^^^ You may be talking about their HMS (Helmet Mounted Sight) system where the pilot locates the fighter and looks at it instead of pointing the fighters nose at the target to acquire a firing solution all one has to do is look at the target and launch. It does have to be within the missiles parameter though, so no shooting behind the fighter. American jets are now being outfitted with similar systems and with a superior AIM-9x missile with thrust vector...

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
What is the EF tranche? I never heard of it before.

The 'tranche" is the production block. Im not sure of its exact traslation. However, AWST reported this week that the tranche 2 aircraft had been approved. There is always a change that "3" may not get produced but that is unlikely.

The 'tranche" is the production block. Im not sure of its exact traslation. However, AWST reported this week that the tranche 2 aircraft had been approved. There is always a change that "3" may not get produced but that is unlikely.

I'm not really up there with what the Europeans do with their systems but a few military buddies of mine said that the tranche 3 batch would have improved structural integrity for a greater A2G weapons load... Is that true?


[edit on 22-12-2004 by ChrisRT]

I haven't heard that specifically but there will be a fairly limited A2G capability in tranche 2, enough to allow the replacement of the Jaguar GR.3, which will be upgraded fully in tranche 3.

I have read some posts that appear to presume that if tranche 3 were to be cancelled then the RAF, Luftwaffe et al would be stuck with 'lesser' tranche 2 capability levels. This is not the case as the tranches, apart from defining production blocks, have also come to represent capability levels and the 'tranche 3' standards would still be retrospectively applied to aircraft already in service in the form of relatively simple upgrades applied during normal servicing. At least this is what the RAF intends and I see no reason to expect the other customers not to follow the same path.

edit; I have been looking through some stuff I have and although I haven't seen structural integrity mentioned I have seen that one of the elements to be fully developed by tranche 3 is the 'swing role' avionics that allow the Typhoon to switch from '100% A2A to 100% A2G at the touch of a button'.

The nature of the upgrades and the fact that they will be applied during routine servicing tends to suggest to me that it is an avionics matter rather than a structural one, in my opinion of course.

[edit on 22-12-2004 by waynos]

Originally posted by ChrisRT
[I'm not really up there with what the Europeans do with their systems but a few military buddies of mine said that the tranche 3 batch would have improved structural integrity for a greater A2G weapons load... Is that true?

I agree with waynos, I have heard nothing of that kind. The airframes are basically the same, however the avionics are different. it while costing money, not be a big deal to upgrade say a tranch 1 to a 3 down the road. Its similar to say a Block 20 F-16 and a Block 50. Same basic airframe, different avionics.

I would say the top five of the current/next generation would be:

1. F/A-22: Raptor
2. S-37/Su-47: Berkut
3. Su-35/37: Super Flanker
4/5. EF-2000/Rafale: EuroFighter/Rafale are a tie. (Almost the same craft.)

*****

The F/A-35 is NOT a air-superiority fighter. Look at it this way:

a) It is powered by ONE of the engines from the Raptor.
b) It is replacing the F-16 Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet and A/V-8b Harrier. Role players, not superstars.
c) It is meant for wide distribution to many client countries.

4/5. EF-2000/Rafale: EuroFighter/Rafale are a tie. (Almost the same craft.)

*****

as my charts demonstrated the rafale and typhoon are completely different aircraft developed by deifferent countries independantely

It's like comparing and F-15 to a mig-29

Originally posted by Black Flag
I would say the top five of the current/next generation would be:
1. F/A-22: Raptor
2. S-37/Su-47: Berkut
3. Su-35/37: Super Flanker

I fail to see why the S-47 Berkut is included as it is a prototype / tech demonstrator and not a production aircraft. While a Laud your devotion to the Sukohi line (Im a fan myself) the Eurofighter has to be at least top 3. The JSF can be an air superiority fighter and one engine is not a pre-requsite for the role (It helps) however, the stealth nature of the craft will give it a huge advantage in the BVR engagement.

Originally posted by Lucretius

4/5. EF-2000/Rafale: EuroFighter/Rafale are a tie. (Almost the same craft.)

*****

as my charts demonstrated the rafale and typhoon are completely different aircraft developed by deifferent countries independantely

It's like comparing and F-15 to a mig-29

The MiG 29 is much better than a F-16 (any damn version). Check out the MiG 35, a derivative of the MiG 29 but incorporates 3D thrust vectoring capabilities like the Su 37 / 35 / 30MKI. Quite an amazing specimen if I might say so, too bad it hasn’t reached the production stage as yet, could have been more than a capable opponent for an present day US fighter.
And by the way... both the MiG 29 and Su 27 have higher G limits than any European / US fighter. To be more specific the MiG 29 can endure a G-limit of +10 and the Su 27 max G limit is +11.
Oh yes addrssing a point made by IAF (I forgot the second part of his nick anyway the F-22 produces a max engine thrust of 155.69 kN ( 35,000 lb st ) so please don't lie and tell us that you heard it produces a max thrust of 39,000 lbs - Yeah right... LIAR!!! I've checked a number of websites regarding that tech-spec fact, including the links you provided earlier, and they all say the same thing. So keeping that fact in mind you know the Su 37 HAS FAR MORE POWERFUL engines compared to the F-22!!! ) Oh yeah one more thing the F-22 does NOT have a max range of 6000 km - what the hell do you think it is - a recon aircraft???!!! I've seen numerous websites that state its max range as being nothing more than 4500 km without inflight refueling. At this point in time other than stealth and avionics (which are important no doubt) there is nothing better about the F-22 when comparing it to the Su 37 (super flanker not berkut).

yes the planes can endure 10+ g-limits but the pilots can't

The F/A-35 is NOT a air-superiority fighter. Look at it this way:

a) It is powered by ONE of the engines from the Raptor.
b) It is replacing the F-16 Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet and A/V-8b Harrier. Role players, not superstars.
c) It is meant for wide distribution to many client countries.

None of those factors play into whether it is an air superiority fighter or not.
The fact that its sensors are only 2nd to the F/A-22s, it will have HMS and an AIM-9X combo, and is stealthy in all but the infra red category may put it only 2nd to the F/A-22 when flown in actual combat...

Oh, and the S-37 and Mig-MFI/1.42/1.44 will never see the light of day other then being a technology demonstrator.

About the G limits, most fighters could probably sustain a 12+ G load factor for a while and survive, albeit with a little damage. Many pilots have wound up dead trying to change the laws of gravity in their fighters… It isn’t wise to override the computer limited 7.5, 9.0, and 10 G factors hardcode in the aircrafts FCS software more then the split second freak turn… Pilots are lucky sometimes though as I knew someone that worked on F-15 Mud Hens and his pilot was involved in a SAM evasion and actually pulled 11Gs and buckled the wings at the root slightly back in Kosovo…

Originally posted by Lucretius

4/5. EF-2000/Rafale: EuroFighter/Rafale are a tie. (Almost the same craft.)

*****

Here's a tip for you Lucretius, before posting read the thread! Otherwise, for anyone else who thinks this, could you save everyone else time and put at the top of your post the line;

"when reading the follwing post please bear in mind that I do not know nearly as much about fighter aircraft as I like to think I do"

[edit on 23-12-2004 by waynos]

Originally posted by eastern_block

Originally posted by Lucretius

4/5. EF-2000/Rafale: EuroFighter/Rafale are a tie. (Almost the same craft.)

*****

as my charts demonstrated the rafale and typhoon are completely different aircraft developed by deifferent countries independantely

It's like comparing and F-15 to a mig-29

The MiG 29 is much better than a F-16 (any damn version). Check out the MiG 35, a derivative of the MiG 29 but incorporates 3D thrust vectoring capabilities like the Su 37 / 35 / 30MKI. Quite an amazing specimen if I might say so, too bad it hasn’t reached the production stage as yet, could have been more than a capable opponent for an present day US fighter.
And by the way... both the MiG 29 and Su 27 have higher G limits than any European / US fighter. To be more specific the MiG 29 can endure a G-limit of +10 and the Su 27 max G limit is +11.
Oh yes addrssing a point made by IAF (I forgot the second part of his nick anyway the F-22 produces a max engine thrust of 155.69 kN ( 35,000 lb st ) so please don't lie and tell us that you heard it produces a max thrust of 39,000 lbs - Yeah right... LIAR!!! I've checked a number of websites regarding that tech-spec fact, including the links you provided earlier, and they all say the same thing. So keeping that fact in mind you know the Su 37 HAS FAR MORE POWERFUL engines compared to the F-22!!! ) Oh yeah one more thing the F-22 does NOT have a max range of 6000 km - what the hell do you think it is - a recon aircraft???!!! I've seen numerous websites that state its max range as being nothing more than 4500 km without inflight refueling. At this point in time other than stealth and avionics (which are important no doubt) there is nothing better about the F-22 when comparing it to the Su 37 (super flanker not berkut).

Eastern block, you missed the point. I'm sure he was only saying that IF you think the Rafale and Typhoon are virtually the same plane then you would have to say that the MiG 29 and F-15 are the same plane. The point merely being to illustrate that they are NOT.

Eastern block, you missed the point. I'm sure he was only saying that IF you think the Rafale and Typhoon are virtually the same plane then you would have to say that the MiG 29 and F-15 are the same plane. The point merely being to illustrate that they are NOT.

Not only did he miss the point, but he is totally wrong.

I love how these Russian lovers get so nutty over comparing the F/A-022 to their aircraft.

Originally posted by waynos

Here's a tip for you Lucretius, before posting read the thread! Otherwise, for anyone else who thinks this, could you save everyone else time and put at the top of your post the line;

"when reading the follwing post please bear in mind that I do not know nearly as much about fighter aircraft as I like to think I do"

[edit on 23-12-2004 by waynos]

waynos... I was responding to another poster who placed that comment.

If you had read my post in it's entirety than you would have seen I was debunking that assumption... hence my quote "it's like comparing an f-15 to a mig-29"

Originally posted by Lucretius

4/5. EF-2000/Rafale: EuroFighter/Rafale are a tie. (Almost the same craft.)

*****

as my charts demonstrated the rafale and typhoon are completely different aircraft developed by deifferent countries independantely

It's like comparing and F-15 to a mig-29

Lucretius, Sorry about that, I should have quoted Black Flags post but you fell victim to friendly fire. Damn, I'm no better than an F-16 jockey

You may have seen that earlier in the thread I explained in some detail why they are different aircraft, then to see that comment AFTER my post inflamed me a little, sorry again, it clearly was not your mistake as my following post backed you up, which must have looked confusing.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by waynos]

The Rafale and Eurofighter may be produced by different countries now, but at the begining of the Eurofighter program, Dassault of France was involved.

They share many of the same design materials and ideas and as a result are very similar aircraft.

Certainly more similar than the F-15/MiG-29 analogy.

(Besides, the MiG 29 is closer in capability to the F/a-18 than it is to the F-15)

Originally posted by waynos
Lucretius, Sorry about that, I should have quoted Black Flags post but you fell victim to friendly fire. Damn, I'm no better than an F-16 jockey

You may have seen that earlier in the thread I explained in some detail why they are different aircraft, then to see that comment AFTER my post inflamed me a little, sorry again, it clearly was not your mistake as my following post backed you up, which must have looked confusing.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by waynos]

No problems mate... simple misunderstanding

Black flag... yes dassault was involved but the french dropped out after they could not agree and thus initial plans were scrapped.