Simviation Forum

Reply #75 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 6:34pm

igorski Offline
Colonel
AGN Texures

Gender:
Posts: 1454

ah well... at least we have (some) Typhoons

&&&&http://www.agntextures.co.uk

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #76 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 6:46pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

I wouldn't be surprised if they have a shorter takeoff run. Give them a tail hook and shove em on the carriers. Better plane anyway. the JSF misses the point of the harrier altogther. Its a light aircraft with VTOL capabilities to land just miles from the front line so it can be in the fight quickly back to base and back in the fight again. Thats why it wasnt designed to go supersonic. The navy adapted the design to some sucess but i dont know how well the jsf will fit in with the royal navy.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #77 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 6:49pm

igorski Offline
Colonel
AGN Texures

Gender:
Posts: 1454

The take off run is a few hundred meters I believe, 300 maybe, better, more capaple yes, but more expensive, and no vtol option. Though I for one would like to see more Typhoons 8)

&&&&http://www.agntextures.co.uk

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #78 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 6:57pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

Not enough to make a difference. JSF i believe costs 37 mil and rising. typhoon sits at about 47 to 51 mil. The JSF is not VTOL capable in combat config. its stovl capable when fully loaded but obviously not enough for the carriers

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #79 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 6:58pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Quote:

It has the most advanced avionics in the world, it is the first stealthy fighter, and it is the first production fighter with thrust vectoring and supercruise.

I do love the way people harp on about supercruise as if it's just been invented. The RAF had it's first supercruise fighter over 40 years ago with the EE Lighting. I must also point out that the EE Lightning could out climb any aircraft that dared take it on (except the harrier. But that took off vertically and was at 10,000 feet before the Lighting had got to the end of the runway.) and could also outmanuvre just about anything too. Before you say anything, yes the Lightning did outclimb the F15. The Lighting was better than the F15 so I'm afriad Craig the F15 was outclassed even when new.

As for the F35, who ever thought anyone but Britain could build a VTOL aircraft that worked properly? If Bae still had the rights to the Harrier and the proper funding it would have gone supersonic years ago. Infact, if it wasn't for red tape the Harrier would have been supersonic from the word go.

So, before you go on anymore, stop and think. Is the plane your promoting better than the EE Lightning? Is it as ahead of it's time as the EE Lightning was? Then once you've thought about that continue and say the Lightning was great.

P.s. Other great Jet fighters include the Buccaneer, the Folland Gnat, the Sea Vixen and the Hunter. Grin

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #80 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 7:03pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

I wont debate the lightning was good but it also had problems. firstly it was out of fuel by the time it reached the end of the runway:) secondly it had poor armaments. As for it being better than the F-15, i believe it was, but since i dislike the F-15 i am not upset by it Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #81 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 7:03pm

igorski Offline
Colonel
AGN Texures

Gender:
Posts: 1454

last i heard Typhoon had a unit cost of aroud 70 million each, maybe a little more.

and the dont make em like they used to! lol The lightning was great for its time, but these days, a Typhoon, can out climb it, has longer range, and better armerment, and speed is roughly the same as far as I know, the Lightning may be slightly faster, i know you can poin the nose down at high alt and go supersonic in idle thrust....

&&&&http://www.agntextures.co.uk

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #82 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 7:07pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Quote:

I wont debate the lightning was good but it also had problems. firstly it was out of fuel by the time it reached the end of the runway:) secondly it had poor armaments. As for it being better than the F-15, i believe it was, but since i dislike the F-15 i am not upset by it Roll Eyes

It was a fighter designed for the defence of the UK. It didn't need the fuel to fly halfway round the world. And it's armaments were as good as was avaliable in the 60's.

But what I really want to know is, why do people think supercruise is new? Tongue

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #83 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 7:10pm

igorski Offline
Colonel
AGN Texures

Gender:
Posts: 1454

The Lightning was NOT designed as a fighter (initially) it was designed as a research aircraft (hence the short range) then used with radar and missiles as an interceptor / fighter.

&&&&http://www.agntextures.co.uk

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #84 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 7:11pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

who said it was? it is new for modern fighters. But lets face it the lightning was at mach 1 as soon as you released the brakes:)

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #85 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 7:13pm

igorski Offline
Colonel
AGN Texures

Gender:
Posts: 1454

erm.. Quote:

It was a fighter designed for the defence of the UK

Cant disagree on the speed though Cheesy

&&&&http://www.agntextures.co.uk

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #86 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 7:25pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Quote:

The Lightning was NOT designed as a fighter (initially) it was designed as a research aircraft (hence the short range) then used with radar and missiles as an interceptor / fighter.

Actually, the Lightning was designed from the outset as a fighter. However the plan was so advanced that a research aircraft had to be made first.

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

Wink

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #87 - Mar 18^th, 2005 at 7:31pm

igorski Offline
Colonel
AGN Texures

Gender:
Posts: 1454

I heard my version from a Gp Capt in the ATC but either sound equally likely.

&&&&http://www.agntextures.co.uk

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #88 - Mar 19^th, 2005 at 11:39am

Mobius Offline
Colonel
Highest Point in the Lightning
Storm
Wisconsin

Posts: 4369

Quote:

Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an operational evaluation comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35. Due to the lack of information gathered on the 5th generation combat aircraft and the Su-35 during the time of this study it is not meant to be considered official.

The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft were put in simulated combat against the Su-35. The results were:

Aircraft Odds vs.
Su-35
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Dassault-Breguet Rafale C 1.0:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1

Sorry for the quote box, but I found this kind of interesting. It is a chart of how well different aircraft perform against the Su-35.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #89 - Mar 19^th, 2005 at 11:45am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

They better start building more and more SU35's or hope they dont come up against the Raptor or Typhoon.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: