F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Oct 20, 2006 Posts: 96 Status: Offline

Yoram777 wrote:

Hey there tmofarrvl as far as I know the Eurofighter DOES have a HMD Rolling Eyes

No, the Eurofighter Typhoon does not currently have a helmet mounted display. Rolling Eyes

Be careful of what you believe from a manufacturer's sales brochure. Not all features are necessarily available, just because they are advertised.

Flight testing for the Eurofighter Typhoon Integrated Helmet began in March 2005. The system is not expected to enter service, however, until the start of Tranche 2 Eurofighter production in 2008 - assuming that all of the bugs have been worked out by then.

The fact that the F-18E still retains such a distinct advantage over the Typhoon in visual range speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the sight and missile combination. The existing Eurofighter Typhoon should have every advantage once within visual range. Better thrust loading, better wing loading, better high AOA control - it should all-around out-class the F-18E. Yet the fact that one airplane already has a helmet-mounted sight while the other is still awaiting one, makes a huge difference in real world fighting capability.

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Posts: 22 Status: Offline

tmofarrvl wrote:

Flight testing for the Eurofighter Typhoon Integrated Helmet began in March 2005. The system is not expected to enter service, however, until the start of Tranche 2 Eurofighter production in 2008

Really? I didn’t know that, thanks for clearing that up. Wink

However I can’t seem to find anything that confirms this Question

.

Enthusiast Joined: Oct 19, 2006 Posts: 96 Status: Offline

Yoram777 wrote:

However I can’t seem to find anything that confirms this Question

.

Jane's Avionics provides a fairly thorough summary of the status of the Eurofighter Typhoon Integrated Helmet. To site the appropriate section:

Quote:

Introduction of the Typhoon Integrated Helmet is planned as part of the Tranche 2 Typhoon standard. . . .

During March 2005, BAE Systems announced that the helmet had begun formal flight testing on Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft, marking the first flights of a binocular, visor-projected, night vision capable HMD on a fighter aircraft.

Production schedule for the Tranche 2 Typhoon can be found in the latest edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft. If there is one thing that Jane's usually covers with particular rigor, its the British aerospace industry.

Quote:

I wonder if Mr. Thumper remembers back in Gulf War I when Saddam was firing Scud Missiles on Israel and killing a lot of Israelis that Israel did nothing and let its citizens get killed so as not to damage the 'Coalition' of the US with the Arabs ...

Don't make me laugh. The US had to practically drop everything it was doing in the air to go on SCUD hunts. They sent billions of dollars worth of Patriot missiles (that where protecting American troops) over to Israel and Bush had to practically beg Israel to stay out. All this while the US, Europe and the Arabs de-fanged what was at the time the greatest military threat to Israel, Iraq.

Quote:

I wouldn't call this a major sore point, however. The Spey is old technology by Western standards. It's just another example that sometimes allies can disagree and still remain allies.

No matter how unhelpful, it's a big difference when Britain sells technology that they paid for and developed than when Israel sells technology paid for by us and often also developed by us. Big big difference. I have a problem with BAE and RR and the JSF but the Spey is theirs.

Quote:

All this xenophobia is making my head spin.

It's not xenophobia, it's common sense and a leveled playing field. Times have changed your all big boys now. You no longer need Uncle Sams's help.
By all means PM me and stop by when you go to NY. Xenophobic, don't think so.

Quote:

Does anyone honestly believe that they could strap-on a helmet mounted sight out of an AH-64 and perform any kind of air combat maneuver in a jet fighter?

No soup for you. Missed the point you did.

Quote:

Yes, I am also familiar with the VTAS system that the US Navy flirted with back in the 1970s. It was designed to work with the radar-guided missiles that armed the F-4, not heat-seeking dogfight missiles.

No you are not.

"The US Navy and Marine Corps used Honeywell's Visual Target Acquisition System from 1973 to 1979 in approximately 500 of their Phantom fighters."

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/ ... R9703k.htm
Thats a bit more than flirt.

I suggest you research on the number of patents for helmet mounted sight components and you will see that it's not Elbit that did the work.

Quote:

Python 4 were developed with Israeli taxpayer funding

Reverse engineered and highly modified sidewinder.

Quote:

Litening was paid for by the Israeli taxpayer, and later benefited the US taxpayer.

See above on Python. Ever hear of Lantirn?

"In February 2003, for the first time, Congress voted to cut aid to Israel against the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby"

"The lobby and government also suffered a defeat when Congress deleted an administration request for an extra $200 million to help Israel fight terrorism. Even while cutting aid to Israel (which still was budgeted at $2.1 billion for military aid and $600 million for economic assistance),"

Proposed 2006 Economic aid to Israel (not military) 290 million.

"Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received nearly than $100 billion in assistance. This includes the three special allocations, the $10 billion in loan guarantees (spread over five years) approved in 1992, and a variety of other smaller assistance-related accounts, such as refugee resettlement (nearly $1.5 billion overall) and cooperative development programs (a total of $186 million since 1981)." Note this does not include the 30 billion Bush is proposing now.

Sources: Clyde R. Mark, "Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance," Congressional Research Service, (July 12, 2004); U.S. State Department; USAID, Congressional Budget Justification for FY06 Foreign Operations, March 2005

I am not anti Israel. I recognize that it is in our interest to have a strong Israel but what I am against is someone giving me a line of BS like we don;t give them economic aid or that they have not screwed us in the past.

tmofarrvl wrote:

Yoram777 wrote:

Hey there tmofarrvl as far as I know the Eurofighter DOES have a HMD Rolling Eyes

No, the Eurofighter Typhoon does not currently have a helmet mounted display. Rolling Eyes

Be careful of what you believe from a manufacturer's sales brochure. Not all features are necessarily available, just because they are advertised.

Flight testing for the Eurofighter Typhoon Integrated Helmet began in March 2005. The system is not expected to enter service, however, until the start of Tranche 2 Eurofighter production in 2008 - assuming that all of the bugs have been worked out by then.

The fact that the F-18E still retains such a distinct advantage over the Typhoon in visual range speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the sight and missile combination. The existing Eurofighter Typhoon should have every advantage once within visual range. Better thrust loading, better wing loading, better high AOA control - it should all-around out-class the F-18E. Yet the fact that one airplane already has a helmet-mounted sight while the other is still awaiting one, makes a huge difference in real world fighting capability.

Let's not forget the pilot in this equations........... Confused

tmofarrvl wrote:

The fact that the F-18E still retains such a distinct advantage over the Typhoon in visual range speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the sight and missile combination. The existing Eurofighter Typhoon should have every advantage once within visual range.

Excuse me for being confused by your statement here but in the first sentence you're saying the 18E has the advantage WVR because of its current missile and helmet combo over the Eurofighter. Then in your next sentence you're saying the Typhoon (without an equivalent helmet/HOB missile combo) should have the advantage once they get to WVR?

Am I misunderstanding something here?

Enthusiast Joined: Oct 19, 2006 Posts: 96 Status: Offline

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

Excuse me for being confused by your statement here but in the first sentence you're saying the 18E has the advantage WVR because of its current missile and helmet combo over the Eurofighter. Then in your next sentence you're saying the Typhoon (without an equivalent helmet/HOB missile combo) should have the advantage once they get to WVR?

Am I misunderstanding something here?

The Typhoon was heavily biased towards the air-to-air end of the air-to-air / air-to-ground spectrum. By most conventional forms of measure (thrust-to-weight ratio, wing loading, specific excess power, combined cycle time - whatever your favorite flavor is), the Typhoon should easily out-match either the F-18C or F-18E. Moreover, the RAF pilots are no slouch. For our Navy pilots to more than make up for the obvious advantages of the Typhoon (and do so consistently), suggests that the resources invested in the AIM-9X and JHMCS were well spent.

As for the F-18, I really can't fault the Navy for choosing a more balanced compromise when they developed the F-18E. The Navy doesn't have a wide mix of aircraft to divide between air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. The F-18 needed to do both. And let's face it: a pilot is far more likely to be shot down in the air-to-ground role than on an air-to-air mission.

Actually the Block II Supers have the advantage over Typhoon in BVR as well as WVR. They have the better radar and starting this fall AIM-120D. First shot, first kill, maybe. If and until EF gets a good AESA radar and Metoer performs as advertised that will hold true. That is also assuming that there are no more improvements to the Super, AMRAAM or the APG-79.

BVR it will be a crapshoot even when EF gets a helmet sight. Super turns with the best of them.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Actually the Block II Supers have the advantage over Typhoon in BVR as well as WVR. They have the better radar and starting this fall AIM-120D. First shot, first kill, maybe. If and until EF gets a good AESA radar and Metoer performs as advertised that will hold true. That is also assuming that there are no more improvements to the Super, AMRAAM or the APG-79.

BVR it will be a crapshoot even when EF gets a helmet sight. Super turns with the best of them.

Further, everyone looks at one 1 vs 1. Which, it the real world rarely happens. Beside the US fights as a package...........this of course will increase ten fold with the advent of the F-22 and F-35. Twisted Evil

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

I don't think that there will be a big evolution of the AMRAAM beyond the D variant. It is about as good as a rocket propelled 300~350 lb class AAM can be -- advanced ESA seeker, high motor fraction, 2-way datalink, intertial-GPS, low drag aerodynamics. Also, we stuck with the C model for a decade.

The D will be good enough to be Phoenix class in terms of range and better in terms of guidance. That is good enough until the transformational technologies mature enough to warrant starting a clean sheet design. The RAMJET and VFDR has been looked at since the 60s and it simply wasn't deemed to make enough of a difference to warrant the efforts to use it -- intakes, finnage issues, comparatively low acceleration of integral boosters or complexity of 2-stage designs. If the USAF wanted a VFDR missile like the meteor it would have happened a long time ago since the technology is very mature, a VFDR implementation was successfully tested for the air force by aerojet and one was proposed to the UK as a Meteor alternative (remember the FMRAAM?). What it is going to take to get the USAF/USN to commit to a new missile program will be something more -- perhaps a dual-combustion scramjet allowing Mach 7 performance, a revolutionary VLO airframe, finless hinged body airframe, dual/triple mode seekers, lateral divert thrusters, dual role AAM/HARM capability or some combination of these.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

tmofarrvl wrote:

I was trying to think what nations the UK has armed that are enemies of the US and came up blank? Can somebody enlighten me?

tmofarrvl wrote:

To name a recent one: China. British Spey engines continue to be delivered to power Chinese JH-7 strike jets.

As you said, the Spey is an OLD design, early sixties if I recall. RR supplied China with engines to reverse engineer but it took them 28 years to finally produce copies! (2003). RB211 and Trent 700/900 have also been sold to Chinese civil airlines.
GE in the USA have sold engines to China including the CF34-10A for civilian use. Last time I checked, the US were not fighting China so I guess it isn`t seen as a problem!

Thumper, my "xenophobia" comment was made generally, not directly at anyone, thanks for the invite also Cool

Thumper3181 wrote:

Actually the Block II Supers have the advantage over Typhoon in BVR as well as WVR. They have the better radar and starting this fall AIM-120D. First shot, first kill, maybe. If and until EF gets a good AESA radar and Metoer performs as advertised that will hold true. That is also assuming that there are no more improvements to the Super, AMRAAM or the APG-79.

BVR it will be a crapshoot even when EF gets a helmet sight. Super turns with the best of them.

The deciding factor for both planes wont be the radar. The mech Captor is a monster of a radar. Once you come up under AMRAAM range it will probably be well within its grasp for a longer time anyway. Same holds true for the superbug.

WHen both planes get their advertised kits in subsquent batches I guess they will be virtualy matched in terms of onboard combat systems. HOWEVER the Typhoon already does enjoy a distinct advantage in WVR manuever capability. Although the bug has just as good aerodynamic authority and the tiphy, the bug will loose airspeed all the time once merged. The typhoon has better energy maintenace and acceleration, thus giving it more options then the bugs lower and slower dance of death. Mind you that this includes missile evasion appart from BFM.

Not only that but the Typhoons high altitude perfomance should be considerably superior than that of the bug even with all pylons taken.
Furthermore the defensive measures in the typhoon are much more complete than that of the bug . It will also have the biggest stick with the meteor despite the 120D. To me there is no doubt wich of the 2 I would take, the typhoon.

Quote:

The deciding factor for both planes wont be the radar. The mech Captor is a monster of a radar.

The published data on both the APG-79 and AESA seem it indicate the contrary. For starters the APG-79 is LPI. Everyone from miles around is going to detect the EF once it light up it's radar. The same cannot be said for the SH.

Quote:

WHen both planes get their advertised kits in subsquent batches I guess they will be virtualy matched in terms of onboard combat systems.

Other than the IRST the SH is flying with the comparable or better kit than the EF is flying with now. Add to that Boeing and the Navy are not standing still on improvements and the fact that EF is banking on an AESA radar that will not be fielded for several more years and I think your observations are based on faulty information and wishful thinking.

Quote:

the bug will loose airspeed all the time once merged.

What do you base that on? Second I guess you don't understand point and shoot with HOBs. It's is a crapshoot. The first person to point wins.

[quote]Not only that but the Typhoons high altitude perfomance should be considerably superior than that of the bug even with all pylons taken. /quote]

Not so sure I agree. Care to cite some sources. Again it really does not matter. EF cant outrun a missile.

Quote:

To me there is no doubt wich of the 2 I would take, the typhoon.

We all make fatal decisions don;t we.

Fact is SH does everything EF does and more at a lower price. I guess that's Europe's price to pay for the jobs program that EF is.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Quote:

Not only that but the Typhoons high altitude perfomance should be considerably superior than that of the bug even with all pylons taken.

Not so sure I agree. Care to cite some sources. Again it really does not matter. EF cant outrun a missile.

I hope your not one of those who believe missile burn for extended time periods. In BVR shots the longest leg of the missile run will be by inertia, that is if you dont wait for the NEZ at 8-10 miles. Otherwise, if you practice A-pole and F-pole manuevers, any missile that has been previously launched at you might simply not have enough energy to hit you. Simple as that.
Any plane that can accelerate and fly faster, will be a harder target.

Just say no to Falcon 4 missile simulation. Wink

You dont need me to quote any source since every book will state that the Typhoon perfomance at altitude with weapons is excellent and the lackluster perfomance of the Superhornet in terms of drag and acceleration is widely known as well.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Quote:

the bug will loose airspeed all the time once merged.

What do you base that on? Second I guess you don't understand point and shoot with HOBs. It's is a crapshoot. The first person to point wins.

Oh rly? Thats thats first time I heard that regardless of aircraft qualities. Have you ever tryied yourself before? are you a Pilot? How convenient, my brother happens to be one.
Helmets are an aid, you still have to have a stable aim with your neck (not your eyes you know) for long enough to get a lock while your moving the plane arround.
Solve it all problems with helmets in fighters without the need for BFM are a myth.

Thumper3181 wrote:

I think your observations are based on faulty information and wishful thinking.
We all make fatal decisions don;t we.

Fact is SH does everything EF does and more at a lower price. I guess that's Europe's price to pay for the jobs program that EF is.

-First I dont live in any country that will Operate the plane,
-Secondly I have no BIAS torwards any country in europe or the US.
-Thirdly any aviation analist and press will easely put the Eurofighter 1 notch above the Superbug.
-Fourth, we werent the ones who wasted taxpayers money because lobies pulled off to promote a stopgap fighter wich wasnt an improvement in every aspect over legacy F-14's and F-18's and that it will become rather redundant when the F-35 variants arrive in a few years anyway.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1092

Pilotasso,

Falcon 4's missile modeling is somewhat simplified, but it's not terribly inaccurate like you suggest. I've outrun AIM-120s, AA-12s, AIM-54Cs, AA-10Cs, and even short range dogfighting missiles fired at me by aircraft in my rear quarter. Not only that, I've had numerous human opponents outrun my missile shots on them. The AI isn't so good at dragging missiles out unfortunately, but this isn't a problem with the missile modeling. The I in AI sometimes stands for idiot and not intelligence. Anyway, it's completely possible to outrun all sorts of missiles (both AAMs and SAMs) if you react quickly enough and aren't within the missile's no-escape zone. Oh, and the no-escape zone (NEZ) is sometimes a lot less than 8-10 miles. It all depends on your (the defender's) altitude, aspect, and airspeed as well as the shooter's. If you're doing 600 KCAS down on the deck and you're fired on by an AIM-120, AA-12, or some sort of medium range missile, the NEZ can be well inside of 4 miles. This is especially the case if you're flying an F-16 and quickly accelerate to 700+ KCAS while performing course reversals every few seconds. You're obviously not very experienced when it comes to BVR in Falcon 4. Perhaps you're referring to the original incarnations of the sim before the realism patch upgrades. If that's the case, then yes... the missiles would chase you down no matter what the range. Your missiles could travel well over 100 miles and score kills in a tail chase on targets traveling Mach 1+ on the deck. It was ridiculous. This was corrected with the Realism Patch version 2 if I'm not mistaken.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

U.S. agrees to sell F-35 to Israel