Typhoons go supersonic
Discussion
doogz said:
Simpo Two said:
From the same paper - I don't understand this:
'In spite of a range (on paper) of 4,000 km, according to the Interfax news agency, the four bombers refueled twice during the flight, performing air-to-air refueling in pairs. The flight of Fullback planes covered a total distance of more than 50,000 km in three days; each Su-34 spent about 20 hours in flight during the trip.'
Why do jet bombers take three days to get from Russia to the North Pole and back (not far)?
http://theaviationist.com/2014/08/14/su-34-mig-31-...
They didn't.'In spite of a range (on paper) of 4,000 km, according to the Interfax news agency, the four bombers refueled twice during the flight, performing air-to-air refueling in pairs. The flight of Fullback planes covered a total distance of more than 50,000 km in three days; each Su-34 spent about 20 hours in flight during the trip.'
Why do jet bombers take three days to get from Russia to the North Pole and back (not far)?
http://theaviationist.com/2014/08/14/su-34-mig-31-...
The Russians have built some really nice looking aircraft. The Su27 and 'spins offs' are a great looking machine.
djc206 said:
ecsrobin said:
I don't see a requirement for them to be any closer they can make london in 6 minutes once airbourne.
I do. London is very close to the Southern and Eastern edges of the London FIR which means very little notice/time.doogz said:
Simpo Two said:
From the same paper - I don't understand this:
'In spite of a range (on paper) of 4,000 km, according to the Interfax news agency, the four bombers refueled twice during the flight, performing air-to-air refueling in pairs. The flight of Fullback planes covered a total distance of more than 50,000 km in three days; each Su-34 spent about 20 hours in flight during the trip.'
Why do jet bombers take three days to get from Russia to the North Pole and back (not far)?
http://theaviationist.com/2014/08/14/su-34-mig-31-...
They didn't.'In spite of a range (on paper) of 4,000 km, according to the Interfax news agency, the four bombers refueled twice during the flight, performing air-to-air refueling in pairs. The flight of Fullback planes covered a total distance of more than 50,000 km in three days; each Su-34 spent about 20 hours in flight during the trip.'
Why do jet bombers take three days to get from Russia to the North Pole and back (not far)?
http://theaviationist.com/2014/08/14/su-34-mig-31-...
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Benson and Brize, to the West, Odiham and Boscombe to the South West, Wattisham to the North East. Northolt is less than ideal owing to its short runway.
Manston?? Long enoug rounway. They could be based there during the day, then fly back to 12 group during the evening. Maybe those in 10 group cover the evenings?williamp said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Benson and Brize, to the West, Odiham and Boscombe to the South West, Wattisham to the North East. Northolt is less than ideal owing to its short runway.
Manston?? Long enoug rounway. They could be based there during the day, then fly back to 12 group during the evening. Maybe those in 10 group cover the evenings?Mr_B said:
How many Russian aircraft does it take to swamp the Coningsby QRA ?
given that QRA South does not operate in isolation , there iarwe also the QRA north resources and there will be aircraft not allocated to QRA at a high state of readiness, plus of course the QRA facilities of Nato /EU Neighbours who pull their weight ( Belgium, Denmark, Norway , the Dutch) and of course the Swedes who aren;t friends with Putin although technically neutral. Not forgetting to to mention the USAF 48FW at Lakenheath whose F15-Cs are air superiority only versions and the F15E is a multirole version
Mr_B said:
baldy1926 said:
2
And the response time is a sneaky third plane is incoming ? Reality is there are potentially quite a few fighters scattered around that could respond, but not that many actually loaded up and ready to go at a moments notice.
If we need more aircraft they would need to be readied before they could launch. Its not the Battle of Britain though, and so the assessment is that the current number of aircraft on QRA is sufficient to handle the likely threat - there are a similar number of aircraft available on QRA now as at the height of the Cold War, when the number of intercepts was higher.
Also remember that each Typhoon has more than one missile
frodo_monkey said:
dudleybloke said:
What stand-off range does the typhoon's weapons systems have?
Yeah, loads of people will give you classified on t'internet! 'Enough' is the answer...http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/amraam.cfm
Burrow01 said:
frodo_monkey said:
dudleybloke said:
What stand-off range does the typhoon's weapons systems have?
Yeah, loads of people will give you classified on t'internet! 'Enough' is the answer...http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/amraam.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_%28missile%29
Mojocvh said:
Meteor. According to MBDA, Meteor has three to six times the kinematic performance of current air-air missiles of its type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_%28missile%29
Meteor does look very good, although the MBDA marketing department don't exactly do subtle - http://youtu.be/sIYc694Os_w?t=2m7shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_%28missile%29
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff