Best RAF fighter jet in 2003 ?? Some info please

[rabby]

I'd like to bet they had one of those Campbell bastards in Recce troop. He probably led the English in and while they were all fighting, sneaked off with a sheep or 3 into the gloamin.

Oi! We're Scots, not Welsh!

[voodoo sprout]

Oi! We're Scots, not Welsh!

OK ok, cows then. Happy? Good (disgusting boy you!)

And the English didn't find Culloden, they were in fact heading for France but ended up there by mistake, and decided to settle down for a c@#t those nasty natives came along .

[may18]

On the eurofighter

the MOD puts the cost at £18.6 billion.

thats 80M per aircraft

for that cost we could have bought 232 F-22

bloody expensive for 2nd best imho

[Dmanton300]

On the eurofighter

the MOD puts the cost at £18.6 billion.

thats 80M per aircraft

for that cost we could have bought 232 F-22

bloody expensive for 2nd best imho

Don't confuse total programme cost divided by amount of aircraft purchased with the basic fly-away cost of the aircraft May. Sure we could've bought 232 F-22 for that sum of money, but you'd have to add a few billion on top of that in programme costs to integrate the aircraft. Those costs are irrecoverable. I think when you amortise the development costs of the Typhoon over the likely production run of the aircraft (currently still standing at 620 for the partner nations + 18 for Austria - I'll leave Greece's still apparantly firm intent for 60 or so out of it) you end up with something far cheaper than £80m per A/C - indeed the figure I've seen quoted a raw cost per airframe is somewhere nearer £46-50m for a tranche-1 airframe.
Now amortise the programme costs of the F-22 over it's rapidly dwindling production run (down from the initial 650 to something in the region of 275 with further cuts to under 200 a distinct possibility) and you rapidly end up with something that is so expensive per airframe in *programme* costs that the term "silver bullet" hardly seems appropriate. Sure you could use the argument that we wouldn't be paying the production costs (tho' if you think our flyaway price would be as cheap as the USAF's I think you're sadly mistaken), but we have already invested heavily in the development of Typhoon, and we wouldn't get that money back.
I think we should steer away from terms such as "second best" , and concentrate on it's capabilities in terms of it's likely adversaries rather than small production rate, big ticket items like Raptor. For the price of the Raptor I'd be shocked and horrified if it didn't run rings around anything else out there. But I think you'll find well flown Typhoons with Meteor will be giving the F-22 at least a fair run for their money in exercises in years to come - it won't be a Turkey shoot for certain! Here's hoping that Tranche-3 with AMSAR, Meteor and EJ-230 ( leave TVC out of that - I think it's a red herring) gets to the squadrons. . . .

[may18]

trouble is though (correct me if im wrong)

the range is poor, its non stealth, and its strike capabilities are very questionable, basically the RAF who have had extra software to enable an a t g role, but its not exactly what the plane was designed for (its a cold war interceptor). It cant supercruise without reheat, and as the f-22 can launch from 100 miles away, it would be downed before it even saw the f-22.


Main gripe btw, is the pathetic range, i guess its because it was origonally envisioned as a short range interceptor?..for the cold war scenarios

[Dmanton300]

trouble is though (correct me if im wrong)

the range is poor, its non stealth, and its strike capabilities are very questionable, basically the RAF who have had extra software to enable an a t g role, but its not exactly what the plane was designed for (its a cold war interceptor). It cant supercruise without reheat, and as the f-22 can launch from 100 miles away, it would be downed before it even saw the f-22.


Main gripe btw, is the pathetic range, i guess its because it was origonally envisioned as a short range interceptor?..for the cold war scenarios

Seems that figures for the Typhhon are pretty readily available, inclusing all important mission profile:-

Ground attack : lo-lo-lo 325 nm (601 km)
Ground attack : hi-lo-hi 750 nm (1389 km)
Air combat : 10 minute loiter at dest. 750 nm (1389 km)
Air combat : 3 hour CAP 100 nm (185 km)
Ferry range (2 External Tanks) 2000 nm (3706 km)

Everyone else seems to be holding their cards pretty close to their chests! Regardless of this, in terms of it's size and mission, these figures really aren't pathetic at all. And this is just tranche-1, if later tranches get the conformal tanks, look for significant increase with minimal drag penalties.

Where do you get your info on supercruise? I've never seen anything official to suggest that the Typhoon can't supercruise, outside of some Lockheed Martin disagreement on what constitutes "supercruise". There is no doubt that in terms of outright performance the F-22 is the supercruiser to match, but Typhoon is perfectly capable of it, LM just insist on moving their own goalposts every time someone else gets near them. Figure i Have seen for Typhoon supercruise is mach 1.3/4. Not too shabby! BTW May, if an aircraft has to have reheat engaged to be supersonic, by definition it isn't supercruising! Another small bone of contention is that some aircraft need to use reheat to break the high-drag transonic regime, but past that can come out of reheat and cruise on dry thrust happily. LM would have you believe again that this isn't true supercruise.

Thus by their definition the best supercruiser of the lot (Concorde!) isn't really supercruising because it used reheat to break the barrier. They're talking rubbish of course!

Stealthy? It was never designed to be. It has certain low observable characteristics from certain aspects (notably the front) which means that in a normal engagement, even with F-22 as the opponent (as if!) it stands a pretty good chance of getting close. The USAF has, so far, decided to stick with AMRAAM for F-22. . what's the use of detection at 100M if you have to close another 40 before you are in the launch parameters of your primary weapon? You better be pretty sure that the other guy with CAPTOR or AMSAR and Meteor (Typhoon and Rafale in this case) really *can't* detect you from 70 miles, or you're playing a very dangerous endgame against a fast, maneouvrable ramjet powered long range AAM with high terminal energy for maneouvring and possible re-engagement. Your odds just shortened somewhat. . .

As for limited strike capabilities. . well, initial Tranche-1 aircraft yes, are optimisied for AA use (as with the Rafale), but it's worth noting that even with the change in designation to F/A-22 the Raptor has extremely limited strike capabilities as a baseline model. With the use of the 1760 databus on the Typhoon adding more modes and weapons on a rolling programme shouldn't be a big issue. . .it just needs time. I think a twin seater Typhoon with AMSAR, next generation targetting and PGMs (Paveway IV, Storm Shadow) and conformal tanks will be a Strike Eagle killer. But that's in the future (as it is for the Rafale and F/A-22)

The Tornado F.3 was a cold war interceptor. . the Typhoon (or ACA as it was then, back in the halcyon days of 1982!) was designed from the get go as a *fighter*. It may be ten years late due to politics (and/or the Germans) but we're getting a world class aircraft and no mistake. . .

[voodoo sprout]

I agree that the Typhoon is nothing on the F22, but as I think I've said before it doesn;'t need top be. Stealth in it's current incarnation is largely irrelevant I think, in the short term the air defences of our likely enemies will be limited as with Iraq. In the long term those who do pose a threat will have suitable detection systems making stealth aircraft much more vulnerable. Supercruise isn't such an issue, as the difference is simply an artificial line drawn between a couple of airspeeds, an aircraft with supercrusie only has to go a handful of knots faster than than another which isn't to gain the capability, despite the fact that the real difference is negligable.

[may18]

okey guys just one comment..price.

Today the first eurofighter came off the line,

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europ ... ighter.ap/

it quotes cost as 114M ($) ?

[spitz]

Anyone would think the Americans invented supercruise! In April 1957 the English Electric Lightning passed Mach 1 without using it’s afterburners, and that’s the definition of supercruise.

In this case, naming the F22 Raptor after a dinosaur seems quite appropriate. :evilbat:

[Dmanton300]

okey guys just one comment..price.

Today the first eurofighter came off the line,

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europ ... ighter.ap/

it quotes cost as 114M ($) ?

Well, 100m Euro works out at approximately £65M, which I would say is a likely accurate ballpark figure when you figure in development costs for the aircraft and amortise them over the four partner's total production run. Flyaway cost per airframe will be significantly less, but this is just a more honest way of showing what each airframe actually costs the partner nation's taxpayers.
It's worth noting that the Austrian Bundesheer's purchase of 18 Typhoons is costed at 1,969M Euros, but that includes the entire programme - training, infrastructure and integration. A far cry from the simplistic 1,969m / 18 = 109m Euros per aircraft.
And if you take a ballpark flyaway for the RAF as £50m, against the total cost per airframe with amortised costs of £65m, it gives you a development cost to the UK taxpayer of a little under £3.5Billion, which, given the aircraft's capabilities still seems like a bargain to me!

[may18]

so if they are rolling off now

prolly have a squadron built end 2003

train the trainers during 2004

active squadron 2005?

[barryc]

There I was reading all this blurb and picturing this Raptor, two wheels and a Cagiva badge. Quite disappointing to find it was one of those noisy aerial things that the crabs like to scare the sheep with over North Wales. The Taffs hate 'em, takes ages to catch up with the pretty ewes when they've bolted. They tell me it's a great ride if you can manage to hang on though.


Barry

[Dmanton300]

They tell me it's a great ride if you can manage to hang on though.


Barry

What, the crabs or the ewes?

[SMOKING]

Someone cracked a funny!
in a R.A.F. thread,
do's this contravene section 69?

SMOKING

[Dmanton300]

Someone cracked a funny!
in a R.A.F. thread,
do's this contravene section 69?

SMOKING

I prefer section 68. You do me and I'll owe you one. . .