EuroFighter Tycoon
Discussion
Mr Dave said:
Bosshogg76 said:
I've never changed a set of wings for corrosion,
Can you just swap on a new set of wings if need be? (obviously it is a lot easier said than done!) How are they attached? Spar through the middle of the aircraft with two big pivots either side? What all has to come off to do that if its the case?Sorry for so many questions just curious.
And yeah I thought there was probably a lot more moaning about actually having to do work than anything else. Although the wings being built in Italy in the 1980s and corrosion didnt seem unpossible. So its good news about Tornado servicability then, getting rid of another useful aircraft type with plenty of life left.
Mr Dave said:
rhinochopig said:
Mr Dave said:
rhinochopig said:
Can anyone answer the following questions?
At the start of the Eurofighter project I remember having a looksee at one of the optioneering studies for the HMI. Two technologies considered where voice activation for some of the avionics and weapon systems, and the ability to user record warning / alarm voices - the theory being that pilot was more likely to respond to an out of context voice during high cog workload situations. For example, your wife or child telling you that your opponent has missile lock.
Did any of this tech make into production - I'm assuming the warning voice stuff didn't but did the VR capability?
British pilots respond best to a calm female voice telling them what is happening, ze Germans responded best to an authoritative mans voice shouting at them. Says it all really.At the start of the Eurofighter project I remember having a looksee at one of the optioneering studies for the HMI. Two technologies considered where voice activation for some of the avionics and weapon systems, and the ability to user record warning / alarm voices - the theory being that pilot was more likely to respond to an out of context voice during high cog workload situations. For example, your wife or child telling you that your opponent has missile lock.
Did any of this tech make into production - I'm assuming the warning voice stuff didn't but did the VR capability?
So did voice regognition make it then?
Up against the F22 we are at a major disadvantage, but compared to everything else out there except maybe the Su-30MKIs we are very well placed to achieve air superiority. Against Argentinian Daggers it would be a slaughter.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/18/33...
Penguinracer said:
With Russia exporting (or at least potentially exporting) MiG 1.42s, MiG 1.27s & Sukhoi (T-50) PAK-FAs to all & sundry plus the Chinese J-XX program in full flow - there can be no complacency in the West. Indeed large forces of thrust vectoring, stealth capable fifth-generation aircraft in India, China, Pakistan & Russia are rapidly becoming a reality - and a leveller.
True apart from Pakistan. Russia will build 5th gen. plane, and sell ToT to India. Who will then co-build with Russia.
China is vastly improving, but not on the same level as Russia.
Pakistan is not an up and coming superpower, and therefore does not have the economy to be building, and/or buying 5th gen. planes. They just bought F16's block 52's, and have had their older fleet upgraded to F16C/D and co-built the JF17 Thunder. Wheres as the three bigger regional powers are quite a bit ahead in terms of devolping a 5th gen.plane.
It will only be possible for Pakistan to have a 5th gen plane, if either they are sold the F-35(not happening) or if China aids Pakistan. (and they wont be giving their new 5th gen. plane away as soon as it's built)
digimeistter said:
So does anyone have any info on the 5th Gen platforms from China/Russia?
They dont have anything in production as of yet. But a lot of interesting progress is being made, with prototype platforms being developed. I believe Russia has declared it's intentions of building a 5th gen plane. China is making vast progress in the stealth aspects of a plane, however having said that, a 5th gen. plane is not all about stealth. It's about engines, avionics, weapons, radar, stability, payload... basically everything including stealth.5th gen isn't really stealth at all - low observability is the phrase. The real thing about it is all of the connectivity. The idea is that the fighter will be able to pull in data from AWACS, GPS, Satellite imagery, aircraft and ground radar, and so on, and be able to integrate all of that into a single virtual battlefield. That can then be shared with all other units, ground, air and sea based, so everybody knows exactly what's going on.
Now the funny thing about all of that is that the avionics package can be upgraded on an older fighter to bring it up to 5th generation standards of connectivity and tactical awareness.
The only time one would ever need LO is for when you want to go and bomb somebody who has very good early warning systems (like Iran). For what our airforce is doing now (dropping bombs on terrorists who don't own planes, and meeting the russians when they come to visit) the Typhoon does exactly what it needs to (quick takeoff and climb, supercruise, good weapons loadout) without being compromised by the LO stuff it doesn't really need. That's why we're buying the F-35.
Now the funny thing about all of that is that the avionics package can be upgraded on an older fighter to bring it up to 5th generation standards of connectivity and tactical awareness.
The only time one would ever need LO is for when you want to go and bomb somebody who has very good early warning systems (like Iran). For what our airforce is doing now (dropping bombs on terrorists who don't own planes, and meeting the russians when they come to visit) the Typhoon does exactly what it needs to (quick takeoff and climb, supercruise, good weapons loadout) without being compromised by the LO stuff it doesn't really need. That's why we're buying the F-35.
Rotary Madness said:
Has noone ever thought about taking a good old plane design, like the lightening, and rebuilding it with todays tech and materials? Im pretty sure composites and engine tech have made quite huge leaps in the last 30 odd years.
Would make for one sily fast jet...
We can do silly fast, Ram-Jet and Aurora.. But I don't think everything is about speed on these new planes. Would make for one sily fast jet...
Someone far more informed than me will be along soon.
Edited by Jonny671 on Wednesday 21st July 08:48
Typhoon has the same speed as the Lightning, its ROC surpasses that of the Lightning, time has moved on.
The Lightning was pretty limited being designed to get off the ground to attack incoming Russkies, it had enough fuel for about 20 minutes, needed a lot of space to turn, couldn't carry any bombs etc. Typhoon can do much,much more
The Lightning was pretty limited being designed to get off the ground to attack incoming Russkies, it had enough fuel for about 20 minutes, needed a lot of space to turn, couldn't carry any bombs etc. Typhoon can do much,much more
The Lightning was based on a 1948 specification. It would be in extreme difficulty in tn any sort of engagement wityh a modern state of the art fighter in many ways.
In the mid 1980s, Lightnings did take part in exercises with F-15s and F-16s and, although there were some areas where it could compete, its limitations were obvious.
In the mid 1980s, Lightnings did take part in exercises with F-15s and F-16s and, although there were some areas where it could compete, its limitations were obvious.
The real Apache said:
The Lightning was pretty limited being designed to get off the ground to attack incoming Russkies, it had enough fuel for about 20 minutes, needed a lot of space to turn, couldn't carry any bombs etc. Typhoon can do much,much more
Lightning certainley didn't need a lot of space to turn, especially when compared to any of it's contempories of the day, and up to the introduction of the F-16/F-15/Viggen generation was by far and away the most agile fighter in the sky with the best donks on the planet. But it was 1950's tech, and the fact that it could still hold it's own until the mid 1980's was a testament to it's design.
T'was a complete b
h to maintain though And the F.53 version in RSAF service could carry bombs/SNEB pods and indeed dropped/fired them in anger.
aeropilot said:
The real Apache said:
The Lightning was pretty limited being designed to get off the ground to attack incoming Russkies, it had enough fuel for about 20 minutes, needed a lot of space to turn, couldn't carry any bombs etc. Typhoon can do much,much more
Lightning certainley didn't need a lot of space to turn, especially when compared to any of it's contempories of the day, and up to the introduction of the F-16/F-15/Viggen generation was by far and away the most agile fighter in the sky with the best donks on the planet. But it was 1950's tech, and the fact that it could still hold it's own until the mid 1980's was a testament to it's design.
T'was a complete b
h to maintain though And the F.53 version in RSAF service could carry bombs/SNEB pods and indeed dropped/fired them in anger.
Obviously.....we weren't discussing it's contempories though, acknowledge the RSAF info though
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff