No JSF - The alternatives

The Typhoon was specifically designed as a 'bomb truck' as one of the aircraft it was always designed to replace was the Jaguar.

I imagine the reason why Storm Shadow isn't cleared yet despite being carried for a couple of years is down to financial cash - it can clearly lift the things so firing them shouldn't be a major issue once they're cleared. As I said, work has begun with the RAF to get Storm Shadow cleared, along with Brimstone and Spear with hopes to have them in service this year. Why would the RAF waste scarce money clearing weapons if they weren't going to be able to fire them without an aircraft upgrade which none of their aircraft currently have?

Why, in your opinion, would modifications to make an aircraft more maneuverable be needed to launch a cruise missile? It's hardly a dogfight weapon...

I've never said that Rafale should be taken lightly, only that the Typhoon was considered by professionals who's opinion I've read to be better at air-to-air. They also currently consider Rafale to be the better ground attack option although closer to its limits than the Typhoon is as things stand.
 
The Typhoon was specifically designed as a 'bomb truck' as one of the aircraft it was always designed to replace was the Jaguar.

No, it wasn't. While its genesis may partially have come from a requirement for a Jaguar replacement the designs that emphasised the bomb-truck requirement were largely depreciated by the late 70's. The final design was always intended to be multi-role, but the foremost requirement was for an air superiority fighter and that was the aspect of the design that took precedence. That it hasn't met its development potential is a political problem, not due to an inherent issue with the design.
 
As for Solenzara and Typhoon versus Rafale I would let people make their own mind, it's not an Aviation forum ! I'll just say that the Rafale should not be took lightly in Air-to-Air.
On the other hand, the story behind the aerodynamic modification kit is totaly different than the "PR bullshit" we get from Airbus and BAE. You never modify the aerodynamic of a plane unless it's not performing good enough. In this case, the eurofighter can't shoot heavy load (ie : Storm Shadow). As you said Typhoon has been flying with Storm Shadow since 2013 and 2 years later it can't use it... :rolleyes: The EF was never means to be a bomb truck and that why it really need those CFT.

Back to the topic, if the F35 is canceled as of today. The Navy would happily go for more F18 and Growlers. The Airforce would not know what to do ( restarting the F22 could be an option but it would be as expensive as the freshly cut F35) . And then the Corps would probably cry and roll on the ground...

The F15 was never meant to be a bomb truck

The F4 Phantom II was never meant to be a bomb truck

It seems that if you build a good fighter plane then you already have a good bomb truck!

The USMC is already forging ahead and using the F35B and from what Ive read and heard the RN/RAF has jumped aboard this initiative

It Harrier II fleet is knackared and the F35 in its unfinished state is already more capable than Harrier II - Flies Faster, Flies Further, Eaiser to land, carries more bombs etc and apparently they can actually get spares for it, (which is nice) and allegidly its easier to service

Had F35B been cancelled then BAe/McDD would probably have forged ahead with Harrier III - which would be a larger Harrier II PLUS with a larger more powerful Version of the RR Pegasus, partially folding wings (allowing it to operate on the same vessels Harrer II currunetly does) and using the planned auto landing cycle improvements that would have been added to the Harrier II fleet.

So APG 73 / VIXEN radared up and day night all weather capable

It would have a similiar performance as F35 'except' it would have remained a Subsonic aircraft with little or no stealth characteristics

Huh :( - why didn't they just do that :confused:
 
So....the F-35B is actually proving worthwhile?


You know I've had a sneaking suspicion that the F-35 will turn out somewhat acceptable at some point and then turn out great after some upgrades and that a lot of people will look very stupid when it turns out it actually works.


But fear not naysayers the LCS is still fair game.:p
 
The Typhoon was specifically designed as a 'bomb truck' as one of the aircraft it was always designed to replace was the Jaguar.

I imagine the reason why Storm Shadow isn't cleared yet despite being carried for a couple of years is down to financial cash - it can clearly lift the things so firing them shouldn't be a major issue once they're cleared. As I said, work has begun with the RAF to get Storm Shadow cleared, along with Brimstone and Spear with hopes to have them in service this year. Why would the RAF waste scarce money clearing weapons if they weren't going to be able to fire them without an aircraft upgrade which none of their aircraft currently have?

Why, in your opinion, would modifications to make an aircraft more maneuverable be needed to launch a cruise missile? It's hardly a dogfight weapon...

I've never said that Rafale should be taken lightly, only that the Typhoon was considered by professionals who's opinion I've read to be better at air-to-air. They also currently consider Rafale to be the better ground attack option although closer to its limits than the Typhoon is as things stand.

Lifting something does not mean you can fire it ! Firing anything from a plane take hundred hours of engineer work. It's not cheap by any means ! While flying something fixed is much easier and also cheaper.
Now, the Typhoon even if it had to replace the Jaguar, was suppose to shoot russian bomber over the north sea. And I'm sure it can do that just fine. But it'll never be a good bomber and the possible grow is very limited. Mostly because the way the landing gear is. And that's why CFT are considered.

In my opinion when you fire something heavy from a flying platform, the sudden loose of balance caused by the disappearance of 1300 kilos ( a Storm Shadow) will treaten the integrity of the plane. ;)
The AMK modification are there to help the plane recover balance after firing a Storm Shadow in asymmetrical configuration... That's it.

As for the opinion of your professionals versus the one of my professionals it's an endless debate ! :D When it's come to Rafale limits in Air-to-Ground, the French Air Force and the DGA have a clear pace of what they want to improve and how they are going to do it, contrary to the Eurofighter team who seems they can't make up their mind on anything...

- A new targeting pod by Thales is coming for 2018.
- A low collateral damage weapon is going to be integrated ( something like the BLU 126 ).
- Newer version of the AASM hammer are being developped by SAGEM.
- There is work on new Air to Ground radar mode thank's to the AESA radar.
- The GBU 24 is being integrated.
Not to bad for a plane who lacks room to grow... :eek:
 
Had F35B been cancelled then BAe/McDD would probably have forged ahead with Harrier III - which would be a larger Harrier II PLUS with a larger more powerful Version of the RR Pegasus, partially folding wings (allowing it to operate on the same vessels Harrer II currunetly does) and using the planned auto landing cycle improvements that would have been added to the Harrier II fleet.

So APG 73 / VIXEN radared up and day night all weather capable

It would have a similiar performance as F35 'except' it would have remained a Subsonic aircraft with little or no stealth characteristics
I think that a Harrier III requirement would demand some stealth characteristics, but maybe more 4.5+ generation than 5th. I can't help thinking that it would end up looking a fair bit like the X-32.
 
Lifting something does not mean you can fire it ! Firing anything from a plane take hundred hours of engineer work. It's not cheap by any means ! While flying something fixed is much easier and also cheaper.
Now, the Typhoon even if it had to replace the Jaguar, was suppose to shoot russian bomber over the north sea. And I'm sure it can do that just fine. But it'll never be a good bomber and the possible grow is very limited. Mostly because the way the landing gear is. And that's why CFT are considered.

Again - right now Typhoon in the RAF is not required to be a Bomb truck - they have Tornado GR4 for that sort of thing

And as for not being a good bomber - you might want to chat to the RAF, Italian, Spanish and German Airforce as they are planning on upgrading to do just this and the RAF is using it to replace Tornado GR4 in the mud moving role by 2020 wen the 'Tonka' gets Retired.


In my opinion when you fire something heavy from a flying platform, the sudden loose of balance caused by the disappearance of 1300 kilos ( a Storm Shadow) will treaten the integrity of the plane. ;)
The AMK modification are there to help the plane recover balance after firing a Storm Shadow in asymmetrical configuration... That's it.

Typhoon dropped Paveway IIs over Libya without falling out of the sky

As for the opinion of your professionals versus the one of my professionals it's an endless debate ! :D When it's come to Rafale limits in Air-to-Ground, the French Air Force and the DGA have a clear pace of what they want to improve and how they are going to do it, contrary to the Eurofighter team who seems they can't make up their mind on anything...

- A new targeting pod by Thales is coming for 2018.
- A low collateral damage weapon is going to be integrated ( something like the BLU 126 ).
- Newer version of the AASM hammer are being developped by SAGEM.
- There is work on new Air to Ground radar mode thank's to the AESA radar.
- The GBU 24 is being integrated.
Not to bad for a plane who lacks room to grow... :eek:

I like the Raf - its a good plane - Im certainly not in the Raf Bashing crowd

But the reasons Typhoon cannot do some of the things it was intended to do are political decisions (such as the delay to the new radar - not that it has a bad existing radar) not aircraft design/capability ones.

There has been a road map to get those capabilities - in that it is no different to other modern Aircraft be they Tiff, Raf or Grip
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
But aren't pilots simply better at most things than drones that a fighter or bomb truck would be doing?

Well considering the costs of a manned aircraft compared to a drone it gets lopsided as technology progresses in the favor of drones. Along with the progression of technology and science include experience in building and designing drones they will improve.

I forgot and I am not sure...what was the drone version of the US jet (F-15?) that went through 2 times the gs a manned version would. From that example you start seeing things that would require inhuman qualities to survive going through that for many periods of time, which can only be reached if we go to sci-fi or hard science or possible human argumentation.

Today's drones are inferior to manned platforms. That is mainly because they were designed to be pure observation platforms until someone decided to hang a weapon on them (exactly the same thing that happened with manned aircraft at the start of WWI). THere are some serious efforts that need to be made to improve the "A.I."/threat assessment software before a drone can become a valid replacement for manned platforms, but the requirement are achievable.

As noted by DT, unmanned platforms have the potential to perform at levels that would, quite literally, kill a human seated in the platform. You could design a drone platform that could out turn all current AAM once the human is removed from the seat.

The difficulty is, at the decision making levels, both military AND civilian (the Senate Chair of Armed Services is a retired fighter pilot), there is serious opposition to removing the man from the seat. This is understandable given the remarkable skill set required to fly a modern fighter, a skill set that generates understandable pride among those select few who possess it. It is an oversimplification to say that the Fighter Elite don't want their status as Single Combat Knights supplanted by people with mad video game skills, but the charge has an element of truth.

Between that and normal reluctance to change established methods and techniques, the drone is being held back, not stopped, just delayed. High performance UAV WILL happen. Once they do, they will dominate the battlespace. The question is if the U.S. will lead or have to play catch-up while losing fine, brave & exceptional men and women in the process.

F-22 to the USAF and F-15Se relegated to the Reserves? What about B-52 or B-1 missile trucks? B-1s and B-52s with stealth drones operated by the mother craft far ahead in the thick of things with secure data links for target acquisition?

There really would be no need to regulate the Silent Eagle to the Reserves. It would be capable of performing about 85% of the F-35 mission, with the gap filled by F-22 and or F/A-22B (a version of the Raptor optimized for attack). It would replace current F-15 airframes on either a 1-for-1 basis or a 1.25-for-1 basis (to rebuild the F-15 force to earlier levels).

There is definitely a place for stealth drones to operate as sensor platforms in highly denied airspace where even the B-2 (and its projected replacement, the Long Range Manned Bomber) would be vulnerable coupled with advanced stealth cruise and/or hyper-velocity stand-off weapons. I would, however, question the entire idea of the B-2 replacement being a manned platform. Even more than in the air combat role, the deep penetration mission simply screams for unmanned platforms.
 
Now, the Typhoon even if it had to replace the Jaguar, was suppose to shoot russian bomber over the north sea. And I'm sure it can do that just fine. But it'll never be a good bomber and the possible grow is very limited. Mostly because the way the landing gear is. And that's why CFT are considered.

Ah, a replacement for the famous interceptor version of the Jag...

In my opinion when you fire something heavy from a flying platform, the sudden loose of balance caused by the disappearance of 1300 kilos ( a Storm Shadow) will treaten the integrity of the plane. ;)
The AMK modification are there to help the plane recover balance after firing a Storm Shadow in asymmetrical configuration... That's it.

I just did some googling. The first live release of Storm Shadow from Typhoon was carried out in 2014. Do feel free to explain how a mod that's not currently fitted to any production aircraft is there because it's physically impossible to fire a Storm Shadow without it though...
 
I just did some googling. The first live release of Storm Shadow from Typhoon was carried out in 2014. Do feel free to explain how a mod that's not currently fitted to any production aircraft is there because it's physically impossible to fire a Storm Shadow without it though...
That Storm Shadow and AMK are being trialed on seperate development aircraft (IPA2 and IPA7 respectively) would seem to inducate a flaw in the claim that AMK is required for Storm Shadow integration.
 
Ah, a replacement for the famous interceptor version of the Jag...



I just did some googling. The first live release of Storm Shadow from Typhoon was carried out in 2014. Do feel free to explain how a mod that's not currently fitted to any production aircraft is there because it's physically impossible to fire a Storm Shadow without it though...

Sorry I was not precise enough, the aerodynamic modification kit is not mandatory to just drop a Storm Shadow. But it's much more safe with it. The Eurofighter can't actually fire the Storm Shadow in his full flight envelope. But it should be able to do it with the AMK.

As for being a good bomber, I'll explain it differently...The Typhoon is like a mirage 2000, it can't go strike far without his droptank. But if it has droptank it can't have more than 1 heavy weapon. The biggest difference with the rafale lay in the number of hard/wet point. That's it. :)

 
I would, however, question the entire idea of the B-2 replacement being a manned platform. Even more than in the air combat role, the deep penetration mission simply screams for unmanned platforms.
I'm not sure that's politically feasable, optionally manned for sure, but if the thing is ever to fufill its role as a strategic bomber and deploy strategic weapons, well I don't see people trusting a drone for that mission for quite some time
 
Top