It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eurofighter is still a most deathly weapon system

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   


sure she can launch missiles in self defense, but her abilities in a dogfight are greatly degraded.


This couldn't be further from the truth. Both the F-15C and F-15E are both rated at 9G's in a clean airframe. While fully loaded, the F-15E's G-load factor does goes down to about 8 G's, but that is still very, very good.




posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Well, naturally the airframe is going to be just as good, it is basically the same, but the F-15E is a strike aircraft so its A2A capabilities ARE going to be greatly diminished by comparison with the F-15C. There was no such thing as 'swing role' when these were built.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
I think he was kidding, notice the smileys. No nation will surpass the US in terms of missile technology, let alone aircraft technology.

Really?
What about the vulcan?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Well, naturally the airframe is going to be just as good, it is basically the same, but the F-15E is a strike aircraft so its A2A capabilities ARE going to be greatly diminished by comparison with the F-15C. There was no such thing as 'swing role' when these were built.


Yeah, that's what I meant, and you're right. The first fighter in the US arsenal designated for the swing-role was the F/A-18 Hornet, which entered service in 1983.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
I think he was kidding, notice the smileys. No nation will surpass the US in terms of missile technology, let alone aircraft technology.

Really?
What about the vulcan?


You mean the M61A1/A2?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
You mean the M61A1/A2?

No the bomber....



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
yeah.. but I still don't like the idea that the Eurofighter will "fall" out of the sky if its onboard stabilising computers malfunction


You mean like it very nearly did at RAF fairford 2 weeks ago? very very close, about 15 feet i reckon, dont know if it was plane or pilot error but he came out of a loop towards the ground and only just managed to pull it up using full re-heat, take a look




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ernold Same




Oh man that pilot must really trust that bird or what



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
The first fighter in the US arsenal designated for the swing-role was the F/A-18 Hornet, which entered service in 1983.


Not quite, 'swing role' is a fairly new concept and the first operational 'swing role' fighter in the world was the Saab Gripen. The F/A-18 was more 'dual role'. But other than that we are in agreement about the F-15



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Swing role generally refers to the ability for the aircraft to reconfigure itself inflight for different roles. The F/A-18 was multirole, meaning it could be configured before the mission for a specific role and remain in that role for the mission, returning to base and being reconfigured for a different role. Maybe bomber on the first mission and escort fighter on the second. Nowadays the definitions are muddy and cross over each other a lot.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Ah Yesssss,

'Ten Years Later...' And the Euros are copying our own Raptor Talon effort to take mechanical BPI above 60,000ft as a function of slinging 1,500lbs worth of HARM+ASAS+LEAP.

As an alternative to the USN Upper Tier SM.IVa with it's own KKV interceptor.

Of course the notion of putting this _boost phase = antiballistic missile system_ on a Typhoon just goes to show how generally worthless the manned 'fighter' mission is on a "We'll do anything, better, no really!" basis of looking for any possible excuse to justify their existance to begin with.

Because-

1. The Flubber cannot penetrate _conventional_ air defenses to get BPI fallout on the bad guy's turf. And if the threat TBM is a fast-riser itself (everything you see shown for ALI being just as easy to do on a bigger airframe) the BPI will never catch it before it goes exo and you have to start talking about ABM treaties and hauling your own maneuver fuel.

2. The Flubber is not going to be staying on station for the 10-17hrs that would describe a useufl top cover mission /even outside/ threat airspace. Because the poor lil' pilot might have to go urinate and his jet might be needed for another 'fighter' mission before then.

3. Nor is the Flubber-born missile going to have the kind of 'lateral' battlespace coverage (optics lockon and lowdrag acceleration _from above 60,000ft_) necessary to do cross track intercepts. Because the Flubber is a sub-45K weapons platform and hauling around four of those damn things 'plus tanks' would make it probably a sub 25K platform.

All of which imply that you are going to waste /even more/ sorties doing 'chance' (snowball in hell) intercept mission coverage across all possible TEL axes instead of taking heavy A2G ordnance and a visual-recognition sanity check over enemy territory to beat them where they live.

How humorous.

'Man' is absolutely worthless over the battlefield because any crate he arrives in is instantaneously compromised for proper stealth.

Has no endurance and limited sensor presence (cheap enough to saturate optical fields of view) to find the very tactical/fleeting targets of which a TEL is the highest grade of vegetable.

So 'Man', paid an average of 44,000 dollars a year even at the 0-1 level in our services, ends up doing the 'dull dirty' part of the _UAV_ mission set, sitting /outside/ some border. Simply because his dated platform has external pylons and an afterburner sufficient to lug these monstrosities up to not-good-enough-height.

That being all that he and his overpriced dragster are worth.

What a funny.

I must say Euro-HALE seems a /somewhat/ more sensible approach, if only because it gives you the option to cluster the Area Wide missile launch warning and boost phase (pseudolite) tracking plus comms relay capabilities in along with the shooter platform. Wish we were 'allowed' to do that with the recce-only restricted configuration of the RQ-4.

But then the question must be asked:

1. Are you going to whore it for export? Or pay for it just for home use?
2. What does a Mach 12 to 400km weapon mean to all the C4ISR and Tanking platforms which cannot beat even a 10G weapon?
3. If you are worried about future Arab threats to Europe based on a 'guilt by caucasian capitalism' association with the Rogue U.S. Cowboy (which is ludicrous given you have nukes too). What is the likelihood of this weapon functioning as a midcourse/terminal threat interceptor when the RV speeds are themselves easily 4km/sec or better?

I mean, if I was a 'terrorist' who wanted to nuke Europe to 'punish' them for having sent colonists to North America 200-400 years ago, I would first have to detemine how I was going to keep _NATO_ if not the Force de` Frappe from responding on an Arab target of like value. (Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Tehran, Tripoli). I mean after all, we can assume guilt by association too.

And then I would likely want to find a boat so I could bring it in by sneakiest-to-closest means possible.

But -assuming I did- send it on a missile with a return address readily visible to every DSP satellite in orbit. Are you telling me that you would have Eurofighters or even armed UAVs flying 24:7 over densely populated Europe to keep it from happening?

Bwuahahahahahahah! Oh my sides!

No. If you want mechanical intercepts on a 'defensive' basis (ignoring the speed limits inherent to ABM Treaty) then you are faced with ever growing crosstrack speed numbers (assuming single site location so that you don't have to invest in a defensive ATBM building effort like unto the Maginot) to hit the RV at it's fastest trajectory point. Hit a Mach 15 object with at Mach 20-25 interceptor? Uhhhh Hunh. Riiiight.

All other conclusions simply point to the likelihood that this technology will either be stolen. Or sold. To someone who will _use it_ to create a maneuvering TBM/IRBM warhead which better penetrates forward theater deployed military defenses.

Or which is used to mow down standoff/HAE ISR platforms so that we have to come in blind.

WHAT A REALLY GREAT IDEA!

CONCLUSION-
To me it looks like a vainly envious day-late attempt to match our own high energy weaponized lasers with mechanical intercept systems which are easier to build but more dangerous and ultimately _less useful_ to own.

Thus, whether the Eurofighter can carry it. Or if it is effective as a defensive tool. Or even simply meant as a means to make money off some richer-than-brains Arab, Indian or Chinese. Is secondary to whether, having invented the Genie, you will like it when he pops the cork on that bottle without your permission.

There being just way too much 'miniaturized RV' potential in avoiding the creating of 'old fashioned' ballistic technology.


KPl.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ernold Same

Originally posted by Daedalus3
yeah.. but I still don't like the idea that the Eurofighter will "fall" out of the sky if its onboard stabilising computers malfunction


You mean like it very nearly did at RAF fairford 2 weeks ago? very very close, about 15 feet i reckon, dont know if it was plane or pilot error but he came out of a loop towards the ground and only just managed to pull it up using full re-heat, take a look





The pilot did stuff up. He was repremanded but the excellent thrust of the
engines saved the day and his job.







 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join