Jump to content


Speculation Thread - Upcoming Tanks/Upgrades


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
538 replies to this topic

Blue_Badger #101 Posted 02 May 2013 - 11:50 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012
Hey Fuzzy, you got a source for that second to last paragraph? It sounds like a good read. I had heard that they tested F-22 vs Typhoon dogfighting capabilities but couldn't find anything on the matter aside from a vague sentence on Wikipedia.

TheFuzzyOne #102 Posted 02 May 2013 - 05:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9980 battles
  • 1,869
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012

View Postariel250, on 02 May 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

USA refused to fund a israeli-made competitor of the F-16 called Lavi . it had resemblance to the Rafale . it's avionics and technology were so good for its time that USA knew that if they would fund it then they would lose customers . later some improvements from the lavi were intorduced in the F-16s in IAF's fleet .

Avionics are one thing, but an F-16 could never come close to being how good a Rafale is. The airframe is simply too old and outdated to be capable of that. yes, the avionics and some internal radar can be extended to modern types but an F-16 lacks so many things that make a Rafale what it is. They are a whole generation apart. (4.5 really is a full generational leap)

Quote

if you want a solution for taking out air targets then take a drone , attach to it Python 5s and you already have a strong air defense . Python 5s reach a range of 20km+ , have a 110 view degrees comparing to USA's latest missile's 90 degrees and has a LOAL capability . so far one of the most maneouverable and beats the Python-4 that can very quickly turn 220 degrees . another option is the ASRAAM but I'm not sure it has the same countermeasure resistance as the Python-5 .

I'm sorry, but 20km is pathetic range for air defence. Upcoming missiles like the Meteor can hit 100km readily and up to 160km in theory. The Russians have ones that can already hit 160km and even up to 180km at a push. Stand off munitions can be launched from even further. Storm Shadow has a range of 250km so Python-5 alone will not be able to counter that in the slightest and when the new stuff like Perseus starts to come into play (350km, almost entirely resistant to all interception systems) then the idea of relying on point defence will disappear rapidly. The interceptor is what this role is for and it's why if any country ever buys a fancy plane they always go for interceptor capable ones before any others. Always. Because being able to fly hundreds of km out to catch something before it fires a stand off weapon or being able to intercept before you get BVR'ed is so unbelievably important.

Israel is leading the way on point defence for sure. Iron Dome is world beating and it's proven it in a stunningly good way. However it is not an impregnable wall against some of the weapons out there and those coming up soon. That is when you truly need to have interceptors ready to take the fight out to the enemy. It's why F-15's remain in service so long and it's why the Omnirole generation is keeping its design this way too.

Heck, the Uk was still using the Lightning long after its sell by date because they didn't want to risk losing an interceptor.

View PostBlue_Badger, on 02 May 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Hey Fuzzy, you got a source for that second to last paragraph? It sounds like a good read. I had heard that they tested F-22 vs Typhoon dogfighting capabilities but couldn't find anything on the matter aside from a vague sentence on Wikipedia.

Sure. This is actually a rather funny read filled with masses of false notations and damage control scrambling by the USAF.

Warning - This got way longer than I predicted! I might as well make it all in a oner!

Basically, what happened was eight Typhoons of the Luftwaffe (Or EF-2000, to use Kraut-speak. ;) ) went to Red Flag and in various conditions took on F-22 Raptors in BVR and WVR combat. The general feedback from the Germans is well documented. They comment that in BVR the Raptor is undoubtedly the superior plane. Of course it would be, that's its job after all. The dogfights however were a source of controversy in many aspects. There are clear cut quotes in the following articles by the Germans that they repeated a few times but the American response is vague, unsourced and generally very biased to try and save some honour in every way other than actually showing some proof and occasionally even outright fabricating facts to try and meet their ends, I'll go through a few with the articles and extrapolate the facts and orders of it all given they are filled to the brim with bias, especially from the Americans keen to prove things otherwise.

http://www.flightglo...bfm-in-ala.html

http://manglermuldoo...ously-just.html

http://www.flightglo...g-debut-373312/

You can find dozens of these online if you just search for the F-22 vs Germans Red Flag.

The Germans reports were concentrating on a few areas. One was the following:

Quote

"Its unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat," Pfeiffer says. "But once you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area the Typhoon doesn't have to fear the F-22 in all aspects." ~ Major Marc Grunene

As well as the somewhat boastful comment:

Quote

"Yesterday we had Raptor salad for lunch"

This was followed up by a picture of a Typhoon with a confirmed 3 Raptor kill markings and another with a single one.

The general thing most took away from it was that the Typhoon gave the F-22 hell in close range and that if they could whizz by the Raptor's so touted "No-one will ever get close to us" marketing rubbish then very quickly it begins to even up.

Now the American response was rather fast and quick to this development, especially when their own news networks started to report the following:

Quote

"The United States has spent nearly $80 billion to develop the most advanced stealth fighter jet in history, the F-22 Raptor, but the Air Force recently found out firsthand that while the planes own the skies at modern long-range air combat, it is 'evenly matched' with cheaper, foreign jets when it comes to old-school dogfighting." - Lee Ferran, ABC News, 2012

Oh the USAF did not like that. They did not likie that at all. Days after that went on air, we got the following quotes from "unnamed USAF pilots" and with no sources other than "We talked to a source."

Quote

"It sounds as though we have very different recollections as to the outcomes of the BFM [Basic Fighter Maneuvering] engagements that were fought...We ended up with numerous gunshots" -  Unnamed USAF pilot

Quote

"I did review the HUD footage, a lot of gun shots from the F-22's to the Eurofighters and not a whole lot coming back" - Unnamed USAF pilot

Within this we see a clear thing emerging. That of the emphasis upon "gunshots." Well of course the Typhoon wouldn't have a lot of gunshots, that's not how it dogfights. The Typhoon doesn't have to get you in front of it to shoot you down, its dogfight doctrine relies on high angled missile attacks from short range that go off on all angles that a HUD camera would not see. The emphasis on gunshot kills indicates they are attempting to loophole this little fact past by constantly going "Well we got more gun kills!" Well duh you did, gunkills aren't what the Typhoon does. I'd like to see indications of how many missile kills they got. The Germans got four for sure and given there were only 8 Typhoons in the entire exercise that doesn't bode well for the ratios.

Then we have this:

Quote

USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmanoeuvre the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22.

Oh dear. Doesn't sound good for the non-Thrust Vector aircraft. They could outmanoeuvre them! Except that's not the point at all ,again, down to how the Typhoon works. Nothing emerged to contest this so that year's Red Flag came away with an assertion that the thrust vectoring was indeed superior other than:

Quote

Pfeiffer notes that the Eurofighter has better acceleration and can out-climb the F-22. ­Additionally, he says that the Raptor sinks when it is using its thrust vectoring capabilities, although one USAF source says he is skeptical of the German claims.
Overall, Grune says the two aircraft are closely matched in the visual range arena, but Pfeiffer says the Typhoon is the superior ­dogfighter.

This wasn't very well reported this line and it only becomes important because of the next chapter of the Typhoon vs Raptor saga that occured a year or so later. The RAF took their top of the line Tiffy's over to try their hand and the results were significantly clouded in mystery, a usual thing for the UK and US exercises simply because of their shared belief that results aren't what you should publish. You don't embarrass your allies. However there was one thing that emerged that is critically important when you look back to the Luftwaffe incident.

http://theaviationis...s/#.UYKVhkpvBP4

http://www.businessi...ofighter-2013-2

This was a report brought out by the RAF pilots in interviews. here is the lead into it as reported by this site:

Quote

According to the piece, the commander of the RAF XI Sqn Wing Commander Rich Wells, said:
“Raptor has vector thrust: Typhoon doesn’t,” he said. “What the aircraft can do, it’s incredible. The Typhoon just doesn’t do that.”
Even if it is a matter of fact that the European top class fighter jet lacks thrust vectoring (TV) our source believes that this is not a big deal.
To be honest, the points he raises were already discussed in the article about the outcome of the dogfights between the U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors and the German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons during last year’s Red Flag – Alaska, when Americans said the F-22 performance was “overwhelming” while German said the costly stealth fighter was “salad” for the Eurofighter’s pilots lunch.
At that time we said that the F-22 tends to lose too much energy when using TV and unless the Raptor can manage to immediately get in the proper position to score a kill, the energy it loses makes it quite vulnerable.

Sounds about in line with what we've seen, but here's what the RAF had to say about thrust vectoring:

Quote

Thrust Vectoring is one of the design elements that can contribute to create a certain advantage during close air combat by generating impressive pitch and yaw rates, but only in a limited portion of the flight envelope at velocities well below “corner speed”.
However, Thrust Vectoring can also transform in a few seconds an energy fighter in a piece of metal literally falling off the sky, making it an easy prey for those who have been able to conserve their energy.
Moreover, Thrust Vector operation requires the pilot to “create the opportunity” for its usage, spending valuable time in manoeuvring the aircraft to achieve a suitable condition and managing the activation of the Thrust Vector Control.
If you are “defensive” and your aircraft has Thrust Vectoring, you can possibly outturn your enemy, but that most likely won’t prove to be a great idea: an energy fighter like the Typhoon will conveniently “use the vertical” to retain energy and aggressively reposition for a missile or gun shot. Also the subsequent acceleration will be extremely time (and fuel) consuming, giving your opponent the opportunity to tail chase you for ever, exploiting all its short range weapon array.
If you are “neutral”, when typically vertical, rolling and flat scissors would accompany the progressive energy decay, similarly performing machines would remain closely entangled, negating the opportunity for Thrust Vector activation.
If you are “offensive”, probably stuck in a never ending “rate fight”, Thrust Vector could provide the opportunity for a couple of shots in close sequence. Make sure nobody is coming to you from the “support structure”, otherwise that could be also your last move.

A very well thought through and detailed description that matches what we've heard from thrust vector tests in any country other than the US, which touted it as an unbeatable technology that had zero downsides.

He then quickly touched on this "higher attack angle" stuff:

Quote

Talking of twin tailed aircraft, Angles of Attack in excess of 30-35 degrees are capable of creating drag conditions unsustainable no matter the engine/airframe matching, and developing energy decays intrusive of the tactical flying but also of the flight control system protections. Roll rates would also deteriorate at the higher values of AoA and target tracking ability would quickly decay.

He went on to describe how High Off Bore Sights affected this:

Quote

Eurofighter has decided to develop for the Typhoon High Off-Bore-Sight Weapons, supported by Helmet Cueing, to retain energy and target tracking ability while manoeuvring WVR (Within Visual Range) at relatively high but sustainable Angles of Attack. For those who may require some additional AoA, the “Strakes” package is progressing well and soon it will be offered to Typhoon’s Customers. Nevertheless, Strakes is not purely about extreme AoA, but also suitable Roll Rates and manageble energy characteristics. Because in the European way of doing things, an all round balanced solution counts more than a single eye opening performance.
It is a fact that against Eastern produced fighters provided with Thrust Vectoring, throughout the years the Typhoon has showed an embarasing (for them) kill-to-loss ratio.
It is a fact that after some initial encounters between the Raptor and the Typhoon, the situation appears of absolute equity. Too early to say if it is the Helmet Cueing or the Thrust Vector, or how much tactics and training are a player in all this. For sure, we are facing two impressively capable machines.

Finishing off in classic RAF modest fashion. They always throw that in after every comparison. Every one of them.

The Aviationist also quickly notes an important aspect of Raptor's stealth:

Quote

Even if this can be true, the risk of coming to close range is still high. At a distance of about 50 km the Typhoon IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system could be capable to find even a stealthy plane “especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22″ as a Eurofighter pilot once said.
Furthermore, Raptors are not always stealthy as one might believe: for instance, when they carry external store, rejoin with tankers or talk on the radio (secure or unsecure ones) they become more vulnerable to detection.

In addition to that, the Typhoon has proven it can spot them much further away than that:

http://eucitizens.eu...php?topic=166.0

Quote

"more recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trails work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have peformed better than was expected. There was little suprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate "Within Visual Range" flight, but the aircraft did cause a suprise by getting a radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long range. The F-22s cried off, claiming that they were "unstealthed" anyway, although the next day´s scheduled two vs. two BWR engagement was canceled, and "the USAF decided they didn´t want to play any more .
- When this incident was reported on a website frequented by front-line RAF aircrew a senior RAF officer urged an end to the converstaion on security grounds"

This was also reported by the BBC.

Essentially, what we can take away from all this is the following:

When the Germans took on the F-22 with their Typhoons, there was a pretty bloody fight that entailed from it resulting in several Raptor kills and an undefined amount of Typhoons killed. Even if every Typhoon was taken down, they still managed 1 Raptor for every 2 Typhoons. The USAF did not like this ratio one little bit and tried to spin the story by talking about gunkills, something the Luftwaffe I must note have very little experience in training to defend against as they don't get chances outside of Red Flag to do this at all.

However, the USAF launched on trying to claim other things too and this has ultimately proven their fault to make people start to doubt their side, given their assertions of stealth invisibility and of thrust vectoring being all that mattered were shattered by the RAF's own experiences against the Raptor. The RAF of course being a vastly more experienced user of a more advanced form of Typhoon who know that plane inside and out. While vague elements still remain, the fact that the USAF was clearly pulling damage control at a time when the F-22 wa s ahighly political subject makes it very difficult to place any trust in their claims, especially given that the RAF has remained tight lipped about talking on the F-22's side of things other than to discount any, lets not mince words, lies.

So what's the take away we can have from this?

F-22's dominate if it's a long range fight. For that much per plane and that being its one and only job I'd bloody hope it does!

They are not however invulnerable to fighters, even unstealthy ones (albeit RCS reduced) getting close enough to them for that stealth to disappear from IRST.

Once in a dogfight, the Typhoon can put it on an even footing to even being the advantaged aircraft in experienced hands.

Conclusions?

Going back to the topic, this is a great amount of proof that dogfighting is very much still alive in today's world and is likely to increase as more technologies focus on that distance being closed in. This is why I think these sorts of arguements are fantastic to have as it reminds and pushed countries to not forget about this and end up with a Phantom situation all over again. The US tried to get the F-22 to signal an end to dogfighting and it's backfired hard in its face with an awful lot of national embarassment to go with it.

ariel250 #103 Posted 02 May 2013 - 06:18 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6927 battles
  • 949
  • [M-C] M-C
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011
just a small addition , the Python-5 is not for intercepting missiles , I mean , it can but it is used as a dogfight missile . for the BVR we got the Derby with 50km range , not much of a range but it can be extended .
and about the old aircrafts we're supposed to get a small fleet of F-35Is soon .

also , syrian anti-air missile that was captured by rebels was fired at a russian civilian plane that carried 220 people and guess what? this big-butt plane out-maneuvered the missile and yet iran and syria are threatening the IAF , saying IAF has no chance of penetrating iran's air territory while iran is using missiles with the same technology (or near) . I mean , why would the russians develop a missile (even if old) that can't counter some of the biggest , slowest planes in the world?

Edited by ariel250, 02 May 2013 - 06:30 PM.


TheFuzzyOne #104 Posted 02 May 2013 - 06:38 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9980 battles
  • 1,869
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012

View Postariel250, on 02 May 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

also , syrian anti-air missile that was captured by rebels was fired at a russian civilian plane that carried 220 people and guess what? this big-butt plane out-maneuvered the missile and yet iran and syria are threatening the IAF , saying IAF has no chance of penetrating iran's air territory while iran is using missiles with the same technology (or near) . I mean , why would the russians develop a missile (even if old) that can't counter some of the biggest , slowest planes in the world?

I don't know which missile was fired at that aircraft and I'm not sure anyone does. It was likely fired by an untrained person who doesn't really understand it at a target travelling too high and fast for it or hadn't properly locked. It was likely old and improperly used.

Blue_Badger #105 Posted 02 May 2013 - 07:20 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012
That was a great read Fuzzy, +1. I find the comments sections in the news reports even more funny. Their just chock full of yanks spouting guff that isn't even in the articles.

The "Wee had Raptor salad for lunch" quote was the icing on the cake for me. I'm sure the pilot meant it in all good humour but such comments would just set the Americans fuming.

It is still clear that the F-22 is the "better" aircraft but its certainly not better enough. If I hadn't been playing a lot of War Thunder lately I'd have no idea what the manoeuvres were the RAF pilot was talking about but I can totally relate to what he's saying. He's basically saying they can counter this advantage and exploit it. Dogfighting is still similar in this way to the old WW2 ones where 109s had their advantages and spitfires had theirs.

SirCampAlotNor #106 Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:46 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1289 battles
  • 236
  • Member since:
    02-20-2011
I didnt read the links, so forgive me if the answers to this is in there, Fussy.
Do they say anything about the settings for the ACM? Say, no BVR, hold fire until merge, active sensors/passive only, and so on?

TheFuzzyOne #107 Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:24 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9980 battles
  • 1,869
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012

View PostSirCampAlotNor, on 03 May 2013 - 01:46 AM, said:

I didnt read the links, so forgive me if the answers to this is in there, Fussy.
Do they say anything about the settings for the ACM? Say, no BVR, hold fire until merge, active sensors/passive only, and so on?

In general, Air Combat Moves tend to favour the Typhoon on account of its higher energy conservation capability. The Raptor has a higher supercruise speed however, so that does certainly help it in an initial merge approach. One they're in close though, both can see each other but that high bore sight on the Typhoon is just impossible to really get around. Below 50km we know the Tiffy can spot a Raptor and the RAF ones can spot at even higher than that, so in that close it really is a case of "look at them and say 'fire'." (Helmet tracker and voice recognition system)

But in general, there isn't a mass amount of detail on the specifics, them being entirely classified planes that only makes sense. The RAF has been very tight lipped about the Typhoon's true capabilities including deliberate stating the wrong values to confuse and distort the truth on what it can really do if it has to. People weren't very sure about its 'sprint' speed until a year and a bit ago when they responded to a hostile intercept off the coast of England (turned out to be a false alarm caused by a civilian helicopter pilot giving the wrong code in his malfunction mayday) and broke the sound barrier over England's towns in their haste to get there. The times of passing over individual towns were recorded and some flight boffs did the maths and found it has gone WAY faster than the MoD had ever claimed it could. It's quite incredible, actually, to think how many things that amazing plane can do that we just don't know yet.

As a note, that 'sprint speed' over a short intercept distance was also found to be the highest among any aircraft in the planet. MiG25 and F-22 Raptor included.



For those interested in the mindblowing numbers since confirmed by the MoD for that, a Typhoon can go from standing on the runway to Mach 1.5 at 30k feet in just 150 seconds.

Heck, the list of specifics it has over the F-22 is often forgetten because it's not as "sexy facts" as many like to think on, but they are no less important.

The Typhoon may have a slower supercruise speed, but it has a much higher fuel efficiency during it, requiring only 5 tons of fuel to initiate a supercruise while a Raptor requires 9 tons. It also has a better wing load at 330kg as opposed to 350km. While at that supersonic speed it can also turn much better on account of its canards and smaller size. (Less friction resistance) Radar projection is superior at 200 degrees as opposed to 120 degrees. (The Raptor was going to have two side mounted AESA units but they were cut to save money) The F-22 does not have IRTS installed and nor does it have full networking capabilities to "talk" to a lot of other aircraft.

This isn't about trying to "prove" anything for either, but rather I'm just detailing all the things we do know as a comparison between them for greater conclusions than the thousands of armchair generals who debate "RCS stealth" like they actually have any idea what it entails when they argue about specific wing shapes and intake styles. It's childish really as no-one outside the designers knows how that stuff works. Instead I just like to take what we do know and what we do know about the Typhoon is still only beginning to emerge. A few years ago many might have called the Rafale its equal. That opinion is very rapidly changing in the aircraft world these days.

For interest alone, the Typhoon is still to change quite substantially, it has a list of upgrades to come including:

- Conformal fuel tanks along the fuselage to increase its range, reduce need for external stores (more munitions or less air resistance plus more stealth and a healthy dose of making it look ugly)
- Thrust Vectored Engines that will increase fuel efficiency by 5%, create easier supercruising and turn it from a hyperagile aircraft into a downright cheating platform when it comes to turning
- Meteor BVR missile, as mentioned above it's an incredible effective AA missile
- Integration of Storm Shadow, Raptor Pods, Brimstone II and Harpoon
- AESA Radar mounted in the nose for vastly extended detection range
- Duel mode bombing, capable of targeting, locking and engaging two targets simultaneously in one pass
- LERX Upgrade, which improves angle of attack stability and creates 10% better turn rates (This is past cheating and right into HAX territory now, I think this might also be the SCALP upgrade by another name)

Blue_Badger #108 Posted 03 May 2013 - 11:50 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012
There is one thing I don't understand. The engagements started 50km apart at "visual" range. What on Earth can the Raptor do to the Typhoon beyond that point? Surely no missile in its arsenal can reach that far and if they did have one it would be massive.

Also the Conformal fuel tanks look like abscesses. Are they are replacement for drop tanks, i.e they are fitted before the mission?

ariel250 #109 Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:22 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6927 battles
  • 949
  • [M-C] M-C
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011
usually missiles over 60km range are quite big , heavy and that makes them less maneuverable in combat and less reliable and most of all , much more expensive . also bluebadger . in war thunder the british planes kind of suck . their jets have probably the slowest turning speed in the whole game .

also to anyone who understands in this : I've read that israel participates in the red-flag using the F-16I . is it true? if so what are their average results (only F-16I) ?

Blue_Badger #110 Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:36 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View Postariel250, on 03 May 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

also bluebadger . in war thunder the british planes kind of suck . their jets have probably the slowest turning speed in the whole game .

Quite a leap in subject there...

I'm only up to tier 6 and I've loved all the British planes so far. Hispano cannons could do with a buff but whatever. I'm a prop head so I don't care about the jets.

TheFuzzyOne #111 Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:53 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9980 battles
  • 1,869
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012

View PostBlue_Badger, on 03 May 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

There is one thing I don't understand. The engagements started 50km apart at "visual" range. What on Earth can the Raptor do to the Typhoon beyond that point? Surely no missile in its arsenal can reach that far and if they did have one it would be massive.

Also the Conformal fuel tanks look like abscesses. Are they are replacement for drop tanks, i.e they are fitted before the mission?

The Raptor can carry AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles that with a proper supercruise boost are said to be able to hit 180km in range, quite impressive. I'm not sure if that "D" varient is just in development or service, down from that it maxes at about 105km on the C varient. So they definitely have the range. The problem is in its radar, if it lights up to target out past visual range it might as well be flying with a giant I'M OVER HERE GUYS neon sign strapped to it.

The way the USAF considers that this will be countered is through the use of AWACS targeting for the Raptor. This was somewhat problematic in that the Raptor's couldn't "talk" systems wise to the AWACS platform, however I think they have corrected this as of latest upgrades. Don't quote me on it though, can't find any particulars. (And likely USAF wants it that way, which I can totally get behind)

The conformal fuel tanks are essentially a 'clean' range upgrade. ie - Range you can travel without drop tanks. Most interceptors will ditch their tanks before closing with their target for optimum agility. It's less about range in some ways and more about how much you have to burn in combat.  So with more fuel internally, a Typhoon will have greater fuel sustainability in actual combat compared to just for flight range.

View Postariel250, on 03 May 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

usually missiles over 60km range are quite big , heavy and that makes them less maneuverable in combat and less reliable and most of all , much more expensive.

Not really.

Quote

also to anyone who understands in this : I've read that israel participates in the red-flag using the F-16I . is it true? if so what are their average results (only F-16I) ?

Haven't heard of much, frankly. They tend to be a bit busy defending their country.

yourgreatestfear #112 Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:07 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31427 battles
  • 1,050
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View Postariel250, on 03 May 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

... I've read that israel participates in the red-flag using the F-16I . is it true? if so what are their average results (only F-16I) ?

Israel isn't always attending red flag and if, only at nellis .. last time 2009 if i remember correctly. Can't imagine you will find any official results, just some summarizing. In the light of latest results of the Raptor or the even (yes, they catched up) Eurofighter those F-16I wouldn't stand out I guess.

As for the long range missiles ...

Quote

In a 2008 study (big file!), the Air Force-funded think tank RAND warned against assuming long-range missiles will work. RAND looked at 588 air-to-air shoot-downs since the 1950s and counted just 24 that occurred with the attacker firing from beyond visual range. Historically, American long-range air-to-air missiles have been 90-percent less effective than predicted, RAND asserted.
By David Axe, wired.com

Long range means early detection and easier countermeasures, good versus poor tech but bad vs modern systems.
... propably a reason why US officials reacted quiet shocked by the ass whooping in the merge with german eurofighters.

Edited by yourgreatestfear, 03 May 2013 - 02:19 PM.


Blue_Badger #113 Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:07 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View Postyourgreatestfear, on 03 May 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Long range means early detection and easier countermeasures, good versus poor tech but bad vs modern systems.
... propably a reason why US officials reacted quiet shocked by the ass whooping in the merge with german eurofighters.

And British ones  :blinky:

Sorry, I had to throw that in there. I doubt it was an "ass whooping" but they definitely gave them a challenge. Something which shouldn't be the case given the difference in generation and project cost. It may also show why only the US has invested in such weapon systems while the worlds pragmatists (Europe) stick to what they know works.

yourgreatestfear #114 Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31427 battles
  • 1,050
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
From the article I took the quote from it came out that only the german Ts went up against F22. No word about what the british did and how they performed. Wasn't my intention to say they can't do it, nothing speaks against it from a technical point of view.

Of course they didn't outclassed them, but both sides agreed that the planes are evenly matched and that alone was considered an ass whooping for the mighty F-22 if you believe the source. To be fair, the germans had prior Red Flag exercises against the F-22 which hadnt gone so well. I guess they trained especially for these engagments. In the end the US doesn't have to fear the Eurofighter anyway, in any scenario we would be highly advanced allies completing each other. What was so shocking is the differences in tech and the thought what other modern, opposing fighters could be capable off.

Blue_Badger #115 Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:28 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012
The British trained with the Americans at a later date but less detail is known. It is strongly hinted that they came off just as well.

yourgreatestfear #116 Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31427 battles
  • 1,050
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
Would be intersting to find out tho, this would mean they didnt fixed the problems with their F-22.

Quote

The Germans’ tactics, revealed in the latest Combat Aircraft magazine, represent the latest reality check for the $400-million-a-copy F-22, following dozens of pilot blackouts, and possibly a crash, reportedly related to problems with the unique g-force-defying vests worn by Raptor pilots.

Edit:
BTW something more on topic, alltho not speculation anymore:

Quote

Cassidian Optronics GmbH, previously known as Carl Zeiss Optronics GmbH, will supply the new "Attica" thermal imaging unit for the commander's periscope in the Bundeswehr's Leopard 2 battle tanks. After extensive trials, the German procurement authority BAAINBw (Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support) has awarded this Cassidian subsidiary an order to deliver the "Attica" to a value of almost 7 million euros. The third generation of thermal imaging equipment from Cassidian Optronics thus becomes the standard for the commander's Peri R17 periscope, which is also supplied by Cassidian Optronics.
...
As a consequence of this German decision, other states in the "LEOBEN" association of Leopard user states are also planning procurement of the Peri R17. This will further standardise the level of configuration for the LEOBEN states
...
source Cassidian Optronics GmbH

Edited by yourgreatestfear, 03 May 2013 - 03:47 PM.


TheFuzzyOne #117 Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:53 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9980 battles
  • 1,869
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012
Most excellent, glad to see Germany is still pushing forth on their Leo 2 upgrades. The Europe wide reduction of MBT's is galling but at least they're remaining world beating!

Also, while we're on the subject of German dogfighting, here's a little embarrassment for the French. The F-22 isn't the only plane they've given a bloody nose and a black eye with planes generations older than it.

From Frisian Flag 2008, this was spotted afterward on a German F-4 Phantom.

yourgreatestfear #118 Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:04 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31427 battles
  • 1,050
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
Leo 2 upgrades currently are in full production. Its said Rheinmetall already started production on MTB Revolutions for the indonesia contract and KMW offically started production for the Bundeswehr & katar contracts involving 2A7+.

Besides the Merkava the Leopard is probably the most frequently upgraded tank these last years. Business was good enough to finance some developments even without contracts.

Blue_Badger #119 Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:10 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012
The Germans still use Phantoms? That's pretty funny in any case. I'm assuming there is no proper info on that exercise then?

yourgreatestfear #120 Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:45 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31427 battles
  • 1,050
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
The last Phantoms in our service (around 40) are used by our Jagdgeschwader 71 "Richthofen" in tasks like Air Policing for the NATO. The Jg Richthofen is replacing the Phantoms currently with Eurofighters as they are delivered, its expected the last Phantom will see retirement in 2014.

A good plane is like a good tank, if regulary upgraded it will still bite. Best example probably being the F-16.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users