Heaviest ever Eurofighter Typhoon test configuration flying

They can put external weapon mounts on the Raptor?

I did not know that never seen any external mounts or weapons on one.

On page 82 of the Septemper issue of Jane's Internaitonal Defence Review:

The Typhoon has a simple, wide-track main landing gear, but unlike the Rafale it does not have a high-capacity central stores station, and the inner-wing stations are limited because stores have to clear the landing gear. That issue has escaped some of Eurofighter's publicity artists, who have produced widely used graphics that show the fighter carrying weapons that would clearly block the movement of the gear.

This graphic existed at the official Eurofighter website :



Enlarged version from AFM




[edit on 26-2-2006 by Stealth Spy]

They can put external weapon mounts on the Raptor?

The Raptor already has 4 external hard points and weapon mounts can be added to these hard points with little effort, look at a Raptor’s wing closely and you will see two dark markings, they are the hard points. Each hard point on the Raptor has the capability to carry 5000LB. The Raptor can be loaded with 4 fuel tanks and 8 missiles externally combined with 8 missiles internally.

Edited for inaccuracies.


[edit on 26-2-2006 by WestPoint23]

Surely those bumps are the flap hinges?

I would have thought it more likely that the hardpoint attachments are the four short dark 'dashes' you can see under the wing at roughly mid chord.



[edit on 26-2-2006 by waynos]

You my be right, I’ve never see a Raptor with external weapons on, I do know that it has 4 hard points but where they are is another matter

EDIT: Thanks for the image.

[edit on 26-2-2006 by WestPoint23]

WestPoint23,

>>
The Raptor already has 4 external hard points and weapon mounts can be added to these hard points with little effort, look at a Raptor’s wing closely and you will see two dark markings, they are the hard points. Each hard point on the Raptor has the capability to carry 5000LB.
>>

This is true and the capacity will likely never be used for more than fuel because 'Spiral 1' (equal roughly to Tranche 2 in Flubber speak) which brought all the A2G radar improvements and other 'multirole' changes was cancelled in trade for the guarantee of 183 airframes and 'live line' production capacity retention (they don't have to close down and destroy the tooling) sufficient for Lunchmeat to whore the aircraft to the Japanese.

If they want it, as is. Since the nominal replacement standard is actually for the F-4EJKai and _not_ the Eagle, I don't see why they would.

Either way, if we ever buy another F-22 after 2010, I will be vastly surprised. Military Power For Profit= JSF.

>>
The Raptor can be loaded with 4 fuel tanks and 8 missiles externally combined with 8 missiles internally.
>>

No. Only the inboard tank configuration has been cleared and authorized. If the Raptor were to carry 8 missiles externally with tanks, it would have to be on stub 'ferry mounts' that are folded directly over the tank without a launch rail. To carry fireable weapons is an either-or choice on 600 gallon tanks in a situation not unlike that of AAM carriage on the F/A-18 pylons (a LAU-115 sub adaptor under the pylon and two LAU-128/9 or similar rails attached to the sides for the F-22).

These-
www.arnold.af.mil...
www.arnold.af.mil...
www.afa.org...

Should help illustrate what is being considered. At one time I believe the pod was called 'LODIS'.

Similar experiments in conformal carriage have been carried out under the Have Dash/Have Slick efforts while encapsulation has been applied to weapons like the Harpoon. Another trick is a Spray On RAM which is compatible with most optical seekers such that /not all/ LO is lost to external carriage, even of relatively clunky (rack and rail) systems.

In terms of Flubber to The Kingdom, it would seem to me that any effort to replace the existing Tornado F.3 (solely an air defense asset) would not necessarily be all that hard to justify and indeed it may well be the 'Jewish Lobby' in the U.S. (and the U.S. in Iraq) which makes the Flubber such an easy-out secondary option.

As far as targeting pods my guess would be something more akin to this-

aircraftresourcecenter.com...

Whereby, if you /need to/ the older TIALD could still be made to work (especially with crap weapons like the GBU-16 and CPU-123B). My understanding was always that the German Flubbers which will get LITENING anyway as a function of one of their companies being 'designated Euro distributor' for the Israeli system, much like NorGrumman is here.

Again, being richer than God, as a Saudi, I would take one look at my precious 80 million dollar ant farm and ask how much for a 500 Storm Shadows and integration with the Tornado to go with. But hey, that's just me. There isn't a single grain of ugly in the entire Middle Eastern Sandbox worth dying for, IMO.

I _do_ question the notion of the use of T1 and T2 airframes with 'interim' A2G loads if these aircraft are not in fact intended for that mission (and structurally hardened appropriately). We did this business with the F-16A vs. C and C.40/.50 and it wasn't pretty.

Lastly, I believe those are the 'skinny tanks' of some 1,000l capacity and supersonic capable. Flubber is also cleared (subsonic) for the 1700l tanks from the Tornado (wings only). And at one time, along with the wingroot CFT, they were looking at 'new' (non Hindenburger), 2000l versions. That's roughly 264 (not worth the drag, IMO), 448 (ainh). And 528 (pretty good but I bet drag is a stone beach) gallons respectively on our side of the pond.

Given that the original Flubber internal fuel figures were in the high 9's and they 'now say' that the jet has some 11-12,000lbs of internal gas, I would say that external fuel is going to be a veritable fixture of Flubberizing in the Great Wide Nothin' of Saudi Empty Quarter AFBs. Again, UK Paveway (/any/ Paveway really) is trash in the current IAM era and especially if you want to have an ARMIGER or ALARM for 'keeping their heads down'; I would instead go with AASM on a triple mount as this gives you a 60km standoff (rocket version) and enough aimpoints to be worth the penetration risk in a conventional airframe. Whethe the large TER (and French origined if EADS marketed) wing clearances/total weight is compatible or available for non-Euro sales competition with their Rafale is another question. Tunnel Drag is a real bummer if you start stacking additively outboard, munition after munition necessary to save Flubbers hide from all things wicked it's way comething.


KPl.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
On page 82 of the Septemper issue of Jane's Internaitonal Defence Review:

*snip*



[edit on 26-2-2006 by Stealth Spy]

that article is pure BS - as that aircraft IS flying with a full stores loadout.

Yup, gotta say, if anything, the Typhoon in the photo looks more heavily laden than the one in the 'fake', so hows that work stealth spy?

You're right of course waynos. The forward spots are the hard point connections. You'd never carry a hard point that far back on the wing, as it would kill your ability to lower your flaps, which would be Bad on take off and landing.

Thanks for the reply zaphod. Here is the corrected picture from EADS' PR (as advertised in german Flugrevue (issue march 06) )>> View

Now how cool is this :





[edit on 3-3-2006 by Stealth Spy]

Stealth Spy,

>>
Now how cool is this :
>>

Not so great.

Because it only serves to highlight what should have been (F-16, F/A-18) obvious from the start. That fighters win pilots hearts. Bombers win nation's wars.

How pathetic is it that /knowing/ the nature of air warfare was changing in the what, 15 years that the Typhoon has been a 'going concern' and the 6 years since 'Eurofighter 2000' last had any meaning relative to IOC, team Flubber are still shy of fielding a competent A2A platform (without BVRAAM the Flubber is nothing but a Euro-15).

_And next to nothing_ has been done to make the type capable as a competitor to the JSF which, as the next F-16 wannabe, is the real _'not a Raptor, never meant to be'_ performance point to reach for.

And has been since 1994.

Considering that the French have had no problems showing piles of A2G ordie around /their/ jet.

Considering that the LITENING is more or less plug'n'play, even on jets without a dedicated databus hookup.

Considering that even the Pave Spike/TIALD was what made the RAF look less like chumps for doing the dangerous-to-the-point-of-stupid lolo laydown mission when they 'could be' taking some smart bomb video of their own. In 1991.

Considering that the one firm order for an 'Air Defense' Flubber comes from a nation with strict neutrality laws which prevent it ever attacking another nation.

The best that a /consortia/ (money out the anatomy) can do is artwork and demonstrations _now_ for what is a 30+ year dated concept (500lb LGB dropped on the trail in 1968-69 or so).

Indeed, look at how stupid WE were. Having flown a Pave Spike and a /helmet mounted sight to cue it/ on the YF-16 less than a third of the way through development. Proving the concept of single-seat LGB work in 1978. Having given that capability to the /Pakistanis/ by about 1983.

It then took us another 9 years to get it 'professionally done' with LANTIRN.

So that F-16's dropped dumb iron throughout ODS.

And STILL you didn't get the lesson to be learned before it became an obvious 'after thought'.

About the only realistic things that can be said about this is that the use of gen-before-last smart bombs without even ALARM illustrates:

1. You don't expect to have to kill targets that can shoot back. Thus you don't pretend to penetrate (rollback) a predominantly _S2A threat_ while hauling what must surely be 20+dbsm worth of external /crap/. Which begs Country-X to ignore the blatantly obvious: "Hey, if we don't need more than a truck, we might as well buy the LITENING pod 'direct from manufacturer' and pay the 20 million it takes to integrate it on our F-4 or Su-22 or Mirage F-1'.

2. If Country-X doesn't 'buy American' they wont get 12-15nm standoff JDAM kits. Or 25-30nm standoff SDBs. But will end up paying for a targeting pod 'anyway'. Because Flubber radar doesn't do A2G SAR maps well enough to make it unnecessary.

3. Given the exceptionally close clearances, there is no real way to integrate fuel+multiracks as AASM and GBU-39 _both_ require. Which means not only will you /never/ have DEAD weapons. But you will end up with half to two thirds the loadout of any jet which CAN makes such carriage accomodation, on half the total pylon (tunnel drag etc.) count. Less, if you carry ARMs on a get-me-home basis of keeping the other guys' collective heads down.


CONCLUSION:
Team Flubber is playing catchup. They try and make it 'showy' with separation test (cheap and cheery) painted funny bombs. But all they in fact highlight is the certainty that they don't have an operative Gen-4 _multirole_ warplane any more today than ever.

Especially for essentially conventionally signatured jets, InSAR radar + winged/boosted-IAM (or /at least/ EGBU like the Paveway IV) is the only effective way to sustain a force long enough to win an air war. If you can't 'display' that, then you're still second best to the lead dog. And from that position, the view forward will never change.


KPl.

EXCEPT that the Rafale CANNOT drop any of that wonderful ordnance shown around the aircraft.

The present aircraft have no A2G capability at all - not till next year.

I don't know if you can put external weapons on The Raptor, but I do know that it can be equipped with external fuselage...

Im just wondering why people dont design their missiles to fit into the airplanes body or wings. semi-recessed inside would at least lower your RCS and get rid of some pylons

Like taiwans IDF
external image


Instead of a bigger plane with internal weapons bay why dont they design the wing to fit a recessed missile inside. the control surfaces of a Aim-120 is not that large. There must be a reason here since this i surely wouldn't be the first to notice this(excluding taiwans IDF)

An RAF Tornado F-3 with semi recessed sky flash missiles.

wouldn't this be a lot better than just sticking them on pylons or is it better to have easy access missiles in a high intensity war where you go and and out?

Does this affect the airflow underneath the aircraft?

Originally posted by chinawhite
Im just wondering why people dont design their missiles to fit into the airplanes body or wings. semi-recessed inside would at least lower your RCS and get rid of some pylons

Like taiwans IDF
www.taiwanairpower.org...
forum.keypublishing.co.uk...

Instead of a bigger plane with internal weapons bay why dont they design the wing to fit a recessed missile inside. the control surfaces of a Aim-120 is not that large. There must be a reason here since this i surely wouldn't be the first to notice this(excluding taiwans IDF)

Because it would have a negative influence on the normal flight dynamics when the mounting point is not in use, and it could basically only be made to fit one specific type of missile/ordnance which has the fitting shape and size.

Lonestar, thats not really a problem as I've seen lots of Tornadoes and Phantoms (the F-4 was one of the earliest fighters to use semi recessed weapon carriage) flying without anything in the recess. Also if you are carrying a standard A2A weapon (like everyone does) then you only need to be able to accomodate a single weapon type in these stations, when it came to replacing the weapon it is relatively easy to ensure that the weapon fits the same recess, for example the Meteor fits into the recesses under the Typhoon that currently accomodate AMRAAM's.

Most if not all fuselage weapons are semi-recessed. You can't do that with the wings, or you'd have to have such a fat wing it would hurt a lot more than help. Fighters need to have an almost supercritical wing to keep their manuverability. You'd have to have an almost transport sized wing to make recessed mounting points in the wing.

Harlequin,

>>
EXCEPT that the Rafale CANNOT drop any of that wonderful ordnance shown around the aircraft.
>>

So tell me Harlequin, why is it that the Eurofighter, whose /original/ AST403 requirement was for a _Jaguar_ replacement, cannot 'fight the good fight' as a purely air superiority jet?

Why is it that you are still playing footsie games with the U.S. on the F-35/JCA if you think you've got the cats whiskers? THAT is the kind of question this PRBS express effort tends to beg you know.

Comparitively, the Rafale has always been announced as an 'attack fighter', with the intention of replacing legacy roles in the Mirage F-1, III, Jag and Etendard force. And as such is going to have available for it:

1. Damocles 3rd generation targeting pod.
2. U.S. licensed Paveway compatibility.
3. AASM IAMs.
4. SCALP CMs.
5. AM.40.

When it /does/ 'finally arrive'. With Armiger, NSM/ANF and whole hordes of dumb/rocket weapons only slightly further out.

Indeed, you know as well as anyone that nobody is less than a year away from owning a jet from the time the contract is signed.

But the Rafale is what the Flubber never attempted to be honest about.

And _that_ is where you Team Typhooey ends up in trouble.

Because every one of the latest Gen-4 jets is /late/. By upwards of ten years. And every one is _overpriced_ as a single-role anything. And yet the Rafale, is at least a weapons platform that acknowledges, to some small extent, the realities of it's signature limitations with high rez targeting and standoff PGM.

Indeed, the real irony is that the Rafale, as an RBE2+MICA, sub-50km, 'fighter', is a piece of crap. And so it's penetrating AAW capability is riding on UK shares of AMSAR and Meteor /while it carries/ the A2G loadouts which otherwise compromise it yet further.

>>
The present aircraft have no A2G capability at all - not till next year.
>>

And what's Flubber's excuse? They saw how the F-22 was taken apart based on the NAPFAG communities refusal to put _strike_ ahead of their precious 'Air Dominance' in a jet that never needed to confront the threat directly.

They have had /years/ to start their own IAM program, their own followon to TIALD, their own TTNT setup. To develop a brilliant ARM to replace the compromised ALARM.

Yet they did _nothing_.

Indeed, even as a purely A2A asset, on how many jets is PIRATE/EuroFIRST installed? How many have Meteor?

I admit that /some/ capability, as what we would call a QRC and what the Brits define as UOR, is better than nothing. But that's still a German jet with foreign LGB (service specific, not likely to be exported) and NO organic targeting agency and so frankly, they are doing little more than advertising a vaporware promise.

Indeed, the Swedes pulled the same stunt with LITENING and GBU-10/12/16 having first started flying the LITENING sometime in 2003.

Taken atop an existing capability with Maverick, BK.90 and the RBS-15. AND a high speed datalink system to take handoffs. Plus a 15 million dollar difference in asking price...

All that this demo does is prove that the crate is worthless as a tinfoil tyro until it has operational systems in that reflect more than a 'carriage test photo'.

Flubber needs to get up to speed by buying into some serious munitions upgrades to fulfill the promise offered by a system that was never stated to out-LO the Americans. And which thus relies on _better bullets_ to get the job done.

'Even if it fits' (and IMO, it's not likely given the side-by-side breadth of the munitions on the rack), I doubt seriously if the French will be as forthcoming with their AASM/TER combo as the UK has been pound-foolish in /giving away/ Meteor/AMSAR keys to the Rafale. And you can sure as heck bet that GBU-3x series weapons will never be offered, free for export, if the F-35 is dumped.

Which means that, with Meteor still a minimum 4-6 years more away from letting Flubber 'have something to say about A2A'. You now need to start from scratch making multicarriage small standoff munition that can level buildings for less than the 64 grande that SDB will cost. Along with SAR mapping and/or a high capability LDP to make it work.

And you just don't have the Warbucks Daddy.


KPl.