
F-22 takes another knock. Not only is it currently suffocating pilots, its airframe g restrictions and rate-of-turn limitations mean it can't escape from a Typhoon up close. As the beyond visual range missile technology is only 10% as effective as suggested after a study of all air-to-air combat engagements since the 1950s, the F-22 isn't all that- and that's before the EFA has finished developing thrust vectoring nozzles. Just as well Eurofighter consortium reversed the decision to ditch the Vulcan cannon and balance the airframe with a concrete dummy instead.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 18:48, Reply)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18784866
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 18:57, Reply)

good luck making it leak-proof.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:10, Reply)

Still, if they can keep it in MRI machines it's not an intractable problem.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 23:23, Reply)

but I never saw the results
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:24, Reply)

hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?catid=14
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 23:28, Reply)

Where on earth have you got the idea that EFA will be upgraded to thrust vector? First I've heard of it.
As for losing dogfights to EFA, that's hardly the biggest embarassment it's faced. It's previously lost to an Electronics Warfare variant of the F/A 18: www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:00, Reply)

I researched F22-EFA200-Su27 for an article for T3 back in the 90s, spoke to military sources, looked at the MOD presentations. It was not going to be 1st gen but was planned for. According to this article, Eurojet are trying to get budget.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:08, Reply)

to one that does ski jump/vertical land because the non-nuclear aircraft carriers we have couldn't provide the steam for the launch. If I recall correctly.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:14, Reply)

And it'll be cheaper than trying to convert the Typhoon (which we build about 25% of) to carrier use.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:20, Reply)

Our non-nuclear carriers can't generate the steam force to launch the Typhoon, the typhoon airframe wouldn't like the stresses of arresting without modification and its limited air/ground attack capability make it pointless for the role. And it's not stealthy.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:23, Reply)

You could probably buy two or three Rafales. That'd be a hard sell.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:28, Reply)

turning out new versions of the Mirage. Take Heed, Porsche. Stop making 911s.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:35, Reply)

...BAe would have to fit new undercarriage, reinforced folding wings, more powerful engines and flight controls, an arrestor hook complete with strengthened mounts, not to mention the necessary strengthened structure.
The end result would be heavier, more expensive and have less range than a carrier plane designed as such from the outset like an F-18 or Rafale. The Royal Navy has looked at buying Rafales, which could well be an option if the US decide to can the STOVL version of the F-35.
/nerd
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 21:03, Reply)

...is four gas turbine engines, with what is in effect a dynamo to supply electric power to the engines directly instead of the old fashioned system of boilers and turbines, which used to supply the steam needed for catapults. Moreover, the torque of a steam catapult cannot be adjusted, so they cannot launch very light UAVs, hence the need for modern carriers to be fitted with a sci-fi railgun. BAe managed to accidentally "inflate" the cost of adapting the QE carrier for a railgun, just in case the MoD decided that the F-35 is too expensive to procure and went down the route of buying F-18s or Rafales instead. Remember that BAe and Rolls Royce have a lot at stake if the F-35 turns out to be a massive white elephant.
/cynic.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 21:07, Reply)

in the design of the next XJ the engine bay monocoque was deliberately made too narrow for Ford to buy in Rover 60 degree V8s (and becoming common) so their engine choice became a home-designed 90-degree vee after the straight-sixers.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 21:37, Reply)

...there are parallels with Triumph designing their own V8 for the Stag, rather than installing Rover V8s too.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 22:14, Reply)

the term 'notoriously weak' is often used, which is a shame. Then again, did not Daimler refer to their V12s as a 'Double 6'?
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 22:20, Reply)

...pretty much sums up the Audi V8's origins - basically two Golf GTi 16v units spliced together. It's not an unusual arrangement.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 22:37, Reply)

because at any one time you have a single combustion chamber trying to pressurise two other cylinders at various states of compression. But heck, I'm Diagnostics, that's for the people in Calibration or base engine design.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 23:10, Reply)

But given the state of defence spending at the moment I wouldn't bet on it getting past the planning stage.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:14, Reply)

Not staff, freelance.
www.spencerfreelance.co.uk/Shinkansen.htm#Japanese%20Bullet%20Trains
www.spencerfreelance.co.uk/Weather.htm#Weather%20Prediction#
www.spencerfreelance.co.uk/Space.htm#Space%20Propulsion
I don't have the originals anymore but they're in there, somewhere between issue 19 and 30. They're currently on about 205.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 22:01, Reply)

the f-22 will probably never engage in close air to air combat anyway. It still has capabilities that the Typhoon doesn't - like stealth.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:08, Reply)

if the US ever goes to war with Europe
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:18, Reply)

who we have sold them to. And that's just a comparison, what about Mig 35s? EDIT thank you andy, Sukhoi 35.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:25, Reply)

However put it close up against the latest Sukhois like the Su-35 and it'll get murdered.
I'd not read too much into that report about BVR missiles either. Technology is always improving and inferring performance of the latest missiles from stats dating back to the 50's is a bit disingenuous.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:19, Reply)

and I can't see that happening.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:29, Reply)

Afghanistan - Russian planes
Iraq - Russian planes
Libya - Russian planes
Syria? Russian planes
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:48, Reply)

Less of the Flankers and Fulcrums and Foxbats that could be a potential problem.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:59, Reply)

the problem as I see it, the US decides who to attack based on where they get their gear.
Iran - Russian/Chinese arms. They're next on the list.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 20:03, Reply)

Dassault have sold plenty of fighters to the Arab nations though. Friendly and unfriendly.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 20:08, Reply)

as it was the only way for the Russian air force to be able to pay for their pilots to be able to maintain flying hours.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 20:22, Reply)

For a trip in a BAe Lightning - the proper one, not the new fangled plastic F-35.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 21:33, Reply)

I was aware of a project to keep one going at Bruntingthorpe but I thought all you got there was a taxi as it didn't have an airworthiness certificate?
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 22:03, Reply)

The Lightnings were ex-RAF and maintained and flown by ex-RAF folk. All went well until a 2 seater Lightning (ZU-BEX) well out of the sky at an air show a while back and the whole operation was grounded.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 22:09, Reply)

My uncle flew Vulcans (too tall for fighters, an ejection would have cleaved his kneecaps off on the cockpit frame), his mate did Lightnings and Phantoms, and then got a secondment to the USAF where he got to learn the F-15. He said the F-4 was a handful but at least if you ended up in a flat spin you could deploy the landing drag chute which pulled you back into line, then automatically snapped off as you throttled away from the situation. With shit in your pants, presumably.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 22:17, Reply)

Mike Hale has flown both and makes some interesting comparisons. The Lightning was actually very agile too.
My old chap designed bits of Lightnings, Victors, Buccaneers and stuff. He's got a lot of Lightning related stories.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 22:30, Reply)

They were pretty matched in agility, speed and time-to-height, but the F15 had far greater endurance and a better payload.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 23:53, Reply)

The Kinks , just a band etc
( , Tue 31 Jul 2012, 1:26, Reply)

The F-22 replaces the F-15.
The F-35 replaces the F-16 and F-18.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:25, Reply)

www.flickr.com/photos/xsgerry/977387061/in/set-72157601148507968
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 20:02, Reply)

( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 20:11, Reply)

carrier multirole is for the F35
personally, just give me an old tough slow A-10 and drill holes through the landscape with the gun :-)
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:27, Reply)

delightfully ugly
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 20:15, Reply)

Two massive engines, a couple of wings from a paper plane and a bubble on the top for the little pilot guy to sit in.
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 20:24, Reply)

'Electric Lightning' is a bit of an odd designation :-)
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 20:50, Reply)

how good is it for murdering civilians on the ground?
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 19:52, Reply)

( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 20:01, Reply)

Mine was propelled by me picking it up and swooping it around the room going NEEEEEOOOOOOWWWW!!! PEW!!! PEW!!!
( , Mon 30 Jul 2012, 20:05, Reply)

I just like the notion that they were designed to operate out of petrol stations if need be.
( , Tue 31 Jul 2012, 0:02, Reply)

that, and lightly prepared Norwegian spruce stands, as per the 1980s recruitment images.
( , Tue 31 Jul 2012, 1:00, Reply)