Typhoon question - Pylons and Loads

[Emu]

Two questions:

 

Does the central pylon have to be used for the targeting pod meaning that it can't be used for a drop tank?

 

Can you (will you be able to when they're qualified) carry 2 SCALP EGs and 3 drop tanks?

[Aginor]

IIRC it can carry a centerline fuel tank with 1000 litres.

 

EDIT: I thought I had seen something like you described somewhere (3 tanks + 2 storm shadow) but I was wrong, it was a Rafale in the picture I remembered, not a Typhoon.

But I found a loadout page somewhere that describes that loadout for the Typhoon, so it might be possible. Lots of drag though, I guess.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Aginor

[Emu]

But I found a loadout page somewhere that describes that loadout for the Typhoon, so it might be possible. Lots of drag though, I guess.

Thanks. Do you have a link?

 

My question on the centre-line pylon surrounded the fact that the only pictures I've seen with a targeting pod attached, show it on that pylon. Can it go elsewhere?

[Aginor]

I don't remember where I read it. So I can only provide you with Google results. If you google "eurofighter loadout" and try picture search you'll find lots of pictures with the centerline tank.

 

Here's a link (sorry, in German). Scroll down completely, the loadout you want is on the left side. No TGP though, since it doesn't fit, see below.

http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofighter/bewaffnung.htm

 

 

As for the TGP:

http://www.airpower.at/news06/0925_evolution-ef/5-nations.jpg

So you can mount a TGP on the BVRAAM stations, but I read somewhere that there are different TGPs available (or were at least tried), and the newer one is bigger, so it only fits the centerline station. Or something like that.

 

No further links at the moment but I'll try and dig some more out tomorrow.

[Eddie]

In current operational variants the targeting pod is limited to station 13 only (centreline), it "might" be possible to lload it on other stations later on down the line (quite a way down the line).

 

As for Storm Shadow (I had to Google what SCALP EG was as it's not known by that name in the Eurofighter world), no it's going to be Stn 5 & 6 only, so it either wing tanks or Storm Shadow.

[Aginor]

Ok, so my info was quite outdated, it seems.

Thanks for clarifying, Eddie!

 

So I'm sorry, Emu, I think I may have mixed it up with the Rafale (once more), which seems to be able to carry the loadout mentioned:

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SCALP-STORM-SHADOW-RAFALE.jpg

[Emu]

In current operational variants the targeting pod is limited to station 13 only (centreline), it "might" be possible to lload it on other stations later on down the line (quite a way down the line).

 

As for Storm Shadow (I had to Google what SCALP EG was as it's not known by that name in the Eurofighter world), no it's going to be Stn 5 & 6 only, so it either wing tanks or Storm Shadow.

Damn, that was some bad planning by the designers and weapon/pod integrators.

[Eddie]

How so?

[JaseGill]

If you think about it the load out kind of makes sense.

 

Storm Shadow is Standoff so why carry big jugs (fuel tanks) to get to the target. You don't want to be anywhere near the target as that's the point of a standoff weapon, hence you don't need the fuel. Then you can put a big jug on the centreline (jettisonable) to get any extra duration you may need.

 

With a centreline pod you can either put a lot of weapons on or a few less (but still plenty) and jugs as well.

 

We all assume that aircraft (and crews) want to carry as many weapons as they can and have the ability to hit lots of targets. In the modern world the mission is specified so tightly that you carry only the weapons you need for the given tasking and no one wants to carry extra weight and then have to jettison expensive weapons if theres a knife fight coming. No one runs around any more with big multi-ejector racks and tens of bombs Vietnam style.

 

With PGM's on the wings and a centreline pod you can do all you need for a given tasking. Everyone carried loads of weapons (think F4's over Vietnam) because the probability of kill was so low they dropped loads just to hit one target. Now its 1 target 1 weapon and the taskings themselves are more tightly constrained too.

 

Just my two penworth.

[Emu]

But on an interdiction strike it's not unforeseeable that someone might want to maximise range, with 3 tanks and 2 Storm Shadows. The laser pod position is more a matter of versatility.

[Eddie]

Hence the interest in conformal tanks. ;)

[Emu]

Hence the interest in conformal tanks. ;)

2 problems. You can't jettison CFTs and if you could carry 3 tanks and CFTs, the range would be even better.

 

But I guess it's not a massive problem because I don't really know how often strikes are carried out against targets that far away anyway.:thumbup:

[Eddie]

2 problems. You can't jettison CFTs and if you could carry 3 tanks and CFTs, the range would be even better.

 

Well you can't really afford to be punching off drop tanks too often either. And the big advantage of CFTs is that they carry more fuel with considerably less drag than conventional external tanks. Even the supersonic tanks used with Typhoon. CFTs + 3 tanks would add as much range as you'd expect either, there comes a point where the extra weight & drag starts to cancel out the extra fuel carried. 3 tank fits are already ferry flight only in practice.

 

But I guess it's not a massive problem because I don't really know how often strikes are carried out against targets that far away anyway.:thumbup:

 

Mission range isn't the limitation as such. It's the range you need to fly without tanker support and/or in-between tanker visits that matters. And considering that Storm shadow has a 300NM+ range of it's own, in all but a very few cases you'd be able to release your weapons far enough away from the target that you wouldn't need to go more than a couple of hundred miles from the nearest tanker track at best.

[Emu]

Well you can't really afford to be punching off drop tanks too often either. And the big advantage of CFTs is that they carry more fuel with considerably less drag than conventional external tanks. Even the supersonic tanks used with Typhoon. CFTs + 3 tanks would add as much range as you'd expect either, there comes a point where the extra weight & drag starts to cancel out the extra fuel carried. 3 tank fits are already ferry flight only in practice.

Oh, I know drop tanks are not dropped often due to cost but in an emergency situation, it's surely cheaper than losing the aircraft. I see what you're saying though, it's range that isn't often used.

 

 

Mission range isn't the limitation as such. It's the range you need to fly without tanker support and/or in-between tanker visits that matters. And considering that Storm shadow has a 300NM+ range of it's own, in all but a very few cases you'd be able to release your weapons far enough away from the target that you wouldn't need to go more than a couple of hundred miles from the nearest tanker track at best.

What about tanker-short export markets though?;)

 

I've never seen 300+nmi quoted for a Storm Shadow before but I've always thought the stated ranges were low for a missile that size. Given that a JASSM-ER is 4.7m long, weighs 2250lbs and can cover about 1000km, it was always obvious to me that a 5m long 2700-2800lb Storm Shadow could do more than 270km, or even 500km as is now stated. It could make a cracking AShM with some sensor/datalink mods.

[whiteladder]

It could make a cracking AShM with some sensor/datalink mods.

 

 

This is especially true as the UK currently has no long range air launched AShM in its inventory, quite literally a shocking state of affairs.

[Eddie]

Why would we need/want one? The Navy have no aircraft and won't for a while.

 

I'm sure the fish heads will go hunting for something when they get some jets again , until than they've got plenty if boats with missiles that outrange their previous air launched ASMs.

[whiteladder]

Why would we need/want one? The Navy have no aircraft and won't for a while.

 

I'm sure the fish heads will go hunting for something when they get some jets again , until than they've got plenty if boats with missiles that outrange their previous air launched ASMs.

 

Apart from the fact that its not only the Navy that are in the trade of sinking ships, I think most modern Airforces see the benefit of being able to attack a ship at sea from 200+ miles away rather than from a frigate 50 miles away.

 

Also using your surface fleet to attack shipping is only an option when you don`t face a enemy that has invested in an air launched AshM or has a surface fleet that has missiles that outrange your own.

 

The UK current Air launched anti-shipping capability is worse than it was in the 1960`s

Edited June 4, 2014 by whiteladder

[Emu]

Why would we need/want one? The Navy have no aircraft and won't for a while.

 

I'm sure the fish heads will go hunting for something when they get some jets again , until than they've got plenty if boats with missiles that outrange their previous air launched ASMs.

Tornados carried Sea Eagles until 2007 and they are not naval aircraft.

 

 

Apart from the fact that its not only the Navy that are in the trade of sinking ships, I think most modern Airforces see the benefit of being able to attack a ship at sea from 200+ miles away rather than from a frigate 50 miles away.

 

Also using your surface fleet to attack shipping is only an option when you don`t face a enemy that has invested in an air launched AshM or has a surface fleet that has missiles that outrange your own.

 

The UK current Air launched anti-shipping capability is worse than it was in the 1960`s

We could always use TLAM-D with an ESM seeker from ships and subs I guess but I agree that there's a capability gap. F-35s are due to get Kongsberg JSM but its external carry on the B variant, so a longer range weapon would be better. Would be nice to have a home-grown one too, we're too reliant on imports.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Emu

[Eddie]

The times they are a changin'.

 

The sea eagle was never replaced as there just wasn't the need. We did have a naval strike role indeed, but today it's simply not seen as necessary to maintain such a capability which is so range limited. It's not the Cold War anymore.

 

The RAF is focused on expeditionary operations and UK air defence, not defending against an eastern block attack on the mainland.

 

Maybe in the imaginary world of Cold War budgets we'd maintain such a capability, but when you're already having to save £3.5 billion over the life of one aircraft maintaining duplicate capabilities from a bygone era is just impractical.

[whiteladder]

The times they are a changin'.

 

The sea eagle was never replaced as there just wasn't the need. We did have a naval strike role indeed, but today it's simply not seen as necessary to maintain such a capability which is so range limited. It's not the Cold War anymore.

 

The RAF is focused on expeditionary operations and UK air defence, not defending against an eastern block attack on the mainland.

 

Maybe in the imaginary world of Cold War budgets we'd maintain such a capability, but when you're already having to save £3.5 billion over the life of one aircraft maintaining duplicate capabilities from a bygone era is just impractical.

 

and yet we invest Billions defending the Falkland Island from Argentina with 4 Typhoons that currently couldn`t stop the Rio Gallegos ferry docking at Port Stanley, let alone their Navy.

 

The BRIC nations have a growing and improving blue water naval capability, and actual since the Falkland every conflict that the UK has been involved in has been expeditionary in nature, it actually makes more sense to have a broad range of capabilities.

 

When we have concentrated on a narrow focus as in the 70`s when our naval strategy was completely centered on defending the GIUK gap against Soviet Subs, we came unstuck when we asked our servicemen to launch a amphibious assault 8000 mile from the UK.

 

Had we not retired the Ark Royal with it`s Anti shipping capability the Falklands war would never of happened.

[Emu]

and yet we invest Billions defending the Falkland Island from Argentina with 4 Typhoons that currently couldn`t stop the Rio Gallegos ferry docking at Port Stanley, let alone their Navy.

 

The BRIC nations have a growing and improving blue water naval capability, and actual since the Falkland every conflict that the UK has been involved in has been expeditionary in nature, it actually makes more sense to have a broad range of capabilities.

 

When we have concentrated on a narrow focus as in the 70`s when our naval strategy was completely centered on defending the GIUK gap against Soviet Subs, we came unstuck when we asked our servicemen to launch a amphibious assault 8000 mile from the UK.

 

Had we not retired the Ark Royal with it`s Anti shipping capability the Falklands war would never of happened.

I agree with that point. We put fighters on the Falklands with no AShM capability. That's just flawed thinking. You can't stop a ship if you don't have a weapon that out-ranges its air defences.

[EtherealN]

Considered the fact that fighters on the Falklands AT ALL is, itself, a message saying "yes, we'll fight for these here islands"?

 

And seriously, the risk of Argentina invading again... nonexistant. In case you haven't noticed, the political situation is a teeny weeny bit different now. :P

[Emu]

Considered the fact that fighters on the Falklands AT ALL is, itself, a message saying "yes, we'll fight for these here islands"?

 

And seriously, the risk of Argentina invading again... nonexistant. In case you haven't noticed, the political situation is a teeny weeny bit different now. :P

Let's not bring politics into this but the fact they're there at all indicates otherwise. It's expensive to have fighters over there and not something that's done for a laugh.

[Eddie]

and yet we invest Billions defending the Falkland Island from Argentina with 4 Typhoons that currently couldn`t stop the Rio Gallegos ferry docking at Port Stanley, let alone their Navy.

 

 

Right, and? That's not what they are there to do, they are there to provide QRA Interceptor cover to the Falklands. They replaced Tornado F3s, which didn't have any kind of A/G capability, never mind anti-ship capability. And if you think we spend Billions on that then you're being daft.

 

Naval defence is the job of the Navy with all their VERY expensive toys.

[Eddie]

We put fighters on the Falklands with no AShM capability. That's just flawed thinking.

 

I guess we'd best bring them home then, clearly air defence fighters are pointless if they can't also take on ships. Never mind that we've never had fighters with such a capability based in the Falklands before Typhoon.

 

You can't stop a ship if you don't have a weapon that out-ranges its air defences.

 

Again, that's why the Navy have a sub and at least one surface ship down there all the time. Providing a far more effective anti-shipping capability than land based aircraft ever could.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Eddie