The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: BAE pitching Typhoon as F-22 eludes
maruben    6/12/2009 6:00:08 PM
Friday, June 12, 2009


BAE pitching Typhoon as F-22 eludes
Europeans make move amid U.S. export ban on stealth fighter


By JUN HONGO
Staff writer
Japan should consider adopting the Eurofighter Typhoon as its next mainstay fighter jet even if the U.S. lifts its ban on exporting the stealthy F-22 Raptor, representatives of a U.K.-based defense and aerospace company said Thursday in Tokyo.

The Air Self-Defense Force is eager to replace about 50 of its aging F-4s with the high-tech F-22 for its agility and high stealth capabilities.





But recent reports indicate Washington is unlikely to sell its latest and greatest airplane to just anyone, while others say the ¥25 billion plane is too expensive.

Andy Latham, BAE System Inc. vice president in charge of Typhoon exports, told reporters that since the Typhoon costs only about ¥10 billion, it presents "an effective non-U.S. solution" with significant benefits for Japan.

The Typhoon, made by a consortium of European manufacturers, is already used by the air forces in Europe. Although export of the F-22 would be strictly controlled to prevent its military technology from falling into the wrong hands, Latham said selling the Typhoon will take a "no black box approach."

The biggest difference between the two planes will be the "ability to offer Japan's industry a significant package of work," he said, explaining that the consortium could allow licensed manufacturing of the fighter in Japan and integration with Japanese equipment.

As for the Typhoon's lack of stealth capability, however, BAE System's Craig Penrice said stealth technology should not be considered an issue.

"Stealth is not the silver bullet answer that some might have you think," the former Royal Air Force pilot said, adding that the Typhoon has overall countermeasures against radar detection, including reduced infrared emissions.

By comparison, stealth is "not cheap, not low maintenance and not fully exportable," he said.

In total, Tokyo is considering six candidates to replace its F-4EJ fighters, including the U.S. F-35, which is still under development.

BAE has been pitching the Typhoon to Japan for years, although Tokyo and Washington have a strong defense alliance that leaves little room for non-U.S. bidders, Latham said.

Despite recent reports indicating the U.S. is unlikely to provide the F-22 to Japan, Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada said Tuesday the fighter "remains an option that will be pursued."

Japan's strong interest in the aircraft is based not only on its capabilities but also on its compatibility with the U.S. Air Force, which the ASDF would work closely with in the event Japan is attacked.

Some observers also say Tokyo is eager to update its aircraft with the most up-to-date fighter available so it can claim air superiority over China, which is continuing to build its military power.

Japan's current mainstay fighter is the U.S.-designed F-15 Eagle.

P-3C patrols start
Kyodo News
A Maritime Self-Defense Force P-3C surveillance plane made its first patrol Thursday over the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden off Somalia, the Defense Ministry said.

The aircraft is one of two P-3Cs dispatched last month on the first overseas mission by MSDF patrol planes. They are supporting the two MSDF destroyers that have been patrolling for pirates in the gulf since late March.

The P-3Cs will gather information on suspicious ships to pass on to the destroyers and the commercial vessels they escort. The information will also be conveyed to navy vessels from other countries operating in the area, according to the ministry.

After arriving in Djibouti late last month, the P-3Cs had been conducting training flights. The aircraft are using the international airport in Djibouti as their operational base.

The destroyers have been escorting Japanese-related commercial vessels.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
Rufus       6/21/2009 4:26:05 PM
"And YF-22 beat out stealthier and faster YF-23 exactly for that reason; better subsonic dogfighting capability."
 
First off, the YF-22 was selected in 1991.  That was more than 18 years ago now. 18 years is a long long time when it comes to military hardware.  HOBS missiles were actually an area where the US was behind the Soviets.  In 1991 we hadn't fully assimilated the implications of those missiles and were a long way from fielding one of our own.  So basically, while the F-22's design demonstrates an exceptional vision for what the future would hold, in some ways it is backward looking.
 
Second off, the F-22 was intended to be the best at everything.  The air force didn't want a fighter with any identifiable weakness.  They wanted the speed, the stealth, electronics, and the maneuverability. It was a smart decision at the time to go with a balanced design because missiles like the AIM-9x were barely on the drawing board and were technologically very aggressive.  Ask yourself this, what makes the F-22 scary to an opponent?  If an opponent had a magic wand to degrade ONE of the following to an F-4's equivelant level, which would they take away? The F-22's speed, stealth, or maneuverability?  (Obviously it would be its stealth first, its speed second, and its maneuverability third.)
 
Third, it is simplistic to say the YF-22 was chosen over the "stealthier and faster YF-23."  There were a lot of considerations that went into that decision and not all of them are public.  Part of the answer is that the F-22 was more than fast and stealthy enough to get the job done and there was little need to push things farther.  There are cost and technological maturity concerns that needed be balanced with performance.
 
"not as fast as Typhoon"
 
Lets suppose the Typhoon is "faster"...
 
So what?
 
That is what you don't seem to be getting.  It doesn't matter if the Eurofighter is marginally faster than the F-35.  Neither is going to hit their maximum speed under combat conditions and a slightly higher top speed isn't really much of an advantage.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/21/2009 9:37:18 PM
""The Serbs fired over 700 SAM's at Coalition aircraft in Operation Allied Force and managed to shoot down 1x F-16 and 1x F-117.""
 
They also downed a French M2000 (the two pilots survived the war)
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/21/2009 9:50:15 PM
Rufus :
""That is what you don't seem to be getting.  It doesn't matter if the Eurofighter is marginally faster than the F-35.  Neither is going to hit their maximum speed under combat conditions and a slightly higher top speed isn't really much of an advantage.""
 
This is BS . The Typhoon has a 720km/h advantage (!)  This is ENORMOUS .
Under combat conditions , how many times fighters reached and went beyond their limited speed ? Countless times .
A Typhoon making a Mach 2.2 dash @30.000 and firing a salvo of Meteors @ 120km is as deadly as you can get .
Same with Rafale (Mach 2.0) ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

SlowMan       6/21/2009 9:52:00 PM
@ Rufus

> It doesn't matter if the Eurofighter is marginally faster than the F-35.  Neither is going to hit their maximum speed under combat conditions

Typhoon's combat speed is supersonic of at least Mach 1.2 with four AMRAAMs. F-35's combat speed is subsonic.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/21/2009 10:07:12 PM

""That is what you don't seem to be getting.  It doesn't matter if the Eurofighter is marginally faster than the F-35.  Neither is going to hit their maximum speed under combat conditions and a slightly higher top speed isn't really much of an advantage.""


This is BS . The Typhoon has a 720km/h advantage (!)  This is ENORMOUS .

Under combat conditions , how many times fighters reached and went beyond their limited speed ? Countless times .

A Typhoon making a Mach 2.2 dash @30.000 and firing a salvo of Meteors @ 120km is as deadly as you can get .
Same with Rafale (Mach 2.0) ...

 
Once again you certainly appear to be repetitiously wrong.  You've been corrected on this point several times, yet can not learn.
 
But before I can be sure , first I need to know what do you mean by "limited"?  It is unclear to me from your sentence as currently written as to what speed you are referring to.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Something for WP to illustrate what I mean about people who don't know what they discuss.   6/21/2009 10:12:38 PM

Rufus :


""That is what you don't seem to be getting.  It doesn't matter if the Eurofighter is marginally faster than the F-35.  Neither is going to hit their maximum speed under combat conditions and a slightly higher top speed isn't really much of an advantage.""

 

This is BS . The Typhoon has a 720km/h advantage (!)  This is ENORMOUS .


Under combat conditions , how many times fighters reached and went beyond their limited speed ? Countless times .

A Typhoon making a Mach 2.2 dash @30.000 and firing a salvo of Meteors @ 120km is as deadly as you can get .


Same with Rafale (Mach 2.0) ...

 

Cheers .



Typhoon.
 
 
 
Rafale
 

 
Sparky
 

 
all conformed to about the same combat radius.
 
Which one does not have the parasitic drag limiting them to < Mach 1 in a turn? Which  one has the most acceleration delta? 
 
Hmmmmmmm?
 
BW as always you make me laugh at your latest demonstration of fantasy.
 
Its at 5th grade comprehension level, WP. Its what you said you wanted.
 
Hints are the TTW ratio, the number of the draggy things that break up smooth airflow over the aeroshell and the SIZE of the thrusters.
 
Herald
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/21/2009 10:34:40 PM
Warpig , by "limited" I mean MAX speed , sorry . It doesn 't change my previous post .
 
Herald :
""(1)Which one does not have the parasitic drag limiting them to < Mach 1 in a turn? (2)Which  one has the most acceleration delta?""
-1) the F-35
-2) the Typhoon
 
Don 't play this game with me Herald or I send you back to Google as I did before . 
We are not talking about the F-22 but about the F-35 . Don 't start your crap again on a non-existing aircraft who has less than 5% of the flights tests completed , thank you . Moreover , as it stands the thing is a dog .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/21/2009 10:49:10 PM
Sorry gentlemen , I mistyped something :-(
I said :
""Herald :
""(1)Which one does not have the parasitic drag limiting them to < Mach 1 in a turn? (2)Which  one has the most acceleration delta?""
-1) the F-35
-2) the Typhoon""
 
READ :
-1) the Typhoon and the Rafale
-2) the Typhoon .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/21/2009 11:02:34 PM
Herald , ask a F-35 pilot (if you know one) to do the following thing :
(internal fuel only , 4 externals Micas for the Rafale , 4 internals missiles for the F-35)
 
Start with a Mach 1.2 dash @5000ft (hehe) , then do a constant 360deg 6g turn twice (2 turns) while climbing to reach 10000ft (climbing spiral in AB) and end up with a speed of at least Mach 0.9 .
If the F-35 can do it , I eat my hat .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    PARASITIC DRAG   6/21/2009 11:12:18 PM

Sorry gentlemen , I mistyped something :-(

I said :

""Herald :
""(1)Which one does not have the parasitic drag limiting them to < Mach 1 in a turn? (2)Which  one has the most acceleration delta?""

-1) the F-35

-2) the Typhoon""

 

READ :

-1) the Typhoon and the Rafale


-2) the Typhoon .

 

Cheers .



 
Anything that robs you of lift and slipperiness in the case of an aircraft. I just demonstrated how ignorant you are of physics and of basic facts poster. Nice of you to participate in the proof, as I knew you would. Next time why don't you educate yourself before you post something that indicates just how limited your understanding of basic aeronautics is.
 
It will male you look a lot less foolish than you really are.
 
Herald
 

 
Quote    Reply

Plague 043    I get it Herald. why doesnt BW?   6/21/2009 11:40:25 PM

I have read this board for over a year but never felt compelled to post anything. I have no aviation background but i pride myself on attempting to learn when there are others with obvious knowledge in the field who post relevant information. what Herald wrote about parasitic drag was simple and easily understood by a novice such as myself. the way BW casually dismisses FACTS such as how draggy missles and pylons will limit speed calls into question his expertise in anyting aviation related.  

 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/22/2009 12:00:16 AM

""That is what you don't seem to be getting.  It doesn't matter if the Eurofighter is marginally faster than the F-35.  Neither is going to hit their maximum speed under combat conditions and a slightly higher top speed isn't really much of an advantage.""


This is BS . The Typhoon has a 720km/h advantage (!)  This is ENORMOUS .

Under combat conditions , how many times fighters reached and went beyond their limited speed ? Countless times .

A Typhoon making a Mach 2.2 dash @30.000 and firing a salvo of Meteors @ 120km is as deadly as you can get .

Same with Rafale (Mach 2.0) ...


 
Okay, you said "limited" means "maximum."  Aside from the semantic difficulty I still have with what "maximum" means if fighters have exceeded it countless times, I contend you can not find a single example of any fighter having ever actually engaged in combat at anything over about M1.3 at the time of firing on the enemy.  Even if there are a couple examples of actually engaging at higher speeds than that, all supersonic fights in total represent only a tiny fraction of one percent of all aerial combat by fighters capable of supersonic flight thus far.  Rapid acceleration due to massive thrust from big engines in full afterburner is certainly important at times, but top speed is not.  Since even merely being able to reach M1.3 is statistically meaningless during actual air combat with respect to fighters up through 4th Gen jets, the ability to theoretically reach speeds like M2+ is even less relevent to actual combat when discussing fighters up through 4th Gen jets.  As Rufus and many others (including myself) have pointed out many times, this is not particularly true due to traveling at M2.0 being somehow undesirable (although obviously there are times when speed above your corner velocity or causing overshoot is bad during dog-fighting).  Rather, it's mostly true because of the inherent disadvantage of the massive fuel consumption during the couple minutes in full afterburner it takes to attain maximum speed, and then while maintaining such high speed.
 
All that remains is making some sort of opinion judgement about fighters like EF, Rafale, F-35, and F-22.  First off, the first three may be able in selected scenarios be able to take advantage of performance gains over previous jets to enable them to somewhat more often (as in "occasionally" as opposed to "rarely if ever") take advantage of transonic speeds while actually in combat.  However, it is only the F-22 that will be able to routinely fight at transonic speeds, and in fact even frequently attain speeds in the M1.5+ range during combat.  About the only other armed aircraft that's ever been able to claim that (as I've said before) is the MiG-25/31 family of straight-line lead sled interceptors (not that they've ever actually shown it during combat, either).
"Neither is going to hit their maximum speed under combat conditions and a slightly higher top speed isn't really much of an advantage."  Rufus' comment (and Rufus is **obviously** speaking from a position of knowledge, based on the way he writes) is right on target.  It is not an absolute, never-can-happen statement, it is just an acknowledgement of how rare even just transonic combat is, statistically speaking, and will still remain so even for 4+ Gen fighters.  The bottom line is it just burns too much gas for whatever extra advantage it may provide in selected circumstances for it to become a common tactic for any current front-line fighter other than the F-22.
 
 
Quote    Reply

locutus    Turn & Climb Question   6/22/2009 5:36:47 AM

Start with a Mach 1.2 dash @5000ft (hehe) , then do a constant 360deg 6g turn twice (2 turns) while climbing to reach 10000ft (climbing spiral in AB) and end up with a speed of at least Mach 0.9 .

If the F-35 can do it , I eat my hat .


 

Cheers .
 
If you are in the turn BW describes wouldn't the wings be vertical?  If so, how do the wings provide the lift in order to climb from 5k to 10K?



 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/22/2009 9:16:45 AM



Start with a Mach 1.2 dash @5000ft (hehe) , then do a constant 360deg 6g turn twice (2 turns) while climbing to reach 10000ft (climbing spiral in AB) and end up with a speed of at least Mach 0.9 .



If the F-35 can do it , I eat my hat .






 




Cheers .

 

If you are in the turn BW describes wouldn't the wings be vertical?  If so, how do the wings provide the lift in order to climb from 5k to 10K?











What wings?
 
At the loaded condition described (CREF above) if the radius of the circle is small enough to......RIP. 
 
The bank should see a Rafale fall out of control and lose airspeed after the Rafale loses the down wing lift, if its lucky. Otherwise the plane simply comes apart and the crew DIES.
 
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/22/2009 7:13:57 PM
Herald :
""The bank should see a Rafale fall out of control and lose airspeed after the Rafale loses the down wing lift, if its lucky. Otherwise the plane simply comes apart and the crew DIES.""
 
Oh really ? Herald the Rafale can 't fall out of control , it never did even during the harshest tests , then the rafale does not come apart when it does a 6g turn at Mach 1.2 , are you mad or what ???
I re-post what I 've said , you re-read it and you do your maths again .
 
""Start with a Mach 1.2 dash @5000ft (hehe) , then do a constant 360deg 6g turn twice (2 turns) while climbing to reach 10000ft (climbing spiral in AB) and end up with a speed of at least Mach 0.9 .
If the F-35 can do it , I eat my hat .""
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy