marcos

You're at least half right. The UK can't really afford the luxury of dedicated role fighters, same goes for most other EU countries but the Typhoon was designed predominantly for air superiority, with Tornados covering most ground attack until the JSFs get here. That's why they've not exactly rushed things along with the A2G weapons qualification for the Typhoon. So far only EPW II (1000lb DMLGB) is qualified unless Eddie has an update. Eventually (:doh:) it will include Paveway III/IV, GBU-24, JDAMs, ALARM and later Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Taurus. Future possibilities include SPEAR and I think the Germans have some other weapons like Apache, HOSBO and HOPE that they may qualify. I'm not sure what the future holds. We're currently committed to at least 48 F-35B with the intent to expand that to '3 figures'. The intention being to rotate them between carrier and land to increase longevity. Whether the Tornados will stay I have no idea. I'd love to see them replaced with F-35As but the budget says that's unlikely. The F-35 is a great aircraft, it's just that some people try make it out to be better than great. The real A2A potential of the F-35 has been sorely missed with all this debate on acceleration and manoeuvrability. The real advantage is in the fact that it's a stealth aircraft with 360 degree EOST and SAIRST and HMCS and probably AIM-9X and ASRAAM when it gets here I'd imagine. Now that not only gives it an advantage WVR over the F-22, it could also mean that it gets first detection!

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-24/issue-02/special-report/intelligent-avionics.html F-35 and Typhoon avionics news http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-24/issue-02/special-report/intelligent-avionics.html (Lot of it so won't paste.)

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/02/typhoon-test-pilot-responds-to.html

Typhoon pilot says Billy Flynn is talking bollocks. http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/ Provided that the F-35 will be able to solve all its problems, and that the raising costs will not lead to a death spiral of order cuts, both the British RAF and the Italian Air Force will be equipped with both the JSF and the Typhoon. Mock aerial combat training will tell us who’s better in aerial combat.

Top Gear Cobra accident

All modern fighters are designed to have that to some extent, but ASRAAM body-lift is different entirely.

That's also based on thrust vs lift/drag. Good for you. That's not the actual kinematic range of the missile then. But it's failed that spec on other grounds. At least you can admit that much.

Especially useful if it comes from a stealth fighter too.:)

Let's face it, the F-35 hasn't exactly been meeting threshold specs lately (see STR spec). So I'm being generous really. The object figure of 1.1 is based on a Hornet (read whole doc) C-5 is rated at 105km, so I guess you're looking at a high altitude shot at a drone at SL. Spec says. It's all about whether the F-35 can out-pull a Typhoon from 0.8 to 1.2.

True. More likely to be playing scout for Meteor targeting with EFs following them. If they had to detect it themselves in the first place but if the forward group passed the target details, they could then acquire it easily, in the same way as the F-35 acquired the ground fire threat in the video I posted in the other thread. It's not the same technology. If it was then an ASRAAM would just be a Python 5 without fins (since the US passed Israel the LOAL and off-boresight tech. after it left the project). Fighter body-lift is generated by the body itself forming an aerofoil-like shape. That's not how missile body-lifting technology works, since the body is symmetrical. Think about it, the ASRAAM just has those small fins at the back without it.:) And that's only at Mach 2. Wing sweep is definitely an issue but ideally a Mach 4 object should not have wings. An SR-71's wings would likely be smaller if it didn't have to land and take-off. And that was due to the shape of the body as an aerofoil not body-lifting technology. It would have had less wave drag at Mach 3.5 with even smaller wings. No and yet the ASRAAM with little iddy-biddy fins at the back does.:D Why, they'll be hit by ballistic missiles or supersonic cruise missiles from stand-off ranges by any force with Gen 4.5 aircraft. Well that works both ways and IR/EOST is a 360deg system vs radar, which is narrow FOV. Ground radar yes, but we omitted them. Exactly. Hide or run? Yes but given that the F-35 has missed the threshold STR spec...... I was taking the piss out of FlightGlobal. That's where IR/EOST comes in within 50km or more if it's from a rear aspect (jet exhaust showing). Still a very iffy distance though. Top speed is only 1.6 with reheat, so unlikely. Assuming it has a higher service ceiling being a heavier aircraft with smaller wings? That's what you get with body-lifting technology.

^Cheers.

Now, I was going to post something good before reading all this shit. What was it? Ah yes: http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/02/11/522451/10021210/en/Northrop-Grumman-AAQ-37-Sensor-System-Demonstrates-Hostile-Fire-Detection-Capability.html The bit in bold also seems to pertain to my theory on AAM launch and IR/EOST.

The point was that if it can't even get past Mach 1.0 at SL, it sure as hell isn't going to out-accelerate a Typhoon from 0.8 to 1.2 at any altitude. What they probably did was just take figures for the Typhoon with 3 tanks and an A2A load, assuming that was fair based on fuel load, even though it isn't on range. Then again, the publication in question doesn't state any of this, and frankly they probably don't even know what the Typhoon's figures. How would they?

I'm sure nobody on the Typhoon project did any of that. Here in Europe we still design things with pencil and paper. That's how we managed to come up with a plane that's way lighter than F-35, has bigger wings, lower aspect ratio, a narrower body, no internal bays and roughly the same thrust, yet somehow still have slower transonic acceleration with just an A-A load. In the US where they use somethings called computers they can design a plane with apparently inferior performance parameters that somehow beats the Typhoon whilst carrying 2 JDAMs. Truly amazing. If only we could source some of these computer things. We have the abacus but it's just not the same.

^That's what I thought. Thanks.

From an experiment I did with GBU-10s, I found that Ripple Pairs QTY 1 = 1 bomb. I held the release button down for several seconds and only one bomb fell. QTY = 2 fixed the problem. Here is a RIPPRS QTY = 1 file. Another problem I'm having is bombs blowing up other bombs before they've hit. I.e. you drop 2 LGBs, and when the first explodes it destroys the second, meaning the target only gets hit with one bomb. RIPPRS.trk

When one 5,000lb bunker buster isn't enough

An S-200 can bring it down.

Mk-82 Airburst - first use in Mali http://www.opex360.com/2013/02/10/serval-larmee-de-lair-utilise-des-bombes-mk-82-airburst-pour-la-premiere-fois-en-operation/.

I figured that (hence the laugh).

Exorcet - You asked about the effective range of an ASRAAM. 50km

:lol: That's an M61A1 not a GAU-8A. Amazing how powerful they still are though.