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.

 

3D TVC for the Eurofighter, will it happen?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by waynos
The Typhoon is the first service aircraft in the world with a built in self diagnostic system which monitors every aspect of it and predicts failure, so you are quite wrong.


But not the only one, and in all fairness to the other member the F-35 will have a similar system.


But this where the anti-blair is falling down in his argument Westy; the Lightning is still almost a decade away from service, the first fully representative F-35 has still not been built yet, therefore these capabilities are NOT avaible to anyone, Typhoon is in service with four air forces right now with a fifth about to recieve its first aircraft, there's quite a difference there.

Besides he distinctly claimed this facility was not a feature on the Typhoon where in fact the Typhoon introduced self diagnostics into service, I never claimed it was unique.

Also anti Blair;


Yes, however I was only referring to it theoretically. But I know that even if they produced it, no one would buy it, just like no one bought the Rafale.


So why refer to it at all? Do you think that when the Typhoon was designed BAE and EADS just stopped work and did no further designs themselves? I even know of a Typhoon replacement that was designed by BAE five years before the Typhoon had flown, this too was only theoretical, it is the nature of design that teams are always looking forward to the next stage.

As for UCAV's, yes they are coming, the RAF is replacing the Tornado with them and the USAF is also having its own. Prototypes are already flying. They are LESS expensive to operate over a 20+ year life cycle than a conventional manned aircraft, not more, and that is a very compelling reason to get them for any nation on a restricted budget.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by waynos]




posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
But this where the anti-blair is falling down in his argument Westy; the Lightning is still almost a decade away from service, the first fully representative F-35 has still not been built yet, therefore these capabilities are NOT avaible to anyone, Typhoon is in service with four air forces right now with a fifth about to recieve its first aircraft, there's quite a difference there.


True, the first F-35B (STOVL) operational airframe is being assembled by Lockheed Martin and is scheduled to fly in February 2008. The first F-35A (CTOL) will follow in August 2008, and the first F-35C (CV) is scheduled for flight in January 2009. A total of 23 test aircraft are scheduled to be built for various purposes (15 flight, 7 non-flight, 1 radar signature). The F-35B will reach IOC with the USMC in 2011, F-35C with the USN in 2013 and the F-35A with the USAF in 2011.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   


So why refer to it at all? Do you think that when the Typhoon was designed BAE and EADS just stopped work and did no further designs themselves? I even know of a Typhoon replacement that was designed by BAE five years before the Typhoon had flown, this too was only theoretical, it is the nature of design that teams are always looking forward to the next stage.

You've answered the question you asked. You need to realise that whether Dassault will produce that plane or not, I mentioned it to be fair.



As for UCAV's, yes they are coming, the RAF is replacing the Tornado with them

Wrong, the replacement of the Tornado is the F-35B. Linky:

www.globalsecurity.org...



The Marine Corps, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force need and want a short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, dubbed the F-35B. The Marines want new aircraft to replace their AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets. The British want to replace Sea Harriers and GR7 Tornado fighters.


The Tornado GR is not a fighter but a bomber, but that's irrelevant, I have disproved you.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The man's taking on waynos in an aircraft thread...

Should be a good read...



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   


you've answered the question you asked. You need to realise that whether Dassault will produce that plane or not, I mentioned it to be fair.


No I didn't. You responded to the point that the Typhoon is better than the Rafale by pointing out that France was already designing its replacement. So what? So are we. By raising this you are only muddying the waters, its irrelevant.

Whether an as yet non existant French plane will be better than an equally non existant rival is just a silly argument.



Wrong, the replacement of the Tornado is the F-35B. Linky:

No. the Tornado is currently looking as if it will have to soldier on, probably until at least 2022, which the RAF is very unhappy about as it is felt that the type will no longer be viable beyond 2014.

The Lightning (F-35B) is being ordered to replace the Harrier GR.9 and Sea Harrier FA.2. The RAF is only considering operating *some* of its Lightnings in place of Tornadoes after this date in high risk environments as a stop gap measure pending the advent of its proper replacement in the following decade. The RAF is currently in favour of dividing up the offensive role currently served by the Tornado between UCAV's, Typhoons, Lightnings and large aircraft carrying cruise missiles (ranging from the C-17 to the Nimrod MRA.4). This is the reverse of the policy which saw the Tornado replace both large and small bombers when it was introduced in 1982.



The Tornado GR is not a fighter but a bomber, but that's irrelevant, I have disproved you.


No you havent, despite your touching devotion to globalsecurity.org. The F-35B Lighting is not a fighter either actually. I will accept you are right just as soon as you show me one of these 'GR7 Tornadoes' that the Lightning is supposed to be replacing.


ps, if you have proven me wrong that this means that even the RAF doesn't really know why it is getting the F-35


www.raf.mod.uk...



Roles
* Air Interdiction (AI). Low- or medium-level attacks using precision-guided, freefall or retarded bombs.
* Close Air Support (CAS). Air action against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces.
* Fleet Defence. Aerial patrols over ships to protect them from enemy attack.

ArmamentWeapons loads currently used by Harriers (i.e Paveway and Maverick missiles against ground targets and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles) are likely options.


Note, only *fleet* air defence, strictly not where the Typhoon is available.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
Wow, what a weak engine... the thrust is just 20250 lbs. Compare that "engine" to the propulsion system of the F-35 (it's thrust is 40000 lbs). Linky: www.globalsecurity.org...


That show how Brits are dying for F-35 with its beauty F135 engine.


Personally, I'm against the struggle of technologies transfer because Brits does have rights to soverigneity of its jets. I don't think its right that American government resist the transfer because that show how much Pentagon itself wants the more control. Its not right. I know F-35's computer systems are too beautiful for you, Generals of Pentagon, to let it go....



Oh, did I felt that typical temper of those Generals like....


[edit on 26-12-2006 by OneMyrmidon]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I quote from Airforces Monthly June 2006 pg36 :'Liberal MP Dennis Jensen has warned that the F-35 will be unable to maintain air combat dominance, calling it a "second tier bomb truck" that lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the Flankers, never mind future aircraft that proliferate and questioning weather "we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft incapable of mixing it with the threat'. Dr Jensen's concerns are said to be shared by another Liberal MP, David Fawcett, who was commander of the Defence Force's flight test and evaluation center before entering politics.

The Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 Lightning2 makes sense in the USAF context, as part of a two-aircraft solution with the F-22, but I view the F-35 as a bomb truck, it's not an multi-role aircraft

As for the Typhoon I think it's more then capable of defeating the F-35 in BVR and WVR



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
The F-35 will be superior(performance wise) to the F-16s and F-18s it's replacing in the A2A, and A2G roles, and be stealthy, and have excellent avionics. It's much more than a bomb truck. It should handle Flankers and other threats just fine.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
The F-35 will be superior(performance wise) to the F-16s and F-18s it's replacing in the A2A, and A2G roles, and be stealthy, and have excellent avionics. It's much more than a bomb truck. It should handle Flankers and other threats just fine.


No, variants such as the Su-30 MKM and MKI toast an F-15, and I feel an F-15 is superior to an F-35 because it was based on the emphasis of preformance not stealth.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by Foxtrot97]



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Why would an F-35 fight a Flanker in WVR? Not to say that an F-35 is helpless in WVR but I fear for Britain it's that's how your MP's envision future air doctrine.


Originally posted by Foxtrot97
I view the F-35 as a bomb truck, it's not an multi-role aircraft.


Nothing we can do about that except say that the F-35 is indeed very much a multi role aircraft, like the F-16.


Originally posted by Foxtrot97
As for the Typhoon I think it's more then capable of defeating the F-35 in BVR and WVR


Your opinion is noted.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join