
Most air to air victims never saw the bloke that did it.
Belly checks are good.
If it doesn't look good stick together and blow through.
F4j's made F3's look silly.
Miss Biggie was ok.
Tactics not politics.
Be careful out there!
