PDA

View Full Version : OMG OMG! Spit and Typhoon



danjama
10-23-2005, 04:17 PM
You guys have to check out this video, a spitfire flying with a new Typhoon! In formation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about2972.html

danjama
10-23-2005, 04:17 PM
You guys have to check out this video, a spitfire flying with a new Typhoon! In formation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about2972.html

danjama
10-23-2005, 04:22 PM
I guess i should post this too! Lots of ww2 plane Vids. Warning though, there are quite a few crash videos, including the "Ramstein" video.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/forum-36.html

VW-IceFire
10-23-2005, 04:42 PM
Yeah I saw that before. It was quite a sight and the Eurofighter Typhoon sounds like it is every inch a top notch fighter.

Obvious comparison between it and the F/A-22 have come about. I won't be totally surprised if we don't find out in the future that both aircraft have a variety of advantages and disadvantages that, when weighed in combat, ultimately equal them out in the right situation. It does sound like the Typhoon may be more diverse in its weapon payload and the various European nations have a heck of a one-two punch with the latest upgraded Tornados and the new Typhoons.

What I found most interesting in the video is the manueverability and roll rate presented by the Spitfire PR 19 and Typhoon. You can overhear the pilots saying "Break break break" and the Spitfire rolls its wings and flies away...meanwhile the Typhoon snaps into position and just goes. Obviously the advantages of 60 years of aeronautical development but the contrast is shown extremely well.

ForkTailedDevil
10-23-2005, 05:41 PM
So I just had a thought. Are all new "fighters" vastly superior to old planes in terms of manueverability? Say could a A6M2 at combat speed pull a tighter turning circle than a Typhoon at its own combat speed for example?

danjama
10-23-2005, 05:46 PM
It really depends what u mean by combat speed! If you mean optimal speed for turning then, No! If you mean the jet tryin to turn as well as the Zero at the Zeros optimal turn speed, then i bet the Zero would win. Alot of ww2 planew would. Although Combat Jets of today have good low speed characteristics, they are not much for turning at say 300kmh!

*edit* Of course i could be completely off the mark. Its really just MO!

Badsight.
10-23-2005, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I won't be totally surprised if we don't find out in the future that both aircraft have a variety of advantages and disadvantages that, when weighed in combat, ultimately equal them out in the right situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no

the Raptor can do what the EF cannot

danjama
10-23-2005, 06:40 PM
such as? Im not doubting the Raptors maneuverability and versatility, but id think the Typhoon was on par with it! Could you give an example or reasoning for what u said?

Enforcer572005
10-23-2005, 06:41 PM
the typhoon is a great tac fighter (but the RAF cant afford the 27mm guns-last i heard), but the F-22 is practically invisible on radar, can supercruise at supersonic speeds for long periods, and has tremendous range. the computer suite is comparible to the starship enterprise.

now in a 1 on 1 fight close in, they may be pretty close, but the raptor has variable thrust, albeit in one axis, unlike hte su-30/35 variants that can vector anywhere on the clock.

of course, the USAF can only afford about half what it needs, so i guess we can give the RAF a break on not having the guns on theirs...if that is still the situation.

danjama
10-23-2005, 06:47 PM
**** Ministry of Defence Cuts! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Not sure about it now but i know they were cutting back the money going to the air force. Stupid country.

Bearcat99
10-23-2005, 10:54 PM
That is nice... I just love that Merlin sound.

fordfan25
10-23-2005, 11:04 PM
what an ugly looking plane. does brit's make everything that dang ugly by disign. do thay all sit around a ugly table and dismis designs because thay look to good untill thay come across something that is just so frickn butt ugly that thay feel is ugly enough to just make the enemy surrender? no style no charicter no ....coolnes its like a flyn mini http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif all IMO of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WOLFMondo
10-24-2005, 12:56 AM
One word. Concorde.:P No, wrong, Spitfire. The US have never made a graceful looking plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Yeah I saw that before. It was quite a sight and the Eurofighter Typhoon sounds like it is every inch a top notch fighter.

Obvious comparison between it and the F/A-22 have come about. I won't be totally surprised if we don't find out in the future that both aircraft have a variety of advantages and disadvantages that, when weighed in combat, ultimately equal them out in the right situation. It does sound like the Typhoon may be more diverse in its weapon payload and the various European nations have a heck of a one-two punch with the latest upgraded Tornados and the new Typhoons.

What I found most interesting in the video is the manueverability and roll rate presented by the Spitfire PR 19 and Typhoon. You can overhear the pilots saying "Break break break" and the Spitfire rolls its wings and flies away...meanwhile the Typhoon snaps into position and just goes. Obviously the advantages of 60 years of aeronautical development but the contrast is shown extremely well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire still looks a **** sight cooler though!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
10-24-2005, 02:16 AM
The new Tiffie rocks, but the the Raptor (gay name guys) is better. A US pilot familiar with the type reckons a Raptor v teen fighters (F-14/16/18 types or equivalents) is like clubbing baby seals; it's too easy. The Typhoon is THE uber-teenie fighter, but it's not a Raptor. You can't BVR what you can't see. Anyroad, there are some pretty nasty new generation SAMs out there even though past experience shows that aircraft win airspace, not surface to air but would you want to be in the air against PAC-3 or the S-400? Tranche 3 Tiffie's will be the world's best bomb trucks though.

WTE_Ibis
10-24-2005, 02:54 AM
Raptor, the Edsel of the sky.

Arm_slinger
10-24-2005, 07:17 AM
Bearcat, that Merlin, would be a Griffon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

OldMan____
10-24-2005, 07:26 AM
Raptor can´t be seen at long distances.. but he cannot see either sicne he must keep radar OFF. If he is using awcs link.. the awacs becomes the target.. everything has a drawback... may be very small but there is.

About range, that is not much needed in europe as in US common operations.

Also what are the price figures for both fighters?

trumper
10-24-2005, 11:42 AM
Dont forget the Spitfire is restricted in Gee force manouvres and also it could'nt turn any tighter or it would've flown into the Typhoons belly.

jarink
10-24-2005, 12:04 PM
Announcer comments: "It whirls like a dervish and climbs like a rocket."

He doesn't say whether he's talking about the EF Typhoon or the Spit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Xiolablu3
10-24-2005, 04:29 PM
Nice vids Danjama!

The Raptor is a lot more expensive than even the Typhoon.

It is probably the most advanced fighter in the world, bar anything the Russians have in secret...

Both planes are great fighters tho, the Raptor has the obvious stealth advantage, I dont know enough to comment on either other than that really.

VW-IceFire
10-24-2005, 05:20 PM
The trouble with stealth is that everyone assumes that it gives full stealth protection from all angles. This is unfortunately not true of any of the present generation of stealth aircraft.

The Raptor is stealth, but most of the experts who can speak about it say that it is not as stealth as the F-117 or B-2 and that in all cases they are not stealth from every angle. What they try and do is minimize radar returns...but there are still some radar returns. Additionally, the latest high-tech and sophisticated radar in the works apparently is so sensitive it can pick up stealth aircraft (or rather the wakes of air turbulance in their trail). Plus if there is a Raptor below you or directly above you, there's plenty of flat surfaces to get half returns on.

One magazine I was reading pointed out that a B-2 isn't a perfect fit either...saying that if a Mig-21 got close enough he could put an Atoll into the B-2 without too much trouble. The F/A-22 is supposed to cancel that possibility out by being a stealth fighter (duh!) but its not perfect. A Mig-21 could put an Atoll into a F/A-22 if the situation were right. And a whole bunch of randomly fired AAA can hit a F-5 just as easily as a F/A-22.

So from what I'm reading outside of the usual rah rah stealth amazingness is that stealth is a great feature but not the be all and end all of the argument. Eurofighter Typhoon is also relatively stealth in design but not to the same degree.

What I think makes these two new fighters all the more impressive is their weapons and flight systems. Both are said to be superb pilots aircraft with plenty of power, manuverability to the extreme, and a host of computers to help them keep it in the air and think about fighting (as mentioned in the video). Fortunately neither is likely to be flying against the other.

But I think there is something to be said about a Typhoon carrying a pair of Stormshadow cruise missiles under its wings...not something the the F/A-22 has an equivalent in capability.

Typhoon is a better bang for your buck I think...a true multirole fighter while the F/A-22 (despite its designation) is fighter supreme. Depends on what you can afford http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
10-24-2005, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Yeah I saw that before. It was quite a sight and the Eurofighter Typhoon sounds like it is every inch a top notch fighter.

Obvious comparison between it and the F/A-22 have come about. I won't be totally surprised if we don't find out in the future that both aircraft have a variety of advantages and disadvantages that, when weighed in combat, ultimately equal them out in the right situation. It does sound like the Typhoon may be more diverse in its weapon payload and the various European nations have a heck of a one-two punch with the latest upgraded Tornados and the new Typhoons.

What I found most interesting in the video is the manueverability and roll rate presented by the Spitfire PR 19 and Typhoon. You can overhear the pilots saying "Break break break" and the Spitfire rolls its wings and flies away...meanwhile the Typhoon snaps into position and just goes. Obviously the advantages of 60 years of aeronautical development but the contrast is shown extremely well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ice Ive seen the Typhoon twice in airshows in the last 2 years. Its very impressive more so than any other fighter Ive seen perform displays- probablly the next closest is Mirage 2000. The Tornado is great too, fast as hell at 0m and can carry loads of ordinance.

Badsight.
10-24-2005, 10:00 PM
modern jet discussions sure bring out the mis-infomation

Lucius_Esox
10-24-2005, 10:25 PM
Have to say prefered the sound of the Merlin.

Interesting the aoa the Typhoon is having to adopt to fly slow enough next to the Spitfire.

Oh yes the Typhoon has supercruise abilty as well.

I still luuuv the Raptor though, although at about twice the price ?........ I should do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Lucius_Esox
10-24-2005, 10:27 PM
Ah yes,,, I love the sound of that Griffin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Enforcer572005
10-24-2005, 10:34 PM
i checked the other threads on the site, but most of the links to the videos mentioned appear to have disapeared. I guess thats because of age. the ramstien vid is still availible though. Man, im getting weary of being stuck in dial up land.

ploughman
10-25-2005, 01:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ice Ive seen the Typhoon twice in airshows in the last 2 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've yet to see one, patience precious. As you say the GR.4s are awesome on a fast pass.

Montys_Doubl3
10-25-2005, 02:38 AM
From strategypage.com

"Just How Effective Is the F-22
October 3, 2005: With the F-22 finally entering service, there is still a lot of debate over whether the aircraft is worth the cost (about $400 million each, including the enormous development costs, about $100 million each without.) About five years ago, the British Defence Evaluation and Research Agency did a rather extensive, and still largely classified, study using pilots flying aircraft simulators tuned to represent the characteristics of various aircraft. The pilots used the weapons and tactics of each nation. The benchmark was how many Su-35s (the advanced Russian warplane, then in development, based on the Su-27) that would be lost for each friendly aircraft. China, India and Russia use the Su-27, and advanced models of it.

The results of this study were;

U.S. F-22 10.1 : 1 (10.1 Su-35s lost for each F-22)

European Typhoon 4.5 : 1

French Rafale 1.0 : 1

Russian Su-35 1.0 : 1

U.S. F-15C 0.8 : 1

U.S. F-18D 0.4 : 1

U.S. F-18C 0.3 : 1

U.S. F-16C 0.3 : 1

These results depend a lot on the quality of radars and missiles and, in the case of the F-22, the effectiveness of stealth technology. Since most details of this study remained classified, it€s possible that some factors may not have been portrayed accurately. Except for a few engagements in the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars, there have been few opportunities to see modern fighters in action. In the Gulf wars, the Iraqi pilots were much less well trained than their American and British counterparts.
"

The F22 is genuinely in a league of its own, but as has been mentioned, the Typhoon is well up to the job, cheaper and more flexible. ie good enough for us Euros. As for the Russians having something up their sleeves, well I wouldn't hold your breath. Last time they claimed to have invented the X-Wing it turned out to be a balsa wood mockup. Gotta love vodka.

Capt.LoneRanger
10-25-2005, 02:56 AM
Of course this article was to support the F22. It's just a matter of what you bring in to this calculation and the F22 will loose this debate.

It's just the same as comparing AMD and Pentium. Of course, if you have a P4 and you are comparing the pure MHz, the P4 is a lot better. But if you compare prices and see what AMD you can get for the same money of the P4, you'll get a LOT faster AMD.

The F22 is certainly a step into the future, but it's not only technology winning a war. Just look at Vietnam and Afghanistan. And if you want a more related example, then look at the BattleOfBritain or the Eastern Front. In the first case a vastly outnumbered and better armed force looses against (on the first look) inferior airforce.
And on the EasternFront, it was not the LA7 winning the war. Infact we all know that Russian planes were built sluggy and in a way they never even came close to design specifications. Even the pilots were complete noobs in the beginning. But they were built in large numbers and quickly learned how to defeat the opponent.

Ond we all shouldn't forget that the F22 and B2 are not invisible. They appear at the size of a bunch of birds on the radar, but having served on a radar during my navy-time, I can asure you, there are not many birds travelling at Mach2 at 30000ft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Badsight.
10-25-2005, 03:43 AM
Loneranger the Raptor is designed to be stealthy against airborne plane radar , people have been saying for a while now that it isnt that stealthy against ground radar

the Raptor had as of the end of 2004 a 400+ to 1 kill ratio in training against F15 , 16 & 18s - that was said direct from a Raptor pilot


you cant really compare Desert storm's encounters with the todays missile tech - its well knowen the in-effectiveness of the missiles in use during that operation in certian encounters . the tech has advanced greatly during this past decade

of course in a Modern-Air-War with any number of inferior aging Fighter equipped with HOBS & HEATERS you cant say your safe just because your in one particular A/C

now more than ever its the pilot

but the Raptor is an Air Superiority dominator , try bringing up G/A isnt the point about which is the better killer

the Raptor is the most capable , most safe Fighter yet made for A2A interception , as in its more capable at that job than the EF is

ploughman
10-25-2005, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
Loneranger the Raptor is designed to be stealthy against airborne plane radar , people have been saying for a while now that it isnt that stealthy against ground radar

the Raptor had as of the end of 2004 a 400+ to 1 kill ratio in training against F15 , 16 & 18s - that was said direct from a Raptor pilot


you cant really compare Desert storm's encounters with the todays missile tech - its well knowen the in-effectiveness of the missiles in use during that operation in certian encounters . the tech has advanced greatly during this past decade

of course in a Modern-Air-War with any number of inferior aging Fighter equipped with HOBS & HEATERS you cant say your safe just because your in one particular A/C

now more than ever its the pilot

but the Raptor is an Air Superiority dominator , try bringing up G/A isnt the point about which is the better killer

the Raptor is the most capable , most safe Fighter yet made for A2A interception , as in its more capable at that job than the EF is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I know, I agree. The F-22 IS going to pretty much guarantee the US has air superiority as long as air to air continues to define who's in control.

WOLFMondo
10-25-2005, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
From what I know, I agree. The F-22 IS going to pretty much guarantee the US has air superiority as long as air to air continues to define who's in control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last few wars have been all about attacking specific high priority ground targets. Even the Falklands was about sinking or destroying assets and not air to air combat. Hardly any real air to air combat happens any more. If there was all out war with a nation capable of putting something of any worth in the air it would probably be China and that would be a Nuclear war so forget $400m fighters.

The F22 is the best fighter out there but its ordanance is limited if you want to keep it all internal and keeps its stealth ability. Its far to expensive to risk on low level ground attack apart from say against radar wild weasel style.

You wouldn't send an F22 out to do the bulk of the sorties done during the Gulfwar, attacking airfields and low level precision strikes, attacking emplacements, bridges and communication centres. You need fast planes with a large bomb carrying capacity for that. There was nothing in the coalition arsenal that couldn't already take down anything Iraq had to offer and they had an impressive airforce.

The Tornado, F15, F18, F14, A10, AV8/Harrier or F16 would be more useful in that role simply because of the load they can carry and there so much cheaper.

Tully__
10-25-2005, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ForkTailedDevil:
So I just had a thought. Are all new "fighters" vastly superior to old planes in terms of manueverability? Say could a A6M2 at combat speed pull a tighter turning circle than a Typhoon at its own combat speed for example? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tighter is not very important. Time to complete a 360 degree turn is very important. This is where so many people get into trouble. You don't necessarily want to turn smaller circles, you want turn complete circles in the shortest time in a turn fight.

ploughman
10-25-2005, 05:18 AM
Sure Wolf, but without freedom to move in the air you can't really start thumping things on the ground. And freedom to move in the air has only once been seriously jeapordised by surface to air rather than air to air as far as I know (Yom Kippur, 1973), as such air to air still decides who gets to fly where. Maybe some of these kick *** new long range SAMs, ASTER, the S-3/400, and the PAC-3, will start denying large blocks of air-space. But not yet.

In the Falklands noone really controlled all the air, there was too much of it and not enough assets to do it effectively on either side. As such both sides suffered from the attentions of the other's air power. The Argentines wisely hoarded their airpower until the critical moment whent he landings took place. However, localised air superiority was acheived over San Carlos in the end by virtue of the air to air abilities of the SHar and not really because of SAM kills from ships and definately not because of anything Rapier contributed.

In both Iraq wars Coalition air control meant only one side suffered from the attentions of the other's airpower. This air supremacy was acheived because of the masssive qualitative and quantitative superiority of the Coalition air forces. And the impressive looking Iraqi SAM forces were unable to prevent the Coalition from going where it wanted and bombing who it wanted.

The F-22 means that the US can pretty much guarantee being able to knock down anything airborne. This means the rest of the USAF can get on with thumping important things on the ground. The USA can also afford a bespoke air supremacy fighter so it doesn't matter that the F-22 isn't going to make a decent bomber. The FB-22 or whatever they decide on will though.

WOLFMondo
10-25-2005, 06:05 AM
Looking at the numbers to be built I would say that even the US's slumping economy is finding it hard to foot the bill for those planes. From 1 billion Dollars you could buy 2 and not get much change. Then you have its 30 year life cycle to fund. A Squadron of 12 is the same cost as a modern nuclear submarine capable of firing cruise missiles at $100,000 each.

My point was though, there was no contest in the air during either gulf war. There was no need for interceptors. The aircraft the coalition already had where more than enough to do the job.

Look at the Kosovo conflict and the UN and Nato's role in that. 100% ground pounding and avoiding SAM's. Afganistan too, no air cover needed.

Every future war will either be the US and UK or Nato or the UN Security council (in which case the UK or UShttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) dictating terms to a nation that can't even vaguely hope to compete or its WWIII against China in which case unless the F22 can shoot down ICBM's its got very little use.

Even a war against North Korea wouldn't require the F22. Theres nothing they have which any fighter in the USAF couldn't wipe the floor with. I bet even A10's would do the job fine.

Montys_Doubl3
10-25-2005, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course this article was to support the F22. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure why a British research agency would want to back the F22. Anyway, all the figures suggest is that the F22 outperforms anything else in the world in pure air superiority, and is likely to stay top of the heap for the next decade at least. That, in my mind, is what the US is investing in. Whether that is a good investment is moot. On the figures, the Eurofighter (multi-role and far cheaper) looks like a good investment.
On the Falklands topic, the SHAR1 proved to be an excellent dogfighter, and a good platform for the AIM-9L, but couldn't control the airspace totally because of its limited radar and poor endurance (compared to something like an F/A 18). Sharkey Ward might have something to say about it not being about air to air combat though...

WOLFMondo
10-25-2005, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Montys_Doubl3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course this article was to support the F22. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure why a British research agency would want to back the F22. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not backing, benchmarkinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I bet the Ministry of Defence probably also considered buying the F22 at one point or another. The RAF will also work with USAF F22's in future conflicts and Nato and UN peace keeping so its good to know who your freinds are and what there capable of.

mynameisroland
10-25-2005, 07:10 AM
The Typhoon will have the Meteor BVR missile in the near future which gives it an advantage over most if not all other fighters. In BVR contests the Typhoon could lock on to the Raptor at a 60 Km distance the Raptor locked on to the Typhoon at 80km. The Meteor / Typhoon set up is also compatible with E3 sentry Awacs radar so in theory the Typhoon could use data captured by the Sentry to fire a Meteor BVR missile beyond the effective range of its own radar.

The Typhoon is also the most manuverable fighter in the world at Supersonic speeds. This imo makes a big difference when it comes to missile evasion and the initial manuvers of a dogfight. If the Raptor got in to visual range of a Typhoon I think the Typhoon would hold a distinct advantage in knife fighting.

Archangel2980
10-25-2005, 09:42 AM
Soon pilots will be gone like the do-do bird, especially with these stupid unmanned aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif. I still think you need the eyes and ears of a pilot .

danjama
10-25-2005, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
i checked the other threads on the site, but most of the links to the videos mentioned appear to have disapeared. I guess thats because of age. the ramstien vid is still availible though. Man, im getting weary of being stuck in dial up land. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry i shoulda said the site needs registering, but its the simplest reg ever, u dnt even need to confirm it by ur email address. Also the site is updated daily, well worth registering. As soon as i realised how many vids were there i registered!

Airmail109
10-25-2005, 12:05 PM
With some expierence in modern day simualtors Id sure as hell prefer to be in the FA22 than the typhoon. No the stealth doesnt make you entirely visible, but it does mean you can shoot them before they can see you.

Over the next few decades we'll probably see more development of Air to Air Anti Radiation Missiles......meaning that pilots will be forced to rely on radar less.

danjama
10-25-2005, 02:19 PM
Hey airmail, stop flying those panzy jets and come on HL, i need a wingman for warclouds.

Taylortony
10-25-2005, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
the typhoon is a great tac fighter (but the RAF cant afford the 27mm guns-last i heard), but the F-22 can supercruise at supersonic speeds for long periods, and has tremendous range.
so i guess we can give the RAF a break on not having the guns on theirs...if that is still the situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF Aircraft do have the 27MM Guns fitted, it was going to cost more to develop a Ballast system to replace it than simply fit the guns to the airframe, they are however not used as the required back up such as tooling and ammunition have not been bought for the Aircraft, I personally think its a bit nieve not to have them operational, the US learnt that little lesson in Vietnam with the F4 Phantom, but then again that was politics dictating visual identification of the enemy prior to engaging which negated some of the combat advantages the F4 had over the opposition. As a side note, I remember the Sea Harrier coming into UK service being fitted with the Blue Circle Radar System as we called it in the RAF ( Info for all Johnny Foreigners, Blue Circle is a major UK producer of Concrete ) Development overuns meant the first Harriers into service carried this concrete replacement for the Firefox radar....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but the F-22 can supercruise at supersonic speeds for long periods. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh the American "Buzz Word of the moment.................. Don't believe all you read as being the Bees Knees in technogobbledy**** The F6 "Frightning" Lightning in the 50's could comfortably supercruise in dry power all day long till the cows came home, or at least till it ran out of fuel, which made the cows record breaking sprinters... rumour was it burn't the fuel load at such a speed to try to use if before the stuff leaked out... I walked past one at RAF Binbrook in the hanger which had about 8 full drip trays under it and asked one of the Guys what was up with it, the reply " Nothing, its servicable and tasked to fly later, they all do that" amazed me. The fuel load was always its achillies heal, but even today it would outclimb and outfly most of the plastic junk on the market.. and lets not forget the TSR2, that was so ahead of the world, it still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when I see one.

As for the Spitfire flying with the Typhoon, well little known fact here, when the Malaya conflict was at it height, the RAF were going to deploy Lightnings to the region to give us Air superiority, one concern was they were still operating Spitfires, so a unique contest was set up and a Lightning was put up against a RAF MkXIX Spitfire in Air to air combat to see the result, the frightning had the speed advantage, but the spit could turn circles around it, It was found the Lightnning would win I believe.

An interesting read

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.html

and a quote from that read

The overall impression was that both aircraft had very similar performance and handling characteristics, both were a joy to fly. Considering the age difference, the Lightning's performance was totally outstanding when introduced into service, and when it finally bowed out, it could still out-climb most of its successors. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute. The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft per minute; the Phantom F-4M managed 32,000 ft per minute; the MiG-21 could only manage 36,090 ft per minute; the F-16A's initial rate was 40,000 ft per minute, and the Tornado F.3's 43,000 ft per minute. So the Lightning reigned supreme. Only later was it surpassed; the F-15 Eagle, and the MiG-25 both have initial climb rates as good or better. The Lightning's time to FL 360 in re-heat was 2.5 minutes, in this respect the Eagle produced a similar figure, though this could vary depending upon its configuration.

danjama
10-25-2005, 06:36 PM
Nice link Tony! Ive always loved the EELightning, ive got a 24 scale model of one i made when i was just 12 sitting next to my 24 scale MkV Spitty! It is awfully Big and cumbersome especially next to the spit! In fact next to anything. The lightning at Duxford is always one of my fave planes its a shame its static.

Interesting post there Tony thanks.

Badsight.
10-25-2005, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taylortony:
The RAF Aircraft do have the 27MM Guns fitted, it was going to cost more to develop a Ballast system to replace it than simply fit the guns to the airframe, they are however not used as the required back up such as tooling and ammunition have not been bought for the Aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no kidding

i cant remember offhand the diameter of the Raptors cannon , 27mm also ? , but it carries 480 rounds up into the sky

so the Raptors design team obviously places a degree of importance in having a A2A cannon

& with 480 rounds it surpasses most other fighters in operation for ammo load , a great deal of importance wouldnt you say ?

it sure seems that Raptor Pilots are expected to be able to get up real close & personal , Raptors are able to turn inside Eagles , Hornets & falcons at all speeds apparently , the obvious plane to test itself on has to be the Canard TV SU33

VW-IceFire
10-25-2005, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taylortony:
The RAF Aircraft do have the 27MM Guns fitted, it was going to cost more to develop a Ballast system to replace it than simply fit the guns to the airframe, they are however not used as the required back up such as tooling and ammunition have not been bought for the Aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no kidding

i cant remember offhand the diameter of the Raptors cannon , 27mm also ? , but it carries 480 rounds up into the sky

so the Raptors design team obviously places a degree of importance in having a A2A cannon

& with 480 rounds it surpasses most other fighters in operation for ammo load , a great deal of importance wouldnt you say ?

it sure seems that Raptor Pilots are expected to be able to get up real close & personal , Raptors are able to turn inside Eagles , Hornets & falcons at all speeds apparently , the obvious plane to test itself on has to be the Canard TV SU33 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unless something changed...the Raptor has the same trusty reliable M61A2 Vulcan 20mm cannon that all of the other American fighters have carried in the last 30 years.

I didn't know it was 480 rounds...that is significant.

jarink
10-25-2005, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
i cant remember offhand the diameter of the Raptors cannon , 27mm also ? , but it carries 480 rounds up into the sky

so the Raptors design team obviously places a degree of importance in having a A2A cannon

& with 480 rounds it surpasses most other fighters in operation for ammo load , a great deal of importance wouldnt you say ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Several modern a/c have a2a guns linked to the radar (at gun range stealth is virtually useless) so that, even if the trigger is depressed, the gun actually only fires when the fire control computer caclulates the rounds will hit. Fewer rounds are needed for a kill, meaning less weight and space needed for ammo. I think the first plane to become operational with such a system was the Su-27 carrying a 27mm cannon and 150 rds.