Eurofihgter weakness

[Scorpion]

1. Supercruise.
Its mean that airframe and engines optimized for supersonic flight without reheat.
Main mode for close combat - its a High-G maneuvr with extended flaps and wingtips. I dont believe that EF-2000 can do on supersonic speed that without reheat.

The Typhoon wasn't developed for supercruise but he's able to do that. What you believe is your thing, what's fact the other.

Also supercruise mean a supervisibility for radars and better visibility in IR. And contemporary SAM like Patriot or S-300 make supercruise senseless, because supercruise alltitude is best zone for SAM.
Supersonic cruise speed is begining not near earth surface, but on 8000-10000 m.

Why does Supercruise increase RCS? The IR-signature is much lower than using afterburners.

Though, combat effectivity of this feature (when we talk about a EF-2000, not about a "invisible" F-22) very and very unclear.

Supercruise brings much advantages.
1.) Higher range
2.) Faster cruising
3.) Better start conditions for BVR-combat
4.) Reduced IR-signature compared to fighters which must use AB

2. Strike possibility. It was added to a "clear" fighter at the 90, and strike potencial of plastic aircraft is next "marketing" feature, like a digital zoom on camcorders.
Unarmoured, with tight fitted engines, EF-2000 will be more victim that Tornado.
What happened with plastic wing of Ef-2000 when it got a pair of 20 mm shells?
How to will work that all avionics after near explosion of SAM?
How to repair in field condition plastic airframe components?
How to look EF-2000 in strike mission againist Su-32, A-10, Su-24?

Today attack missions are not often flown at low altitude. The Typhoon has no armour right, but he will not so often fly very low. Do you think the Su-35 is a capable aircraft for air to ground missions? If yes your logic doesn't fits.

[Zen]

What a load of rubbish, you attack the plane yet as you do so you demonstrate ignorance about it. Do find out about what you wish to criticise.

"1. Supercruise.
Its mean that airframe and engines optimized for supersonic flight without reheat.
Main mode for close combat - its a High-G maneuvr with extended flaps and wingtips. I don't believe that EF-2000 can do on supersonic speed that without reheat. "

Wrong the plane has demostrated that abilty at military loads with six AAM's.

"Also supercruise mean a supervisibility for radars and better visibility in IR. And contemporary SAM like Patriot or S-300 make supercruise senseless, because supercruise alltitude is best zone for SAM. "

Wrong supercruise means supersonic flight with the engine at a cruising throttle setting, not with afterburner, not at full military power either.
The best altitude for SAM's is between 10,000ft and 40,000ft which is where most aircraft fly, but supercruise allows for continuos flight at 50,000ft or above. Here you seem to ignore that the Typhoon is designed for supersonic agility(something most planes are not designed for) and that along with DASS greatly enhances its survivability.


"Supersonic cruise speed is begining not near earth surface, but on 8000-10000 m. "

Wrong supercruise simply means supersonic cruising flight that is flight above the limit of local atmospheric compressibility. It is merely engineering and design to achieve it at any altitude including sea level.
It is simply easier on the designer and engineer to optimise the plane for supercruisng flight at medium and high altitudes where the speed of sound is lower due to the lower density of the air.

"Though, combat effectivity of this feature (when we talk about a EF-2000, not about a "invisible" F-22) very and very unclear. "

Only if the plane is a 'straight line machine but since both the F22 and Typhoon are designed for maneuver at supersonic speeds they are able to put considerable distance between where they would have been had they flown in a straight line and where they can be through maneuver. This is considered something worth achieving and is the product of much research.

"2. Strike possibility. It was added to a "clear" fighter at the 90, and strike potencial of plastic aircraft is next "marketing" feature, like a digital zoom on camcorders. "

Wrong strike has always been a part of the machines requirements, it has only received more attention due to the changing nature of likely conflicts we will be involved in.

"Unarmoured, with tight fitted engines, EF-2000 will be more victim that Tornado.
What happened with plastic wing of Ef-2000 when it got a pair of 20 mm shells? "
The plane is if anything more survivable than Tornado as it is very much more advanced than that plane. Carbon fibre structures have been researched into for some time along with their performance when damaged, the plane embodies the knowledge garnered from that research.

"How to will work that all avionics after near explosion of SAM? "

Are you on about EMP (electro magnetic pulse) if so the systems are hardend to survive such as the plane was designed when tactical nuclear weapons where a very real possibility. Few SAM's use nuclear warheads to my knowledge only some by Russia (I know Moscow ABM uses them).

"How to repair in field condition plastic airframe components? "
Carbon fibre structures have been researched into for some time along with how they can be repaired, the plane embodies the knowledge garnered from that research.


"How to look EF-2000 in strike mission againist Su-32, A-10, Su-24? "

Su24 is an aging strike plane hardly able to maneuver like a fighter.
Su32? Which in th eplthora of flanker designations is that one? Do you mean the side by side strike derivative? Or one of the tandem seaters?

Anyway I truly doubt the strike derivatives performance at low level is a smooth as a Su24 and all that weight is hardly going to improve its maneuverability. Further the Flanker family is not designed for supersonic agility but rather for subsonic agility. Good for airshows and wowing the crowds perhaps but of less importance to combat especially with Typhoon or Raptor.

The A10 is a Ground attack machine only, its due to be replaced by the JSF and its production line is closed.

[Scorpion]

Hi Sergey,

want to say, that no manevr combat on supercruise:
1. Supercruise - its high-alt thing.
2. Supercruise - not for combat, not for high-angles of attack
3. Supercruise dont give more-less significiant superiority over non-supercruise enemy in aerial combat, because your supercruise begin at alttitude, almost at stratosphera, but vast majority of real aerial combats are near sea level and higher - up to 2-4 km.
It was so in Folklend, Israil, Egypet, Vietnam, and will be in future.
Iraq and Yugoslaviya are exclusions - there no great air battles.

Supercruise is primary an advantage for BVR combat. But take the example the Typhoon and the enemy are getting close with their high speeds (results from the BVR-headon). The Typhoon is very manovreable also at supersonic speeds.

Verfasst am: 02 Jul 2003 07:21 Titel:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scorpion hat folgendes geschrieben::
Zitat:
The Typhoon wasn't developed for supercruise but he's able to do that. What you believe is your thing, what's fact the other.

I want to say, that no manevr combat on supercruise:
1. Supercruise - its high-alt thing.
2. Supercruise - not for combat, not for high-angles of attack
3. Supercruise dont give more-less significiant superiority over non-supercruise enemy in aerial combat, because your supercruise begin at alttitude, almost at stratosphera, but vast majority of real aerial combats are near sea level and higher - up to 2-4 km.
It was so in Folklend, Israil, Egypet, Vietnam, and will be in future.
Iraq and Yugoslaviya are exclusions - there no great air battles.


Zitat:




Why does Supercruise increase RCS? The IR-signature is much lower than using afterburners.

Not so much.
Add shock-waves, that add RCS, and IR-in front semisphere.


Zitat:
Though, combat effectivity of this feature (when we talk about a EF-2000, not about a "invisible" F-22) very and very unclear.



Supercruise brings much advantages.
1.) Higher range
2.) Faster cruising
3.) Better start conditions for BVR-combat
4.) Reduced IR-signature compared to fighters which must use AB



Zitat:
2. Strike possibility. It was added to a "clear" fighter at the 90, and strike potencial of plastic aircraft is next "marketing" feature, like a digital zoom on camcorders.
Unarmoured, with tight fitted engines, EF-2000 will be more victim that Tornado.
What happened with plastic wing of Ef-2000 when it got a pair of 20 mm shells?
How to will work that all avionics after near explosion of SAM?
How to repair in field condition plastic airframe components?
How to look EF-2000 in strike mission againist Su-32, A-10, Su-24?


Today attack missions are not often flown at low altitude. The Typhoon has no armour right, but he will not so often fly very low. Do you think the Su-35 is a capable aircraft for air to ground missions? If yes your logic doesn't fits.


But rate of loss will be higher.....


Su-34(2-seat armoured Su-27) can execute special strike mission with better loss rate, and give more possibility to survive for crew.

1.) I'm aware of the capabilities of the different Flanker versions <!-- s;-) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- s;-) -->
The Su-34 has an amoured cockpit, but the Typhoon is smaller, has lower RCS and probably the better electronic warfare suite. That guarant the survivability. Thanks to it's aerodynamics and the very advanced FCS the Typhoon has excellent low level flight characteristics. The Autopilot of the Typhoon can perform automatic low level flights with high speed.
I see no real advantage for the Su-34 except the cockpit armour and the 2 seat crew.

[Flanker]

[quote="Scorpion"][quote]1. Supercruise.
The Typhoon wasn't developed for supercruise but he's able to do that. What you believe is your thing, what's fact the other.


Hello!

Do not be agressive, Sergey is not alonge here <!-- s:-) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- s:-) -->)

[Akm72]

For BVR is better to use radar like on the Mig-31 - "Zaslon" with electronically ray switching http://airbase.ru/airshows/maks/2001/re ... CN2570.htm

And missles - R-33, speccially designed for BVR.

Great capabilites of T-10(Su-27 in BBC) its because Su-27 great aircraft.

At ground-level-flight RCS not so important, like a armour cockpit.
About electronic, look at that Radar of Su-34 - http://airbase.ru/hangar/russia/soukhoi ... g_37_1.jpg
has EF-2000 better?
has EF-2000 rear-looking radar? Not defence system, but real FAR radar?

There is more to a radar than just beam agility, even though that is useful.

At the end of the day what a pilot wants is reliability and robust radar tracks: which means good look-down capability against low-flying aircraft, the ability to detect and identify individual aircraft within an incoming formation and track them however they maneuver, and the ability to ignore decoys and jamming. They also want a highly automated radar which requires little manual "tweaking".

It is interesting to note that the USA, which has the most advanced radar technology in the world, did not attempt to build an electronically-scanned fighter radar until they could manage a full-scale active electronically scanned array.
Also the Russians, after their experience with the MiG31s "Zaslon" radar, went for a mechanically scanned cassegrain antenna in the MiG29 and Su27.

The rearwards-facing radar on the Sukhoi is interesting, but is designed to detect approaching aircraft, it's ability to track very small targets like incoming missiles is not proven. The missile-warning radars on the Typhoon use mm wavelengths specifically to maximise their ability to detect very small targets.

[PSO]

Do not be agressive, Sergey is not alonge here <!-- s:-) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- s:-) -->)

Remember where you're posting ... this is a Typhoon board ... not a Sukhoi debating chamber. When you or anyone else brings a BAE, EADS or Alenia engineer to this board and they openly state "Typhoon cannot supercruise at any velocity or altitude" then your pov will be valid. Till that time the published literature indicates the reverse.