Jump to content

Saudi Arabia orders Eurofighter


Rod

Recommended Posts

I have a number of articles from when EFA was still in the conception stage and France was still on board, and I remember the primary mission was air superiority with a very secondary ground attack role that rose in prominence when Spain entered the group, as our Air Force was sold on the multirole aircraft since the Phantom and the Mirage III due to both tactical and economic reasons. From there on, EFA evolved into a truly multirole aircraft. However, the EFA was intended, to a point, to combine the capabilities of the F-16 with BVR air to air capability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I want to start with your fixation on the Typhoon having been intended primarily as a STOVL replacement for the Jaguar and Harrier. This may be valid for Great Britain, but certainly not for Germany. Germany really only wanted an air superiority fighter to replace the F-4 (France btw only wanted a carrier capable strike aircraft). Though the Typhoon may have its roots in these seperate national requirements, once these nations got together however, the decision was made to build one medium multi role fighter to suit all the nations requirements. This became the original Eurofighter requirement, it was multi role from the beginning of the concept phase.

263739[/snapback]

Check your Typhoon/Eurofighter history. The initial requirement from which the Typhoon developed from was a STOVL replacement for the Jaguar and Harrier. It eveloved & the STOVL Harrier replacement idea was dropped (an improved Harrier was developed for that requirement instead) & an air-to-air role was added. Then England, Germany, France & Italy (later Spain as well) all realized that the only way any of them could realisticly afford to develope a new fighter would be to work together on a common design for all & the Typhoon became a true multi-national multi-role fighter.

 

 

 

Now, a Block 40 F-16 is an in-service developement of the original aircraft, it can hardly be compared to an initial Typhoon, for which it is impossible to predict how it will develope in the future.

263739[/snapback]

So what can you compare? :P

 

Note that I am not trying to directly compare the Typhoon to the F-16 other than to say that they are both medium-weight multi-role fighters (which they are) with less air-to-air capability but more air-to ground capability than the Raptor & F-15 respectively.

 

 

 

Though the Block 40 may have increased MTOW, I am not aware that the store positions have been (even can be) changed by much. The end result is that the Typhoon can carry a greater mix of AG and AA weapons right from the beginning.

263739[/snapback]

In terms of weight, even the F-16 Block 1 could match the Typhoon's 14,300 lbs of external stores.

 

What air-to-air &/or air-to ground weapons can the Typhoon carry that the F-16 can not? Again, note that for virtually any European air-launched weapon there is a similar US weapon so even if European F-16s may not be "certified" for any specific European weapon that the Typhoon is expected to, it is likely that US F-16 are "certified" for a similar US weapon.

 

 

 

It has been said often enough by others on this topic, the Eurofighter nations have a totally different equipment concept than the USAF. The Typhoon is needed to fullfill both the F-16 and F-15/F-22 roles and thus layout, equipment and capabilities are somewhere in the middle between the US aircraft.

263739[/snapback]

I have said that as well. In fact, I may have been the 1st to say to on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check your Typhoon/Eurofighter history.  The initial requirement from which the Typhoon developed from was a STOVL replacement for the Jaguar and Harrier.  It eveloved & the STOVL Harrier replacement  idea was dropped (an improved Harrier was developed for that requirement instead) & an air-to-air role was added.

 

Well, indeed, as I did say, that was the initial british idea of their next generation aircraft, however they already changed their mind a year later towards an air superiority fighter.

 

Then England, Germany, France & Italy (later Spain as well) all realized that the only way any of them could realisticly afford to develope a new fighter would be to work together on a common design for all & the Typhoon became a true multi-national multi-role fighter.
And the other nations had their own ideas about their next generation aircraft before joining together. Germany first and foremost wanted an air superiority fighter to replace the "interim" F-4F, France wanted a carrier capable strike aircraft. When these three nations got together finally, they decided on a multi role platform. All this was in the '70s, Italy and Spain only joined up in the '80s.

The issue is that all this happened during the concept phase, once developement of the aircraft started, the decision for multi role was firm. Even though, the priority was given to the air to air capabilities, as all nations (after France dropped out) needed these most urgently.

 

So what can you compare?  :P

 

The initial F-16 to the initial Typhoon. The F-16 has received extensive upgrades during its service to match changed requirements. Obviously, the Typhoon has a lot of upgrade potential left, too, and may be upgraded during its service life in a similar way. A Block 40 may be somewhat comparable now, but won't be able to keep up with the Typhoon.

 

Note that I am not trying to directly compare the Typhoon to the F-16 other than to say that they are both medium-weight multi-role fighters (which they are) with less air-to-air capability but more air-to ground capability than the Raptor & F-15 respectively.

In terms of weight, even the F-16 Block 1 could match the Typhoon's 14,300 lbs of external stores.

 

The Typhoon may trade a few air to air capabilities for lighter weight and better maneuverability over an F-15/F-22, but that's just sensible if you don't want to buy two different platforms.

I'd love to see a source on that last figure on external stores of the F-16, everything I have says it's not much different than the original with more like four to five tons.

 

What air-to-air &/or air-to ground weapons can the Typhoon carry that the F-16 can not?

263983[/snapback]

 

It's not about a specific weapon, with its conformal MRAAM mounts, the Typhoon can carry a considerable air to air armament while at the same time carrying the same amount of air to ground weapons as the F-16. I mean, for example, where would you put three MRAMM, two SRAAM, two ALARM, two 1000lb LGB + designatior pod and three fuel tanks on an F-16?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see a source on that last figure on external stores of the F-16, everything I have says it's not much different than the original with more like four to five tons.

264167[/snapback]

 

With full external payload a late model F-16C/D (say a Block 40) can only carry enough internal fuel to taxi. It can't take off!

 

Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft lists external load for a F100-PW-229 powered C model as 7,226 kg (15,930lb) and for a F110-GE-129 it is 7,072 kg (15,591 lb), the latter engine being heavier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, indeed, as I did say, that was the initial british idea of their next generation aircraft, however they already changed their mind a year later towards an air superiority fighter.

And the other nations had their own ideas about their next generation aircraft before joining together. Germany first and foremost wanted an air superiority fighter to replace the "interim" F-4F, France wanted a carrier capable strike aircraft. When these three nations got together finally, they decided on a multi role platform. All this was in the '70s, Italy and Spain only joined up in the '80s.

The issue is that all this happened during the concept phase, once developement of the aircraft started, the decision for multi role was firm. Even though, the priority was given to the air to air capabilities, as all nations (after France dropped out) needed these most urgently.

264167[/snapback]

Check the chronology, everything I have read indicates that the British requirement for a STOVL Jaguar & Harrier replacement came 1st & everything else evolved from that.

 

I already said that the Typhoon eveloved into a multi-national multi-role fighter during the design phase. It still does not change the fact that what the Typhoon is today & what it was originally envisioned to be two different things.

 

Plus, none of this changes the fact that the F-16 is also a true multi-role fighter, it just evolved into one later in its life cycle.

 

 

 

The initial F-16 to the initial Typhoon.

264167[/snapback]

Actually you can compare any version you want, the only difference would be how well they compare. I never said the Typhoon & any F-16 version were equals in capability. In fact, my analogy implies that they are not.

 

 

 

The F-16 has received extensive upgrades during its service to match changed requirements.

264167[/snapback]

Exactly what I said.

 

 

 

Obviously, the Typhoon has a lot of upgrade potential left, too, and may be upgraded during its service life in a similar way.

264167[/snapback]

Most likely so.

 

 

 

A Block 40 may be somewhat comparable now, but won't be able to keep up with the Typhoon.

264167[/snapback]

Again, I never said the Typhoon & any F-16 version were equals in capability. In fact, my analogy implies that they are not.

 

 

 

The Typhoon may trade a few air to air capabilities for lighter weight and better maneuverability over an F-15/F-22, but that's just sensible if you don't want to buy two different platforms.

264167[/snapback]

Europe, even working together felt that they could not afford something in the size/weight class of the F-15. They purposely chose to design the Typhoon in a size/weight class they felt they could afford.

 

I bet the F-22 is more maneuverable than the Typhoon.

 

 

 

I'd love to see a source on that last figure on external stores of the F-16, everything I have says it's not much different than the original with more like four to five tons.

264167[/snapback]

I'd love to see a source that states only four to five tons because everything I have ever read indicates significantly more. With ~6 tons [5.4 metric tons], the F-16 is still capable of 9-g maneuvers! F-16C anyway, I would have to dig through my books & find something written in the 1980's to likely find what it is for the F-16A - my "guess" is that it is likely around 4.5 tons [4.1 metric tons].

 

 

 

It's not about a specific weapon, with its conformal MRAAM mounts, the Typhoon can carry a considerable air to air armament while at the same time carrying the same amount of air to ground weapons as the F-16. I mean, for example, where would you put three MRAMM, two SRAAM, two ALARM, two 1000lb LGB + designatior pod and three fuel tanks on an F-16?

264167[/snapback]

Yes the Typhoon was designed with conformal MRAAM mounts & the F-16 was not. So what. I never said the Typhoon & any F-16 version were equals in capability. Plus, it is European doctrine that dictates that one aircrafy carry all those weapons at the same time. While US doctrine alows different aircraft to carry different weapons to perform different tasks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AST 396 was the requirement for a STOVL fighter drafted in the early 70's. The RAF rethought the requirement in 1972 and produced AST 403 - an air superiority fighter with STOVL capabilities. After consulting the French and the Germans, the STOVL was dropped. This url explains it rather better than I can

 

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurof...er/history.html

Edited by oldsoak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check the chronology, everything I have read indicates that the British requirement for a STOVL Jaguar & Harrier replacement came 1st & everything else evolved from that.

 

No, that's purely the british side. At the same time the Germans wanted an air superiority fighter and the French a carrier borne strike aircraft. The three nations got together a bit later and decided to build one multi role aircraft.

The Eurofighter might have its roots in those national programs, but it was only really born when the three got together.

 

I already said that the Typhoon eveloved into a multi-national multi-role fighter during the design phase. It still does not change the fact that what the Typhoon is today & what it was originally envisioned to be two different things.

 

That should be during the concept phase. A minor but important difference that obviously is lost on you, which invalidates the second sentence of that part...

 

Actually you can compare any version you want, the only difference would be how well they compare.  I never said the Typhoon & any F-16 version were equals in capability.  In fact, my analogy implies that they are not.
No, by the same method, you could also compare a Leopard 1A5 to an early Leopard 2: They have the same mission and have indeed some similar equipment - of course the Leopard 2 is expected to do the job a bit better.

But such a comparision is plain stupid. These two tanks are not comparable, since one is a generation ahead, does a lot of things just a bit differently and has all the growth potential still before it, while the Leopard 1 is rather maxed out.

 

Europe, even working together felt that they could not afford something in the size/weight class of the F-15.  They purposely chose to design the Typhoon in a size/weight class they felt they could afford.

 

No, not just affording that one larger aircraft, rather can't afford one large and one small, thus just one aircraft in the middle.

 

I bet the F-22 is more maneuverable than the Typhoon.
Well, your bet is as good as mine.

On second thought, it should better be, with that price tag.

 

I'd love to see a source that states only four to five tons because everything I have ever read indicates significantly more.  With ~6 tons [5.4 metric tons], the F-16 is still capable of 9-g maneuvers!  F-16C anyway, I would have to dig through my books & find something written in the 1980's to likely find what it is for the F-16A - my "guess" is that it is likely around 4.5 tons [4.1 metric tons].

 

See, just as I say, the early ones are four to five tons. I don't dispute that the C can carry more, but that's Block 25 upwards not Block 1 as you said, if you don't mind me reminding you, here:

In terms of weight, even the F-16 Block 1 could match the Typhoon's 14,300 lbs of external stores.
Yes the Typhoon was designed with conformal MRAAM mounts & the F-16 was not.  So what.  I never said the Typhoon & any F-16 version were equals in capability.  Plus, it is European doctrine that dictates that one aircrafy carry all those weapons at the same time.  While US doctrine alows different aircraft to carry different weapons to perform different tasks.

264322[/snapback]

So, we're finally there...

Rewording what you said:

The Typhoon can carry more of different categories (Air/Air, Air/Ground) of weapons at the same time. The European air forces want it that way and build an aircraft to that purpose. The USAF rather wants two different (somewhat more specialized) aircraft and did build them to that purpose.

In my words:

Two different concepts, three different aircraft, which are not comparable in the sense of the issue at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's purely the british side.

264391[/snapback]

CHECK THE CHRONONOLIGY!!!

 

That is were it all started, everything else came later.

 

 

 

At the same time the Germans wanted an air superiority fighter and the French a carrier borne strike aircraft. The three nations got together a bit later and decided to build one multi role aircraft.

264391[/snapback]

CHECK THE CHRONONOLIGY!!!

 

That all came later.

 

 

 

The Eurofighter might have its roots in those national programs, but it was only really born when the three got together.

264391[/snapback]

Make up your mind.

 

I say, compare things based on what they are.

 

 

 

That should be during the concept phase. A minor but important difference that obviously is lost on you, which invalidates the second sentence of that part...

264391[/snapback]

It still does not change the fact that what the Typhoon is today & what it was originally envisioned to be are different things. :lol:

 

Britain originally wanted a STOVL replacement for the Jaguar & Harrier.

Germany wanted a pure air-superiority fighter to replace the F-4.

France wanted a carrier-borne strike aircraft to replace the Etendard/Super Etendard.

 

The Typhoon is a different aircraft than what was originally envisioned for any of those requirements.

 

That is all irrelivant to my analogy but you want to compare things based on what the were originally envisioned to be instead of what they are.

 

 

 

No, by the same method, you could also compare a Leopard 1A5 to an early Leopard 2: They have the same mission and have indeed some similar equipment - of course the Leopard 2 is expected to do the job a bit better.

But such a comparision is plain stupid. These two tanks are not comparable, since one is a generation ahead, does a lot of things just a bit differently and has all the growth potential still before it, while the Leopard 1 is rather maxed out.

264391[/snapback]

On the contrary, since the Leopard 2 was intended to replace the Leopard 1, it is imparative that you do compare them. How else do you know that the Leopard 2 is any better & justify it replacing the Leopard 1? Otherwise, you had just as well continue to procure Leopard 1s & forget about the Leopard 2 all together. :o

 

 

 

No, not just affording that one larger aircraft, rather can't afford one large and one small, thus just one aircraft in the middle.

264391[/snapback]

The Typhoon was designed to a specifec size/weight based on what the nations developong it thought they could afford. It was balancing desired cost & desired capability that determined the size/weight of the Typhoon. If they thought they could afford a larger/more capable aircraft, they likely would have.

 

 

 

See, just as I say, the early ones are four to five tons. I don't dispute that the C can carry more, but that's Block 25 upwards not Block 1 as you said

264391[/snapback]

That is the payload the F-16 can carry & still maintain 9-g maneuvability, not max payload. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

The Typhoon can carry more of different categories (Air/Air, Air/Ground) of weapons at the same time.

264391[/snapback]

Not necessarily true.

 

In terms of weight, the F-16 can carry more.

 

Any weapon the Typhoon can carry, the F-16 can carry (or at least a similar weapon).

 

The design of the Typhoon is such that (only because of the fuselage mounted MRAAMs) it can carry more MRAAMs.

 

 

 

Two different concepts, three different aircraft, which are not comparable in the sense of the issue at hand.

264391[/snapback]

Actually, four aircraft (Raptor, Typhoon, F-15 & F-16).

 

Two "heavy" air-superiority fighters (Raptor & F-15) & two medium-weight multi-role fighters (Typhoon & F-16).

 

Two 1990's technology fighters (Raptor & Typhoon) & two 1970's technology technology fighters (F-15 & F-16).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHECK THE CHRONONOLIGY!!!

 

That is were it all started, everything else came later.

 

So you deny that Germany and France had their own national aircraft requirements in the early '70s. Care to back that up with some facts?

 

 

Make up your mind.
Excuse me? I can't find the contradiction in my post.

 

It still does not change the fact that what the Typhoon is today & what it was originally envisioned to be are different things.  :lol:

 

Britain originally wanted a STOVL replacement for the Jaguar & Harrier.

Germany wanted a pure air-superiority fighter to replace the F-4.

France wanted a carrier-borne strike aircraft to replace the Etendard/Super Etendard.

 

The Typhoon is a different aircraft than what was originally envisioned for any of those requirements.

 

That is all irrelivant to my analogy but you want to compare things based on what the were originally envisioned to be instead of what they are.

 

Rather it seems to me that it's you who needs to make up his mind, since now you seem to be agreeing that there where different national programs, from which the Eurofighter concept emerged.

Of course the Typhoon is different to these early national concepts. First of, the national concepts changed a bit and more importantly the overall concept had to be changed to suit the different national requirements, thus the result was the Eurofighter beeing born as a multi role aircraft. I don't understand why this seems to be so hard to understand for you.

 

 

On the contrary, since the Leopard 2 was intended to replace the Leopard 1, it is imparative that you do compare them.  How else do you know that the Leopard 2 is any better & justify it replacing the Leopard 1?  Otherwise, you had just as well continue to procure Leopard 1s & forget about the Leopard 2 all together. :o

 

As Praet said. Additionally such a comparision is still stupid and unnecessary as the Leopard 2 was build to be better then the original Leopard 1. Still you are getting to my point. A Leopard 1A5 is in fact not so much worse than an early Leopard 2. Or, to make it even more clear, take the prototypical Leopard 1A6, the difference in capabilities is even smaller. A direct comparision would come out as a head to head race, so, indeed why not just keep on procuring Leopard 1s if an early Leopard 2 isn't better than a modified Leopard 1.

Got it? A late F-16 may be comparable to an early Typhoon, the comparision of course can be made, but it doesn't really make sense to do it.

 

The Typhoon was designed to a specifec size/weight based on what the nations developong it thought they could afford.  It was balancing desired cost & desired capability that determined the size/weight of the Typhoon.  If they thought they could afford a larger/more capable aircraft, they likely would have.
Yes, indeed, thus, unlike the F-16, it was build heavier and more multi role right from the beginning.

 

That is the payload the F-16 can carry & still maintain 9-g maneuvability, not max payload.  :rolleyes:

 

Then come up with a source. Most internet sources say four to five tons at full internal fuel. (Just to be on the safe side: We are talking early F-16s, I am not interested in Cs)

 

The design of the Typhoon is such that (only because of the fuselage mounted MRAAMs) it can carry more MRAAMs.
Don't you think that's a rather important difference? This means, while it is carrying the same amount of air/ground weapons an F-16 can carry, it can carry an additional number of air/air weapons.

 

Actually, four aircraft (Raptor, Typhoon, F-15 & F-16).

 

You may be reading other peoples posts, but you are sure not understanding them, are you? Please re-read what I actually did say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK the maximum external payload of the F-16 has never changed since the A models appeared. The weapons pylons are all still the same load rating as when the aircraft was introduced 30 years ago. The only addition is a second chin pylon for LANTIRN installations. Thus the figure I gave above should be accurate for all models.

 

Maximum usable load has dropped with increases in airframe wieght, but things start to get murkey when you look at it that way. For instance, a C model can carry full external load but be left with just 60 imp gallons of internal fuel before reaching MTOW - not enough to even get off the ground with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you deny that Germany and France had their own national aircraft requirements in the early '70s. Care to back that up with some facts?

264634[/snapback]

No, just that chronologicaly, the British requirement came 1st. It has already been indicated in the threat that that is the case. It really does not matter that much to me as I say compare things for what they are except to point out that what the Typhoon is today & what it was originally intended to be are not the same.

 

 

 

Excuse me? I can't find the contradiction in my post.

264634[/snapback]

1st you say we have to compare things based on their initial inception, then you change it to some point in the design phase.

 

 

 

Rather it seems to me that it's you who needs to make up his mind, since now you seem to be agreeing that there where different national programs, from which the Eurofighter concept emerged.

264634[/snapback]

I never said the Typhoon did not develope from several different national programs, just pointing out that if we can only compare things based on their initial inception then we have to consider the Typhoon as a STOVL Jaguar & Harrier replacement - which it most certainly is not.

 

 

 

 

Of course the Typhoon is different to these early national concepts. First of, the national concepts changed a bit and more importantly the overall concept had to be changed to suit the different national requirements, thus the result was the Eurofighter beeing born as a multi role aircraft. I don't understand why this seems to be so hard to understand for you.

264634[/snapback]

I understand it perfectly. I just disagree that we have to compare things based on what they were intended to be at some point. I say compare them base on what they are. I don't understand why that seems to be so hard to understand for you.

 

 

 

As Praet said. Additionally such a comparision is still stupid and unnecessary as the Leopard 2 was build to be better then the original Leopard 1. Still you are getting to my point. A Leopard 1A5 is in fact not so much worse than an early Leopard 2. Or, to make it even more clear, take the prototypical Leopard 1A6, the difference in capabilities is even smaller. A direct comparision would come out as a head to head race, so, indeed why not just keep on procuring Leopard 1s if an early Leopard 2 isn't better than a modified Leopard 1.

264634[/snapback]

I thought we couldn't compare the Leopard 1 to the Leopard 2. :P

 

My point on the Leopard 1 vs Leopard 2 is how do you know the Leopard 2 is better until after you have compared them.

 

 

 

Got it? A late F-16 may be comparable to an early Typhoon, the comparision of course can be made, but it doesn't really make sense to do it.

264634[/snapback]

No any F-16 can be compared to any Typhoon (maybe you are confused & think that is suppose to infer equality but it is not). The differense would be in how well they compare. Again, I am not trying to directly compare the Typhoon to the F-16 (but I am 100% certain that potential export customers have & will). I am comparing the Raptor to the Typhoon by saying that the comparison is similar to that of the F-15 to the F-16.

 

 

 

Yes, indeed, thus, unlike the F-16, it was build heavier and more multi role right from the beginning.

264634[/snapback]

Not from the begining but the design was "finalized". It still does not change the fact that the F-16, like the Typhoon,is also a medium-weight multi-role fighter - it just evolved into one later in its life cycle.

 

 

 

Then come up with a source. Most internet sources say four to five tons at full internal fuel. (Just to be on the safe side: We are talking early F-16s, I am not interested in Cs)

264634[/snapback]

1st of all, we are not talking about early F-16s. You are just caught up on the ridiculous notion that we can only compare the F-16A to the Typhoon (or that we can note compare them at all - another cotradiction?).

 

Most internet sites I have seen do not even give a max payload for any version of the F-16 (or if they do, it is the 9-g payload rather than true max payload) - try reading some books, they are a much more reliable soarce of information.

 

But, in the interest of providing you something, try these:

 

http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/f-16.htm

F-16A = 6,894 kg (15,198 lbs)

F-16C = 9,276 kg (20,449 lbs)

 

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f16.htm

chart states 9276 kg (20,449 lbs) - which is the theoretical max the weapons pylons can carry

in text: On a typical mission, an F-16A/B can carry as much as 16,700 lb (7575 kg) of ordnance.

 

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f16/

F-16C

17,200 lb (7,800 kg) [normal]

20,450 lb (9,275 kg) [theoretical limit]

 

http://www.voodoo.cz/falcon/versions.html

Does not directly give payload but note that maximum weight for 9 g manoeuvres for each version.

 

Hopefull that will be enough for you to realize that the 4-5 tons payload is the maximum weight for 9 g manoeuvres for the F-16A (it is ~6 tons for the F-16C) & not maximum payload capability.

 

 

 

Don't you think that's a rather important difference? This means, while it is carrying the same amount of air/ground weapons an F-16 can carry, it can carry an additional number of air/air weapons.

264634[/snapback]

Yes, I do & have said so. That is one of the major reasons why the Typhoon is considered superior to the F-16.

 

 

 

 

You may be reading other peoples posts, but you are sure not understanding them, are you? Please re-read what I actually did say.

264634[/snapback]

No, it is you who does not understand.

 

1) I am saying that a comparison of the Raptor vs the Typhoon is similar to a comparison of the F-15 vs the F-16.

 

2) The F-16 is a medium-weight multi-role fighter! It may not have been originally envisioned to be & may not have been one when it 1st entered service (some would argue that it was multi-role but its air-to-air capabilities were obviously limited to WVR), but it is one today.

 

3) I am not trying to say that the Typhoon & F-16 are equals (if fact my analogy implies that they are not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK the maximum external payload of the F-16 has never changed since the A models appeared.  The weapons pylons are all still the same load rating as when the aircraft was introduced 30 years ago.  The only addition is a second chin pylon for LANTIRN installations.  Thus the figure I gave above should be accurate for all models.

264677[/snapback]

The "theoretical" maximum has not changed but in reality it has as both empty & MTO weight have increased.

 

 

 

Maximum usable load has dropped with increases in airframe wieght, but things start to get murkey when you look at it that way. 

264677[/snapback]

Actually, MTO weight has increased along with empty weight with the end result of increasing usable payload. You may be able to find a specific case were this is not true from one version to the next but in general usable payload has increased.

 

 

 

For instance, a C model can carry full external load but be left with just 60 imp gallons of internal fuel before reaching MTOW - not enough to even get off the ground with.

264677[/snapback]

That is why it is a "theoretical" maximum - the realistic maximum is determined on how much internal fuel is needed.

 

Note that Israeli F-16s & the Block 60 have higher GTOW to compenate for this & allow a larger payload with any give amount of fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the sources I have indicate the original UK requirement from 1977 was for a STOL, not STOVL, Jaguar and Harrier replacement. As things progressed and changed (as they almost always do as requirements are more closely defined and refined) the requirement became a swing-role aircaft to replace RAF Germany F-4 Phantom interceptors and Jaguar fighter-bombers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the sources I have indicate the original UK requirement from 1977 was for a STOL, not STOVL, Jaguar and Harrier replacement.  As things progressed and changed (as they almost always do as requirements are more closely defined and refined) the requirement became a swing-role aircaft to replace RAF Germany F-4 Phantom interceptors and Jaguar fighter-bombers.

264777[/snapback]

 

And a note to people talking about the Luftwaffe requirement to replace the F-4, the orginal (see my quote on page 3 or so from World Air Power Journal, and I've seen it in other places too, FYI) requirement was to replace their death sleds... er F-104s, lending more credence to the air-to-ground role in the development of the Typhoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the sources I have indicate the original UK requirement from 1977 was for a STOL, not STOVL, Jaguar and Harrier replacement.  As things progressed and changed (as they almost always do as requirements are more closely defined and refined) the requirement became a swing-role aircaft to replace RAF Germany F-4 Phantom interceptors and Jaguar fighter-bombers.

264777[/snapback]

From http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurof...er/history.html

 

"

The Eurofighter can trace its roots back to the early 1970's. The first rumblings of what would become Eurofighter came from AST-396 (Air Staff Target 396) issued by the RAF. This called for a STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) aircraft primarily to replace the SEPECAT Jaguar and Hawker-Siddely Harrier in the ground attack (mud moving) role. However, a rethink in 1972 gave rise to AST-403, calling for an air superiority fighter with STOVL capabilities. After discussions with France and Germany, AST-403 was further refined and the STOVL capability was dropped. Instead a separate requirement for a STOVL system, AST-409 was created eventually giving rise to the Harrier GR.5 (now the upgraded GR.7).

 

Following the redefinition of the Air Staff Target, a joint Anglo-French-German co-operative study was launched, titled the European Combat Aircraft, or ECA. This project aimed to produce an aircraft matching all the needs of the tri-national airforces. For Britain this meant a multi-role aircraft capable of replacing both the F-4 Phantom fighter and the SEPECAT Jaguar strike system, with an in-service date of around 1987. France required a small, lightweight carrier capable ground attack aircraft to replace the Jaguar but were less keen on a fighter which may compete with its Mirage programme. The earliest in-service date for any French aircraft was put at 1991. Finally, Germany were looking for an air superiority fighter to replace their Phantoms, they had little interest in a strike ability.

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've now had the official Eurofighter history link posted on this thread three times, yet people keep coming up with their own theories as to how the Eurofighter Typhoon came about. Since we don't want to let the facts get in the way of one of the most tedious, pointless, repetitive threads in the history of Tank-net, let me give you my version of how Eurofighter came about:

 

In 1780 the Montgolfier Brothers issued 'Le Target de Staff Avion 1' - this called for a balloon capable of carrying sightseers over Paris. The rest is history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at all these trees. One would think we're lost in a forest, eh?

 

There are only a few things of value that come out of looking at the Eurofighter's early origins. The first is that the aircraft that eventually was designed is far different than any of the individual requirements proposals that were tossed about in the early 1970s. That isn't surprising, as this was quite the lengthy gestation period AND (contrary to what one might say) the surrounding environment has changed drastically over that time. The second is that any multi-national program has a great many compromises involved in it.

 

A truly interesting comparison would be to take a good look at the development of recent fighters, say Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, and F-22, to figure out what the most efficient way of going about things would be. Yes, these are all very different programs that happened under very different circumstances producing very different results, but a skilled analyst could probably write a valuable paper on the subject. It would undoubtedly be more valuable and interesting than whatever is being done here (does anyone know what that is? I've asked pfcem, and he doesn't.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've now had the official Eurofighter history link posted on this thread three times, yet people keep coming up with their own theories as to how the Eurofighter Typhoon came about. Since we don't want to let the facts get in the way of one of the most tedious, pointless, repetitive threads in the history of Tank-net, let me give you my version of how Eurofighter came about:

 

In 1780 the Montgolfier Brothers issued 'Le Target de Staff Avion 1' - this called for a balloon capable of carrying sightseers over Paris.  The rest is history.

264801[/snapback]

But how did it evolve from there? :lol: I guess we can compare any "aircraft" we want then since they all can trace their roots back to when man 1st thought we wanted to fly. {just kidding}

 

Designers started working on the replacement for the F-15 & F-16 before they even entered service. How far back do you really want to go.

 

I believe the farthest back you can realistically go is to the initial design specification which leads to the end product. In the case of the Typhoon, that is the AST-396.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, indeed, as I did say, that was the initial british idea of their next generation aircraft, however they already changed their mind a year later towards an air superiority fighter.

And the other nations had their own ideas about their next generation aircraft before joining together. Germany first and foremost wanted an air superiority fighter to replace the "interim" F-4F

 

You speak of the TKF-90?

 

I've got an idea: let's get back to the Saudis. I'm still baffled by them wanting to replace the Tornado ADVs. They have about 85 F-15C/D, & about 20 ADV (originally 24, IIRC). AFAIK, the Tornado ADVs are a bit pointless anyway. If they want to boost their air-defence capabilities with a better plane than their F-15s (& there's not much chance of the USA agreeing to upgrade them to the point where they're competitive with the Typhoon), fine. but that's not really replacing the ADVs.

 

Though I can see that it might be represented that way.

 

BTW, last I heard Saudi Arabia had not been allowed to buy AIM-120. Is that still correct? I'd have thought that an argument in favour of buying Rafale, so as to get a decent active-radar AAM in service: Typhoon carries AIM-120, but it ain't ours to sell, & Meteor won't be available for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first is that the aircraft that eventually was designed is far different than any of the individual requirements proposals that were tossed about in the early 1970s.

264803[/snapback]

Thank you. That is what I have been saying.

 

 

 

The second is that any multi-national program has a great many compromises involved in it.

264803[/snapback]

Very true & that is why they quite often fail.

 

 

 

A truly interesting comparison would be to take a good look at the development of recent fighters, say Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, and F-22, to figure out what the most efficient way of going about things would be. Yes, these are all very different programs that happened under very different circumstances producing very different results, but a skilled analyst could probably write a valuable paper on the subject.

264803[/snapback]

But according to those arguing with me, you can't do that. I am trying to get them to realize that you can.

 

 

 

It would undoubtedly be more valuable and interesting than whatever is being done here (does anyone know what that is? I've asked pfcem, and he doesn't.).

264803[/snapback]

When did you ask that?

 

Here is my answer.

 

Way back on Post #10, Slater asked:

I know that a lot of preformance parameters are still classified, but I wonder how the Typhoon compares with the F-22 as far as radar/avionics capabilities? I would guess that the F-22 is a bit faster overall.
I replied on Post # 15:
Just for giggles, let's assume that the level of technology in the radar/avionics are generally equal.

 

It would then be like comparing the F-15 (F-22) to the F-16 (Typhoon).

 

There is a lot more space available for radar/avionics in the F-15 (F-22) compared to the F-16 (Typhoon).

FlyingCanOpener replied on Post #16:

Apples and Oranges there mate, not to mention more weight dedicated to avionics does not always equal better. Anyways, the Eagle, Fighting Parrot, and Raptor were all designed from the ground-up as air superiority fighters. The Typhoon was designed from the ground up for both air-to-ground and air-to-air roles, meaning avionics and sensor suites will be different, making comparisons rather amateur. As an aside, the whole Eurofighter vs. Raptor vs. Rafale vs. <insertrussianplanehere> thing is really tiring...

From there, it has been little more than posts back & forth over the validity of my analogy, mostly based on the similarities/diferrences between the Typhoon & F-16 [no use reposting the entire thread].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got an idea: let's get back to the Saudis. I'm still baffled by them wanting to replace the Tornado ADVs. They have about 85 F-15C/D, & about 20 ADV (originally 24, IIRC). AFAIK, the Tornado ADVs are a bit pointless anyway. If they want to boost their air-defence capabilities with a better plane than their F-15s (& there's not much chance of the USA agreeing to upgrade them to the point where they're competitive with the Typhoon), fine. but that's not really replacing the ADVs.

 

Though I can see that it might be represented that way.

264807[/snapback]

My guess is that they want to keep a good buyer/seller relationship with Europe in case there is something they want at some point that the US is unwilling to give/sell to them.

 

 

 

BTW, last I heard Saudi Arabia had not been allowed to buy AIM-120. Is that still correct? I'd have thought that an argument in favour of buying Rafale, so as to get a decent active-radar AAM in service: Typhoon carries AIM-120, but it ain't ours to sell, & Meteor won't be available for years.

264807[/snapback]

IIRC the "official" policy is that the US will not sell AMRAAM technology to any nation who's potential enemies do not already have similar technology. I take that to basically mean that if potential enemies do not already have AA-12's (you may be able to convince them if your potential enemy has MICA), you can not have AMRAAMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've now had the official Eurofighter history link posted on this thread three times, yet people keep coming up with their own theories as to how the Eurofighter Typhoon came about. Since we don't want to let the facts get in the way of one of the most tedious, pointless, repetitive threads in the history of Tank-net, let me give you my version of how Eurofighter came about:

 

In 1780 the Montgolfier Brothers issued 'Le Target de Staff Avion 1' - this called for a balloon capable of carrying sightseers over Paris.  The rest is history.

264801[/snapback]

 

...which was derived from an official Greek requirement from the Icarus Commission, which called for a single seat air superiority arm-powered flyer... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that they want to keep a good buyer/seller relationship with Europe in case there is something they want at some point that the US is unwilling to give/sell to them.

 

I think that's a vaild point, & I'm sure a desire to keep a particular seller sweet at a particular time has been an important factor in a lot of Saudi arms purchases, but in this case,

 

1) the competitor for the deal was another European plane, which already has a fully operational active-radar AAM integrated with it.

 

2) as mentioned early on in this thread, most of the Saudi Tornados are IDS, not ADV, & AFAIK the IDS airframes have had more & harder use.

 

It's not the choice of a European plane I'm puzzled by, but the justification for this particular choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) the competitor for the deal was another European plane, which already has a fully operational active-radar AAM integrated with it.

 

2) as mentioned early on in this thread, most of the Saudi Tornados are IDS, not ADV, & AFAIK the IDS airframes have had more & harder use.

 

It's not the choice of a European plane I'm puzzled by, but the justification for this particular choice.

264827[/snapback]

My quess is that, like other export customers, they feel that the Typhoon is the more cost/effective option.

 

Is there any reason why they could not still purchase MICAs (if that is what they decided they wanted) for their Typhoons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...