Saudi Arabia orders Eurofighter

[Chris Werb]

I think the wingspan is a bit shorter for the M109

 

261759[/snapback]

 

Count the roadwheels!

[swerve]

Deleted as duplicate

Edited December 23, 2005 by swerve

[swerve]

What about saying that the Raptor is to the Typhoon like the F-15 is to the F-16 do you feel is so incorrect?� The Raptor & F-15 are primarily air-defence fighters & the Typhoon & F-16 are multi-role fighters with less air-to-air capability but with more air-to-ground capabilities (at least in their initial versions anyway).

 

Err - no. The F-16 was originally intended to be a pure fighter. It then had ground attack capabilities added, because there wasn't enough demand for pure fighters, so by the time it entered service it had some air-ground capability, exactly the same as the F-22. The Typhoon (at least, the technology demonstrator airframe which was selected for development into it, the EAP) was first conceived as a fighter, but had the air-ground capability designed in at a much earlier stage than the F-16 or F-22, because the role it was wanted for was a do-anything plane, able to blast the attacking WP hordes out of the air & on the ground, so is entering service as a swing-role plane - or omnirole, as the Rafale boys so neatly put it. And it's the air-ground capabilities which aren't at full spec in the initial version of the Typhoon, not the air-air capabilities (the Germans & Italians really, really need new air-superiority planes, urgently). The RAF is now gloating over having (at last!) a plane for which the F-15 is prey.

 

The F-15 is the only one of the four which entered service as a pure fighter - and it's now sold mostly on its long-range strike abilities.

 

BTW, the Typhoon can carry just about all the same US weapons as the F-22, as well as an assortment of European weapons, some of which (e.g. the IRIS-T) the F-22 could be adapted to use with great ease.

Edited December 23, 2005 by swerve

[FITZ]

Sounds odd to me that this is a replacement for the ADVs. I'd have thought the IDS Tornados are more in need of replacing, having more stress on the airframes, flying heavier loaded & lower. Where would this leave the F-15s?

 

261366[/snapback]

 

 

The ADV was never a very good fighter to begin with. It is being withdrawn from that role in the UK and Italy which means support for that model will probably dry up in the next few years.

 

It makes sense to replace the ADV's.

[JOE BRENNAN]

so is entering service as a swing-role plane - or omnirole, as the Rafale boys so neatly put it. And it's the air-ground capabilities which aren't at full spec in the initial version of the Typhoon, not the air-air capabilities (the Germans & Italians really, really need new air-superiority planes, urgently). The RAF is now gloating over having (at last!) a plane for which the F-15 is prey.

261936[/snapback]

Mainly right, but actually the EF *will* enter service, official RAF IOC in Q3 2007(in air defence, *very* limited air-ground IOC mid '08), as prey for the F-22.

 

In fact the Italians are fine with F-16's, the Germans with upgraded F-4's for anything they really need to do air-air. EF is a pretty pure industrial base project until the early 10's when it has real (compared to its own potential) strike capability, albeit that's a wink of an eye in today's development cycles.

 

Joe

Edited December 23, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Guest pfcem]

Err - no. The F-16 was originally intended to be a pure fighter. It then had ground attack capabilities added, because there wasn't enough demand for pure fighters, so by the time it entered service it had some air-ground capability, exactly the same as the F-22. The Typhoon (at least, the technology demonstrator airframe which was selected for development into it, the EAP) was first conceived as a fighter, but had the air-ground capability designed in at a much earlier stage than the F-16 or F-22, because the role it was wanted for was a do-anything plane, able to blast the attacking WP hordes out of the air & on the ground, so is entering service as a swing-role plane - or omnirole, as the Rafale boys so neatly put it. And it's the air-ground capabilities which aren't at full spec in the initial version of the Typhoon, not the air-air capabilities (the Germans & Italians really, really need new air-superiority planes, urgently). The RAF is now gloating over having (at last!) a plane for which the F-15 is prey.

261936[/snapback]

Why are you so caught up on what the original intent? What matters is what the aircraft are when they enter service, not what they were originally envisioned to be.

 

I think you are mistaken on the F-16. It was to have been a "multi-role" fighter from very early on in its developement - if not from the beginning.

 

 

 

The F-15 is the only one of the four which entered service as a pure fighter - and it's now sold mostly on its long-range strike abilities.

261936[/snapback]

Exactly my point.

[Red Ant]

My point was that the F-15E (or any of the newer varients based on it) are more-or-less as good as the F-15C in air-to-air [...]

 

 

This I disagree with. Their avionics and weapons suite maybe just as good, but the E's are actually quite a bit heavier and more sluggish. There are anecdotes floating around on the net that have F-15E's go into arfterburner to be able to keep up with a tanker aircraft.

Edited December 23, 2005 by Red Ant

[Red Ant]

I think you are mistaken on the F-16.  It was to have been a "multi-role" fighter from very early on in its developement  - if not from the beginning.

Exactly my point.

 

The F-16 is a child of what was called the "light-fighter mafia". Their slogan was "not a pound for air-to-ground."

[swerve]

The ADV was never a very good fighter to begin with.  It is being withdrawn from that role in the UK and Italy which means support for that model will probably dry up in the next few years.

 

It makes sense to replace the ADV's.

 

It would, if they actually had a role. What can they do that a much larger number of F-15s can't?

[swerve]

Mainly right, but actually the EF *will* enter service, official RAF IOC in Q3 2007(in air defence, *very* limited air-ground IOC mid '08), as prey for the F-22. 

 

In fact the Italians are fine with F-16's, the Germans with upgraded F-4's for anything they really need to do air-air. EF is a pretty pure industrial base project until the early 10's when it has real (compared to its own potential) strike capability, albeit that's a wink of an eye in today's development cycles.

 

Joe

 

The Italians only leased F-16s because the Typhoon was late. If the MoD had been a bit more flexible over the price they might still be operating the RAF Tornado ADVs they leased before that. The Italian air force owns NO air superiority aircraft, & hasn't done since they retired the last F-104ASA. They aren't "fine" with F-16s. Yes, the few they're operating are perfectly adequate for defending Italys airspace against the virtually zero threats it faces, but they're a deep embarassment. Ditto the German F-4s. Other countries are now buying the generation after the fighters which replaced F-4s. Germany doesn't actually need to do anything air to air at the moment that an F-5 couldn't do, but they'd rather have something that isn't prone to being eaten alive by what Poland or Sweden operate. Too, too humiliating.

[FlyingCanOpener]

What about saying that the Raptor is to the Typhoon like the F-15 is to the F-16 do you feel is so incorrect?  The Raptor & F-15 are primarily air-defence fighters & the Typhoon & F-16 are multi-role fighters with less air-to-air capability but with more air-to-ground capabilities (at least in their initial versions anyway).

 

What's so incorrect is that it's apples and oranges. For the third time, the F-22 Raptor came from the ATF program with air dominance as the primary overriding capability. Everything else, including air-to-ground capability, is a bonus. On the other hand, the Typhoon had substantial air-to-ground capabilities built into the requirements. As a result, comparing air combat capability is silly because it's rather like comparing the Tornado IDS and the F-14's air-to-ground capabilities. They may both have the ability to drop bombs, but one will obviously be better because it was purpose designed for it.

 

F-16A had more air-to-ground capabilities than air-to-air? I guess the program being specifically made for a lightweight air-superiority fighter was bureaucracy-speak for a bomb truck?

 

You mean to tell me you have never seen or heard of an aircraft operating with ordinace it was not officially certified for?

You're the one spouting that the F-15C (Eagle, not Strike Eagle, mind you) can carry air-to-ground weapons. Have fun wriggling out of this one.

 

True the F-15E, being derived from a high altitude fighter, is not the best handelling aircraft at low altitude but ther is a lot more into makeing a good strike aricraft than being able to fly Nap-of-the-Earth.

261828[/snapback]

 

Yes, but the ability to fly near-Mach 1.0 NoE with a full bomb load in addition to tossing JDAMs from 15k means more capability...

[JOE BRENNAN]

The Italians only leased F-16s because the Typhoon was late. If the MoD had been a bit more flexible over the price they might still be operating the RAF Tornado ADVs they leased before that. The Italian air force owns NO air superiority aircraft, & hasn't done since they retired the last F-104ASA. They aren't "fine" with F-16s. Yes, the few they're operating are perfectly adequate for defending Italys airspace against the virtually zero threats it faces, but they're a deep embarassment. Ditto the German F-4s. Other countries are now buying the generation after the fighters which replaced F-4s. Germany doesn't actually need to do anything air to air at the moment that an F-5 couldn't do, but they'd rather have something that isn't prone to being eaten alive by what Poland or Sweden operate. Too, too humiliating.

262099[/snapback]

"Embarrassment" is not a valid military reqiurement, nor does form of ownership affect capability. The Typhoon, despite its long gestation is essentially of the same generation as the teen series planes; the only real example of a generation beyond that so far is the F-22. I'm not speaking of Italy's F-16's neccessarily, but the UAE's say, and similarly for F-15 etc. Competitions on end seem to indicate those planes with modern outfit, EF and Rafale are essentially of a kind.

 

A real next generation fighter can be had, perhaps, in the 2010's, the F-35. I said didn't need before then, and that's true. And both AMI and LW can deal with lots of real threats even expeditionary. The Typhoon is about industrial policy (not saying that's totally invalid). I don't really think it is about embarrassment of planes operated. If a fully political/industrial policy suitable real next generation plane would be there in 10 years; esp Italy's case, where it could end up partially the case, that would work. It's also too late to go back now of course. If EF were a single country's program it would have been cut back drastically or cancelled by now for sure, the way various partners have wiggled and squirmed in sequence, but been held by the others.

 

Joe

Edited December 23, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[JOE BRENNAN]

This I disagree with. Their avionics and weapons suite maybe just as good, but the E's are actually quite a bit heavier and more sluggish. There are anecdotes floating around on the net that have F-15E's go into arfterburner to be able to keep up with a tanker aircraft.

262076[/snapback]

Some have higher thrust engines than C's do however. You could be right in a given case, but the thing about tankers can be where the tanker is cruising economically relatively slowly, the fighter is on the so called back of the power curve; high performance planes have a speed for minimum drag that's often quite high*, below which drag increases as they fly at higher angle of attack and worse lift./drag ratio of the wing. F-105's were said to often have to go into afterburner to tank in many cases. I agree it's not a sign of unlimited power; could he high drag heavy load cases too though.

 

*in the extreme for the Concorde it was something like 400kts. Once that one that crashed started to slow down and raise its nose increasing induced drag further, no hope to even keep flying even in full burner let alone keep up with a tanker.

 

Joe

[Corinthian]

The ADV was never a very good fighter to begin with.  It is being withdrawn from that role in the UK and Italy which means support for that model will probably dry up in the next few years.

 

It makes sense to replace the ADV's.

261964[/snapback]

 

Wasn't the ADV more of an interceptor than fighter (to intercept the usual Badgers, Backfires, and Bears that'll be going over the NA or North Sea)?

[FlyingCanOpener]

Wasn't the ADV more of an interceptor than fighter (to intercept the usual Badgers, Backfires, and Bears that'll be going over the NA or North Sea)?

262149[/snapback]

 

Simply put, yes. In fact, as a stopgap measure, RAF planners thought about using ADVs as directors for mobs of Hawks armed with sidewinders whou could slip in the mess with minimal risk because Ivan would home in on the ADVs and their radar.

 

Those tricky Brits...

[Guest pfcem]

This I disagree with. Their avionics and weapons suite maybe just as good, but the E's are actually quite a bit heavier and more sluggish.

262076[/snapback]

When armed as a fighter rather than for strike roles, the F-15E is not all that much heavier. It depends mostly on if they are fully loaded with fuel (~2,000 lbs available in the CFT). Plus F-15Es are fitted with 29,000 lbs thrust engines while F-15Cs are fitted with 23,770 lbs thrust engines - so power-to-weight is actually higher. The main difference in flight performance is slightly higher wing loading.

 

 

 

There are anecdotes floating around on the net that have F-15E's go into arfterburner to be able to keep up with a tanker aircraft.

262076[/snapback]

[Guest pfcem]

What's so incorrect is that it's apples and oranges. For the third time, the F-22 Raptor came from the ATF program with air dominance as the primary overriding capability. Everything else, including air-to-ground capability, is a bonus. On the other hand, the Typhoon had substantial air-to-ground capabilities built into the requirements. As a result, comparing air combat capability is silly because it's rather like comparing the Tornado IDS and the F-14's air-to-ground capabilities. They may both have the ability to drop bombs, but one will obviously be better because it was purpose designed for it.

262101[/snapback]

For the 3rd time. Slate asked how the radar/avionics of the Raptor & Typhoon compared. I tried to put it into some perspective for him by saying that it is similar to that of the F-15 (Raptor) & F-16 (Typhoon) - I was going to say F/A-18 instead of F-16 but since Typhoons are not expected to be "fully" capable until ~2010, I did not think that analagy was valid. I do not see how you can possibly say that comparison is so wrong.

 

 

 

F-16A had more air-to-ground capabilities than air-to-air? I guess the program being specifically made for a lightweight air-superiority fighter was bureaucracy-speak for a bomb truck?

262101[/snapback]

The F-16 was never an air-superiority, that was the F-15. The F-16 is (& I have never seen anything to indicate that it was ever intended to be anything but) a lightweight multi-role fighter.

 

 

 

Yes, but the ability to fly near-Mach 1.0 NoE with a full bomb load in addition to tossing JDAMs from 15k means more capability...

262101[/snapback]

Like I said, there is a lot more to making a good strike aircraft than being able to fly Nap-of-the-Earth. I agree that the Tornado is a great strike aircrraft, I would prefer something with better payload/range but that would require a larger/more expensive aircraft - like the F-15E.

[Rubberneck]

The F-16A and B models were dogfighters. Boyd and his crew never wanted the F-16 to become a multi-role aircraft. The Air Force started adding the air to ground capabilites on the C model IIRC.

[Chris Werb]

The F-16A and B models were dogfighters.  Boyd and his crew never wanted the F-16 to become a multi-role aircraft.  The Air Force started adding the air to ground capabilites on the C model IIRC.

262254[/snapback]

 

The F-16A and B always had air to ground capabilities, otherwise many nations (NL, Belgium, Norway, Denmark etc. all of whom bought F-16A Block 1 aircraft) would not have bought them. F-16As were also used to bomb Iraq's Osirak reactor on 7th June 1981.

[FlyingCanOpener]

The F-16A and B always had air to ground capabilities, otherwise many nations (NL, Belgium, Norway, Denmark etc. all of whom bought F-16A Block 1 aircraft) would not have bought them.  F-16As were also used to bomb Iraq's Osirak reactor on 7th June 1981.

262282[/snapback]

 

That air-to-ground capability was only brought out late in the testing phase, after (iirc) the USAF began toting about the idea of exporting it to Europe. I may be mistaken, but I had read something to the effect that after the F-16 did well in the bomb tests, the USAF gleefully let the Euros know about it, yet kept relatively tight-lipped about it in front of Boyd's minions, lest they incur their wrath.

[FlyingCanOpener]

For the 3rd time.  Slate asked how the radar/avionics of the Raptor & Typhoon compared.  I tried to put it into some perspective for him by saying that it is similar to that of the F-15 (Raptor) & F-16 (Typhoon) - I was going to say F/A-18 instead of F-16 but since Typhoons are not expected to be "fully" capable until ~2010, I did not think that analagy was valid.  I do not see how you can possibly say that comparison is so wrong.

 

It's wrong because it's an apples and oranges comparison.

 

The F-16 was never an air-superiority, that was the F-15.  The F-16 is (& I have never seen anything to indicate that it was ever intended to be anything but) a lightweight multi-role fighter.

You mustn't have read much.

 

Like I said, there is a lot more to making a good strike aircraft than being able to fly Nap-of-the-Earth.  I agree that the Tornado is a great strike aircrraft, I would prefer something with better payload/range but that would require a larger/more expensive aircraft - like the F-15E.

262239[/snapback]

 

If you want a bomb truck, just get an A-6 instead.

 

BTW, how's the search for the F-15C's ground capability going?

Edited December 24, 2005 by FlyingCanOpener

[Chris Werb]

BTW, how's the search for the F-15C's ground capability going?

 

Early in its service career (or more likely late in its testing) I recall seeing an F-15A dropping 500lb bombs in a dive off of (now retired) six station underwing MERs. I even built a model (Hasegawa?) with this loadout. I never saw an operational F-15A so equipped subsequently - I don't even know if this weapon was trained for. I have never seen a USAF F-15C with an AtG loadout (which isn't the same thing as saying it was never done).

[FlyingCanOpener]

Early in its service career (or more likely late in its testing) I recall seeing an F-15A dropping 500lb bombs in a dive off of (now retired) six station underwing MERs.  I even built a model (Hasegawa?) with this loadout.  I never saw an operational F-15A so equipped subsequently - I don't even know if this weapon was trained for.  I have never seen a USAF F-15C with an AtG loadout (which isn't the same thing as saying it was never done).

262327[/snapback]

 

There was some discussion in the aftermath of OIF to tests for JDAMs on F-15Cs, in the same vein of putting ALARMs on Tornado ADVs in the RAF, but the fighter mafia nixed that real quick, so there's still no air-to-ground capability for the Eagle. They prefer to pass it to their "wicked stepsisters" who fly the Mudhens.

[Chris Werb]

There was some discussion in the aftermath of OIF to tests for JDAMs on F-15Cs, in the same vein of putting ALARMs on Tornado ADVs in the RAF, but the fighter mafia nixed that real quick, so there's still no air-to-ground capability for the Eagle. They prefer to pass it to their "wicked stepsisters" who fly the Mudhens.

262329[/snapback]

 

An interesting thread on exactly this subject - the posts near the bottom of the page are particularly so:

 

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=51693

[FlyingCanOpener]

An interesting thread on exactly this subject - the posts near the bottom of the page are particularly so:

 

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=51693

262363[/snapback]

 

Yes indeed! Especially the article. Never saw that one before, good reading. I was aware of the air-to-ground modes, as iirc the Israelis have used their Eagles to tote bombs (This comes from a reading of the Osprey book on Arab-Israeli Air Wars long ago). However, I do note the fact that the Fighter mafia will have none of that, when there's a gnat somewhere in the sky above Iraq that needs to be intercepted.