First Eurofighter rolls out

[Seraphim]

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/30/eurofighter.ap/index.html

[96B]

Interesting that the Luftwaffe has them before the British, looks like a great aircraft.

[Andy]

Luftwaffe- Air Force :D
The Eurofighter is in tests in Germany, Austria and Italy!
The Undersite of the Eurofighter came form Germany

Andy

[Kitsune]

It's about damn time !!!

[Steve Andrews]

I saw the prototype at Farnborough in 1986 when I went with my dad!

[Trigger]

So, are they going to give it a cool nickname? 'Eurofighter' sounds so prissy.

Where ya been kitsune? :D

[budanski]

Germany to take `Luftwaffe` off gov`t planes (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/ShTickers.html)

[96B]

Im pretty sure it will be called the "Typhoon"

The F-35 JSF still has names in consideration and one they were looking at is "Fury"

[specialairservice]

don't the us name its fighters after birds:eagle, falcan, nighthalk etc

[budanski]

don't the us name its fighters after birds:eagle, falcan, nighthalk etc

Not all. You've got others like A-10 Warthog, F-14 Tomcat, F-18 Hornet, F-22 Raptor, A-6 Intruders and S-3 Vikings.

[Trigger]

A-10 is actually 'Thunderbolt II'
Grumman makes (made?) the F14 and many of Grumman planes are associated with 'cats' Wildcat, Hellcat, Tigercat?, Tomcat, etc.

[budanski]

A-10 is actually 'Thunderbolt II'
Grumman makes (made?) the F14 and many of Grumman planes are associated with 'cats' Wildcat, Hellcat, Tigercat?, Tomcat, etc.

:oops:
Thats right. Warthog was given because of its look.

[FallenAngel]

Yes, the Grumman Corp. names its fighters after "cats". Wildcat, Hellcat, Tomcat, Tigercat, Bearcat, etc etc.

Just a nit-picking point on my part...the F-117 Nighthawk is not a fighter despite it's designation. The plan in incapable of carrying missiles and it does not have a gun (the M61 series guns are standard on all US fighters.)

[James]

Somebody should name a plane "Thundercat". :lol:

Is the Eurofighter replacing the Tornado?

[specialairservice]

In the raf the euro fighter is replacing the the tornado f3 and the jaguar. The gr4 (bomber) version isnt getting replaced by the euro fighter.
I know the germans are replacing their phantoms with the eurofighters.

[California Joe]

Fighter planes should be named after ****o stars.

Seka, Jenna, Nikki, Tera.......What?

[He219]

Personally I think the Typhoon is redundant and will be totally obsolete once all pertinent units have been replaced in ca. 2015. Advances in thrust vectoring are already regular features in Russian Fighters that the Typhoon doesn't have and at a fraction of the cost. Supercruise capability through modern thrust generation along with upgraded radar and avionics are the best parts of the Eurofighter, oherwise the Rafale and Gripen are it's contemporaries in maneuverability and design.

The cost to develop and equip units with a Mach 2 fighter sounds more like a 'pork barrel' welfare plan to subsidise some european state defence enterprises. The trend in modern warfare is for close attack aircraft and not high speed intercepts. The E2000 does have an extraordinary ordinance lift capability. Phantoms have served well beyond their expectations and I'm sure F16's, F18's, Gripens and Rafales can do the same at a fraction of the cost.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/images/ef2000_1s.jpg
E2000

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/images/rafale1s.jpg
Rafale

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gripen/images/gripen1s.jpg
Gripen

[96B]

There are official names given to aircraft that often are replaced by nicknames. For instance, the UH-1 "Huey" was originally called the Iroquois and the A-10 the Thunderbolt. I believe the F-22 was originally named the Lightning.

With regards to the JSF, everyone knows that the USAF, USN, and USMC are all getting them but they are not all identical. The USAF and USMC are actually more alike with size and the USN version has larger wings for better control at slower speeds. The avionics is essentially identical in all the aircraft. One interesting thing I noticed is there is not an internal gun in the USMC version and I believe also the USAF. Apparently, a gun will be able to be mounted externally if need be and will carry more ammunition. The USMC is also getting the most JSFs because it will replace pretty much their entire arsenal of fixed wing aircraft. Most Navy aircraft have two engines incase one fails, the aircraft can still fly and from what I understand it took alot of convincing to do for them to accept the JSF design. With the F-22 the premiere air dominance fighter of our future military and the multi-role F/A-35 and F/A-18E/F Superhornets complimenting our capabilities, we will once again be leaps and bounds ahead of any enemy we may encounter.

He219, with regards to the Eurofighter, it will be an excellent aircraft and personally thrust vectoring is only good for air shows. Of course it provides extreme advantages in maneuverability but like I said dogfighting is becoming more and more phased out of warfare. With the technology in that aircraft it will be able to take out any MiG or Sukhoi from far away. Unless you are serving in an air force of a very small country, dog fighting is a thing of the past my friend. With all of the work that went into the Eurofighter, there is no reason to believe it wont be able to fly with the best fighters in the world.

[Seiyuuki]

Just a nit-picking point on my part...the F-117 Nighthawk is not a fighter despite it's designation. The plan in incapable of carrying missiles and it does not have a gun (the M61 series guns are standard on all US fighters.)

I believe at one point, it was consider to be redesign to be able to carry missiles...to serve as escort for the B-2, an all stealth strike force.

[He219]

semperfi2003, did I not describe the 'extraordinary' capabilities of the Eurofighter? My point is a matter of cost benefit given existing platforms and the development of current fighter technologies. I did mention the ground attack role in the modern battlefield and that it is a Mach 2 fighter with great payload capability. To relegate thrust vecoring as merely an air show feature is quite short-sighted. The greatest assest a plane can have for missile evasion (along with countermeasures) is speed combined with maneuverability. The Ironic part is that the JSF F-35B version designed for the USMC and UK Navy & Air Force exclusively uses 'a three bearing swivelling exhaust nozzle' to vector thrust for STOVL capability.

[He219]

Seiyuuki, in principle you are on target with your asessment of the F-117A's primary role. However it does have the capability to fire AGM and AMRAAM missiles from it's weapons bay. There are no external mounts for stealth purposes.

[FallenAngel]

eh.....give me an F-18E anyday. :D

[Seiyuuki]

Since we're on the topic of talking about aircrafts...What do you think to be the best?

1. Fighter (strictly fighter, purely design for air superiority)?
2. Attack Plane (that include all aircrafts design for the ground support role)?
3. Bomber?
4. Interceptor?
5. Multirole?

[He219]

FallenAngel summed it up for me. The SuperHornet F/A-18E/F models are the quintessential multirole fighters.

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/thumbnails/thumb_030519-N-0000X-001.jpg enlarge (http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_030519-N-0000X-001.jpg)

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/thumbnails/thumb_030402-N-9319H-005.jpg enlarge (http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_030402-N-9319H-005.jpg)

[96B]

He219, thrust vectoring will only help in a dogfight and that is the bottom line. It only helps to change your position relative to your opponent when at close range. If a missile is coming at you at Mach 3+, you will want to be travelling very fast and thrust vectoring essentially makes you an easier target especially with the newer more advanced AAMs because it slows you down dramatically. When the latest and greatest Russian aircraft perform their insane maneuvers, they slow to literally 0 airspeed sometimes. Its an extremely valueable system at close range but how many enemies do you think will survive to get in that close with an F22 or Superhornet or JSF or Typhoon? Advances in short range missiles also enable extreme angled shots when in a dogfight and they are even harder to trick.

If thrust vectoring was a critical system to the survival of the aircraft, it would have been installed, at least that is the case here in America. The F22 features a 2D thrust vectoring and can change is AOA(angle of attack) over 90 degrees which means it can be flying forward but facing either straight up or slightly backwards. The Russians try to make up for a lack of high tech avionics and weapon systems by investing in maneuverability. The Su-37 actually has 3D thrust vectoring superior to that of even the F22. But when you take into account its mainly smaller nation customers, it is cheaper and more appealing because they often are required to get a visual on the enemy before engaging.

I am not saying that thrust vectoring is not effective, but in the modern skies there is less of a need for it and in the approaching future when missiles are getting smarter and aircraft more stealthy, it will become obsolete to counter that kind of threat.

Also, once America starts deploying hunter seeker drones against enemy aircraft that will be extremely stealthy, fast, heavily armed, and since there will be no pilot they could perform maneuvers no piloted aircraft could dream of. The technology and materials exist to build airframes that could withstand such stress and if you want to talk about thrust vectoring, it will be hard to beat an enemy aircraft that could literally change directions instantly at very high speeds.

[He219]

semperfi2003, nice post especially wrt to the hunter seeker drones. Do you have any more info on that matter? That reminds me of a flick in the 80's called 'Deal of the Century'. Also, are you a flying leatherneck?

With respect to thrust vecoring, the F22 incorporates Pratt & Whitney's new F119-PW-100 35,000-pound-thrust engine designed for efficient supersonic operation without afterburner through incorporation of 2-D thrust vectoring nozzles. So how can you relegate thrust vectoring as soley a 'dogfight' and 'airshow' feature especially when you mention the benefits for a 'hunter-seeker drone'?

Pertaining to the Eurofighter; I certainly see that statistically it is a remarkable aircraft. The projected deployment schedule (through 2015) along with the cost of development and production seem to make it less of an economical solution rather than expanding on existing airframes until newer generations of aircraft technologies can be incorporated wholesale. If the E2000 Typhoon would replace existing aircraft completely within the next five years it would make much more sense to me. Even 'upgraded' Typhoons projected to be released around 2015 would be built upon obsolete airframes. The complete depoloyment schedule is too far out with the pace of development for newer aircraft/airframe technologies. That is my premise.

Thanks!

p-)
He219

[budanski]

Conceived in the early 70's, The Euro-Fighter was fine in it's day, but technology has advanced so fast and so far that it is now worthless. The US builds jets and while doing so incorporates emerging technology, as well as yet-to-be-fielded technology. We have program management reviews to ensure we can bring on-board new stuff and produce an aircraft that is practically up-to-date when it rolls off the assembly line. The Europeans, however, because of their laws and labor regulations, they are not able to make ANY changes to the design or construction once the contract is signed. You see, if you make a small component in, let's say, the UK, and someone in Italy makes a better component, you can't make the change as that would upset the balance of trade and put many people out of a job. The result? You produce an aircraft that is twenty years out of date.

But then again.... What the hell do I know.

[He219]

Nice GIF, Budanski! rofl

Take the EJ2000 round nozzles for example. They are totally outdated. The hydraulically actuated divergent nozzle is an mechanical monstrosity. This form of thrust vectoring (TV) has been used since the V1 Ballistic Missile terrorized London in WWII! Advances in rectangular nozzles offer 'fluidic' thrust vectoring by sucking air from the perimeter to manipulate the exhaust stream without the highly complicated set of mechanical paddles that are pneumatically controlled. Other than negating the noise facor, heat signature and fuel costs of conventional divergent nozzles, the rectangular TV nozzle designs offer stealth benefits as displayed in the 25 year old design of the F-117 that the EJ2000 doesn't even bother to model.

p-)
He219

[martinexsquaddie]

whatever
Europe isn't facing a threat from any air force in the forseeable future is it
er Russia partner for peace so no game there
Africa strikemaster or ancient migs
middle east er no look at the iraqi air force Saudis planes all the mechanics are western so thats the end of them sarting anything
China? otherside of the planet would have to come through russia to fight
America well some of the more rabid yanks would like to start a war I don't think anyone remotely sane belives that So given the end of the cold war there is no reason for a another generation of hi tech fighter planes.
America may well have mind control hypersonic space interceptors on the drawing board but congress may well as WHY? SHOULD WE PAY FOR IT WHAT THE HELL IS IT GOING TO FIGHT?
Thers not really anything out there that can take on either an F15 or an Abrams and win. Certainly no country or alliance can field a force that can realisitically defeat the US on the Battlefield.
The B52 is not due for replacement anytime soon its hardly a hi tec airframe but its a war winner.
I will be asking Why we need to replace the typhoon with anything I don't really care if you can get a hypersonic laser armed gunship unless theres a threat why pay for it?

[budanski]

Its makes the other guy think twice when faced with a super-duper-hypersonic-boombastic-space-modulator and differently with someone using soviet-era hardware.

[96B]

He219, I kinda did counter my own point didnt I :lol:

I'll find some information on the drones for you, but I know that Boeing is one of the lead manufacturers for the technology and airframes.

On the open battlefield, war with America is suicide, that is why guerilla tactics can be effective with numerically/technologically inferior enemies.

But I know for a fact that our jets would beat MiGs, didnt you see how our F14s smoked the MiG-28s in Top Gun?!??! For some reason they looked alot like F-5s though rofl

[He219]

Martin:

I'm not picking on the UK. The Eurofighter is a joint venture but already obsolete. BAE and Rolls Royce are actually prime partners in the F35 JSF project. BAE Systems is responsible for the design and integration of the aft fuselage, horizontal and vertical tails and the wing-fold mechanism for the CV variant, using experience from the Harrier STOVL program.

BAE is also responsible for components on the F/A-22 Raptor. A BAE SYSTEMS head-up display (HUD) shows target status, weapon status, weapon envelopes and shoot cues. A video camera records data on the HUD. The aircraft's electronic warfare system includes a radar warning receiver and a BAE Systems Information & Electronic Warfare Systems (IEWS) (formerly Lockheed Martin Sanders) missile launch detector for post-mission analysis. Thrust vectoring is controlled by a Hamilton Standard dual redundant, full authority digital engine control (FADEC). The FADEC is integrated with the flight control computers in the BAE SYSTEMS Astronics vehicle management system.

Those 'super-duper-hypersonic-boombastic-space-modulator' systems are an important deterrence to ever advancing technologies. The UK certainly plays a huge role in it.

p-)
He219

[Trigger]

Didn't you guys see 'Predator'?
We're gonna need these things....geez, do I have to think of everything?
:D

[specialairservice]

he219, only the usmc version of the f35 has thrust vectoring and this can only be used during takeoff.

[Trigger]

...uh not exactly. During competition with the Boeing X-32 one of the performance features the X-35 demonstrated was the ability to take off vertically, transition to normal flight and land vertically again. If I remember correctly, that's what won the contract for the X-35.

[budanski]

Watch the video here (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/spotlight/jsfmovie2.html).

and here (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/spotlight/jsfmovie1.html).

[He219]

specialairservice wrote:

he219, only the usmc version of the f35 has thrust vectoring and this can only be used during takeoff.

This is an example of a rectangular nozzle for 2-D thrust vectoring:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/images/raptor1.jpg
The F/A-22 is powered by two F119-100 engines from Pratt and Whitney.

The F35 production models are slated to be powered by either the General Electric F-135 or the F-136 turbofan engines. The F-135 features a Spherical Convergent Flap Nozzle which demonstrated pitch and yaw thrust vectoring and reversing with a 20% weight savings over current 2-D nozzles with similar functions. The F-136 features a Tiled Turbine Airfoil Design and Fixed Area Fluidic Vectoring Nozzle Technology. The Fixed Geometry Exhaust Nozzle uses engine bleed flow to fluidically control the effective throat area to provide thrust vectoring. This significantly reduces weight, complexity, cost and maintenance in comparison to a conventional mechanically actuated variable nozzle. On the F-35B, the engine is coupled with a shaft-driven lift fan system for STOVL propulsion developed by Rolls-Royce Defence. Pratt & Whitney's F135 main propulsion engine is derived from the F119 engine that powers the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

;)
He219

[martinexsquaddie]

Yes deter who exactly?
The cold war is over we won p-) p-) p-)
Who exactly is all this HI tech Hardware suppose to deter?
most people seem to think the next few decades of war will be dealing with Failing states with or without WMDs and Terrorism. Means more socom style ops not massive air battles.
A B52 can carry a shed load of JDams and opperate at a safe Altitude from any shoulder launched SAM.
US forces can defeat any country on the planet what they may not be able to do is hold the land they seize

[Seiyuuki]

Yes deter who exactly?
The cold war is over we won p-) p-) p-)
Who exactly is all this HI tech Hardware suppose to deter?
most people seem to think the next few decades of war will be dealing with Failing states with or without WMDs and Terrorism. Means more socom style ops not massive air battles.
A B52 can carry a shed load of JDams and opperate at a safe Altitude from any shoulder launched SAM.

China is becoming a major player, N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan and India, two belligerent nuclear power, and more...you only be fooling yourself to think they want this: :hug: ...well, some of them might, but some obviously don't.

You'll be bigger fool to underestimate them and noting that they are inferior to us. Unless you got an army of hundreds of thousands of SOCOM, it can only go so far.


US forces can defeat any country on the planet what they may not be able to do is hold the land they seize

WTF are you talking about...yeah...we're on the freaking march toward world domination!!!

[Knave]

I saw the prototype at Farnborough in 1986 when I went with my dad!

You sure that wasn't the Dassault Rafale? They do look somewhat similar.

[martinexsquaddie]

oh please North Korea next your include the threat to the US from Cuba :lol:
As for india and pakistan there too Busy with each other niether are a realistic threat to Europe .
As for China It may have military plans to be the world superpower in 50 years. It may well have millions of men in the PRA but its far from a threat to Europe having no aircraft carriers and overland having to come through Russia :fork:
I don't belive the US army is planning world domination I do belive though there is nothing on the planet that can pose a realistic threat to US heavy divison on the conventional Battlefield.
As seen In Iraq Saddams conventional forces Were destroyed if they stood and Fought.
But back to the main point Facing Europe there is no realistic threat needing the Eurofighter or its replacement in the forseeable Future.

[He219]

Martin: Progress in technology and the applications within aerospace engineering is an undeniable fact. The JSF is a program using international financing and sub-contractor participation to the interests of member states, notably the UK, Canada, the Netherlands and Italy. Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems have the largest foreign stake in the F-35 development. International participation only improves the cost efficiency model for research and development. The entire concept of the JSF is for military branches to utilize the same airframe to train and equip units with obvious cost benefits.

During WWII, fighting aircraft developed from the Bi-plane and graduated to jet and rocket interceptors, some even displaying 'stealthlike' radar signatures using composite materials and flying wing designs. In a matter of 6 years, WWI era aircraft were made totally obsolete with emerging technologies that eventually led to the Ballistic Missile (V2). The same can be said today of airplanes using stealth, supercruise, and VSTOL technologies. Match this against contemporary figter aircraft technologies.

If you are arguing against the need to upgrade military systems in general - to the benefit of humanity, then that's another issue. I favor advancing emerging technologies for military applications as long as there is a need, and not just to support the military industrial complex. Surely you would prefer the most capable design if your life depended upon it?

The following is the best video that I have seen showcasing the F-35B JSF design and development program. Produced by Pratt & Whitney, this video showcases British Test Pilots during performance evaluation of VSTOL characteristics. Warning, this is an extremely large file (77MB is the smallest) and a fast connection is highly recommended. Well worth it if you are interested in this subject. Click HERE (http://www.pratt-whitney.com/F135/media/farmer320x240.mpg)for MPEG Video.

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/F135/mediadownloads.html


p-)
He219

[Seiyuuki]

oh please North Korea next your include the threat to the US from Cuba :lol:
As for india and pakistan there too Busy with each other niether are a realistic threat to Europe.

:cantbeli: Yes, the "regional conflict, doesn't pertain to us..." attitude will help the world become a better, safer and peaceful place. It doesn't matter if they decided to go genocidal against each other and really, it's practically nil when considering the chance that any of these conflicts could expand.


As for China It may have military plans to be the world superpower in 50 years. It may well have millions of men in the PRA but its far from a threat to Europe having no aircraft carriers and overland having to come through Russia :fork:

And here I thought everything was practically "Made in China." Not having one doesn't mean not having the manufacturing capacity to produce one. Relying on geography for safety... :cantbeli: ...not always a reliable thing. The U.S. is the safest place on Earth, we got the Pacific to the West, the Atlantic to the East, the two biggest oceans in the world!!! no countries could possible pose a threat to us with these two wide oceanic divide...but then...I believed it is known as Pearl Harbor and sadly, 11 September 2001!!!


But back to the main point Facing Europe there is no realistic threat needing the Eurofighter or its replacement in the forseeable Future.

YUP...EUROPE IS THE SAFEST PLACE ON EARTH NOW!!! YOU GOT THE ATLANTIC TO THE WEST AND RUSSIA TO THE EAST...NO WAY ANY ARMY IS GOING TO CROSS THOSE!!! woot woot woot woot woot woot

[martinexsquaddie]

Yes there may be security threats outs there
But another Hi tec fighter isn't the answer.
Conventinal war against an opponent armed with an Air force capable of putting up either bombers or attack planes isn't realistic.
I can't see China having plans to drive tanks into western Europe :lol:
If india/pakistan/china go Ballisitic theres bugger all the US or Europe can do about it using military Force.
As for North Korea its a small starvation riddled stalinist state with delusions of importance. Whatever Bush says its Not a threat to planet earth.
You hav'nt answered the Question what country with a modern Combat ready air force is a potential threat to Western Europe?

[budanski]

You hav'nt answered the Question what country with a modern Combat ready air force is a potential threat to Western Europe?

I think what you should be asking is that Can Europe fall behind any further in the technological gap with America? Europe still needs to keep its technological know hows to implement them into everyday use. One example is all the great things that came out from space research and how it benefitted our everyday lives. Many never make it to space.

[martinexsquaddie]

I don't think Europe is falling that far behind europe BAE is involved with JSF.
But even so Military research is a very inefficent way of producing civillian
Benefits.Just compare and contrast the UK post war economy and Germanys.
The UK is a major arms trader 2nd behind thE US in fact but arms sales cost the British Tax payer with Export credits a lot of money that would be better spent on civillian R&R.
The Eurofighter is a relic of the coldwar it took way to long to develop and cost too much but without the pressure of any external threat Europe won't be in a hurry to build another.
Hmm Powerkite Health care system or Latest Gen Fighter a bit of a hard sell unless you get to fly it :lol: :lol:

[Seraphim]

I just saw a preview of the Hulk and there was a quick clip of him holding onto a F22, if this did happen...wouldnt the plane just drop like a lead balloon. There was also a seen where the hulk is on a commanche(sp) helo.

[martinexsquaddie]

Just caught a documentary on BBC4 about the EuroFighter
Experts reckon the plane can do its job and pilots love the plane.
But the way it was put together was a prize cluster****
It also pointed out the F22 has'nt been plain sailing either and the rafel
has'nt got many orders.
Though the collarbative efforts great weakness is also its greatest strength
because so many govements are involved its almost impossible to cancel.
Though hopefully the next thing europe build won't be built like eurofighter p-)

[usa320]

while the Eurofighter is outclassed in manueverability and avionics by the F/A-22, F-35 or the Su-37, it makes up for that with its low price tag and it still carries a good array of weapons.

[He219]

The Eurofighter is a relic of the coldwar it took way to long to develop and cost too much but without the pressure of any external threat Europe won't be in a hurry to build another

So why continue production through 2015? Stop immediately and spend your eurodollars on current technologies.


it makes up for that with its low price tag

Low pricetag? It's already obsolete. The cost benefit model is out the window with deliveries scheduled for over a decade out and newer generation aircraft already out there. Where are you saving money?
The Eurofighter is a social work program for member states and has nothing to do with the 'Least Cost' model... Use the Tornado and other contemporary models (like the F-4 outserved it's projected lifespan) and invest in next generation weapons systems.

[martinexsquaddie]

Because it cost £40 billion quid and its rolling out now.
The Best fighter is the one on the Drawing Board.
It can do the Job its a good Hi-tec fighter beats anything its likely to go up against.
Plus Politicaly the project won't be cancelled unlike a new super fighter