I wonder if the EFT’s internal dispensers have such wiring possible.
Not even that but when EFT was being re-conceptualised and developed in the late 80’s they fully expected the Cold War to go hot and the fight to have to be fought with Phantoms and Tornado ADV’s. You can very clearly see why they’d opt for a risk reduction.
Would you rather have a great M-scan or the equivalent of the F.2 tornados concrete radar.
1 Like
Depends - Blue Circle was immune to jamming!
what about the PAVE PAWS system in 1978? or MiG-31 radar? face it, europe was behind again by the time the first EFT testbeds flew in 1994
The MSD-2000 & ECR-90 had been under development since the mid-1980s. The decision on which one to use was meant to be made in 1988 IIRC, but thanks to the Germans refusing to accept the ECR-90 despite every other nation wanting it, the decision got pushed back to late-1990.
An AESA radar was not a sensible choice for Eurofighter at the time. It was originally meant to enter service in the mid to late 1990s, and as we know no-one managed to get an AESA radar into service until the early 2000s. So they were correct in their judgement that it was not practical to develop an AESA radar in time for a late 90s in service date. It made sense at the time to develop a best in class mechanical radar, and then upgrade to AESA once technology had matured.
Plus as I said there was not a hope in hell that Germany would have ever entertained the thought of an AESA radar.
4 Likes
thats a fair point regarding germany, and timing, but either way EFT ended up going into service about 3 years after the first operational AESA fighters
Damn Germans :P
1 Like
They probably regularly think ‘Verdammt Britischers’.
It’s all good.
I mean, they even took a bit of an issue with calling it Typhoon - what with the whole rocketing WW2 thing…
better than spitfire II, at least for the Germans
it would be so much more fitting than typhoon tbh
I never disagreed with that statement, though I draw objection to the word behind, they were monetarily limited, but they had developments in such systems within a similar, if slightly later timeframe. Firstly, you’re lumping it in as Europe but Rafale exists with a PESA in such a timeframe, secondly prototype arrays began to appear around that sort of time. Also PAVE PAWS isn’t fighter mounted, and the Mig-31 is a PESA on an aircraft that is inept at literally everything else.
The difference between Meteor’s introduction and AIM-260’s will be ~10 years. That’s a similar timeframe to the first fighter-borne AESA arrays and CAESAR, you would likely vehemently deny that the US is behind in fighter-borne missile technology.
1 Like
Alas, with Tempest being the name for the next one. We just need a Hurricane and the Ghost of Sir Sydney Camm will be well-pleased…
1 Like
You mean that 20 m diameter early warning radar? Not really something you can bolt on a fighter is it?
That radar weighted over 5x as much as the CAPTOR-M and from a quick read online it doesn’t seem that the performance was spectacularly better. Being PESA isn’t everything.
2 Likes
I think that’s a fair position to take from them, but Eurofighter Typhoon was the correct name to choose.
no, we are behind in long range missiles, was an oversight from focusing too much on GWOT, i do agree with you on that.
AIM-120D is still a solid missile, but I’m glad the F-22 is getting the missile it really deserves this year
imagine if the Germans made their own CCA and called it the V-1
Arguably the US is also behind the curve in SRAAMs as well. With both IRIS-T and ASRAAM outperforming Aim-9X within the respective design envelopes. With ASRAAM entering service 5 years before Aim-9X iirc
this is true, i think the block 2 closes the gap a bit though no? further improvements will likely put us on par/maybe slightly better than ASRAAM or IRIS-T
A bit. but ASRAAM is still faster with longer range and IRIS-T still pulls way more Gs at close range
Spoiler
IRIS-T
Characteristics:
Length: 2.9m
Width: 0.127m
Fin span: 0.45m
Weight: 87.4kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 3+
Minimum Range: 200m
Maximum Range: 25km (Up to 10-12km max range and 6km altitude when ground launched)
Propulsion: Solid fuel rocket motor (High boost, Low thrust for initial turn, High thrust for max speed, Low thrust sustainer).
Seeker capabilities: Dual band imaging seeker based around a 128 x 2 array which uses a scanning mirror to build a larger picture (effectively a 128*128 pixels 80 times per second) .90° Gimbal limit.
Warhead: 11.4kg blast frag
Guidance Type: LOBL, LOAL, INS.
Maneuvering Capability: 60 to 80G with TVC. 1/2 the turning radius of the R-73. Can do a 180° turn in 2s.
Aim-9X
Characteristics:
Length: 3.02m
Width: 0.127m
Fin span: 0.445; 0.353m (canard span)
Weight: 86kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.5
Minimum Range: 200m
Maximum Range: 35-40km (Up to 15km when ground launched)
Propulsion: MTI/ Hercules MK.139
Seeker capabilities: Imaging seeker with 128*128 pixels with 90° gimbal.
Warhead: 9.4 kg WDU-17/B annular blast-fragmentation
Guidance Type: LOBL, LOAF, INS, LOFTING, DATALINK
Maneuvering Capability: 50G with TVC. Can do a 180° turn in 2.5s.
ASRAAM
Length: 2.9m
Width: 0.166m
Fin span: 0.45m
Weight: 88kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 3+
Minimum Range: 200m
Maximum Range: 50km (Up to 16km when ground launched)
Propulsion: Solid rocket motor with low smoke
Seeker capabilities: Updated seeker with higher resolution than the Block1
Warhead: 10 kg blast frag
Guidance Type: LOBL, LOAL, INS, (LOFTING?).
Maneuvering Capability: Around 50g dual plane. The missile likely uses dual plane. Can do a 180° turn in ?s. Managed to shoot down a target behind the fighter at a range in excess of 5km at low altitude.
1 Like
ídk, do you have proof for the IRIS-T? either way theyre probably effectively the same at close range.
it would be more favorable to use an AMRAAM instead of an ASRAAM at the ranges where ASRAAM beats 9X
thanks for the descriptions btw!
looks like 9X has intermediate performance, and better guidance options
IRIS-T is reported to pull 60-80G, but has an advantage of being quite slow off the rails, so pulls hard on launch.
It is by far the best close range dogfighting missile.
ASRAAM has longer range and is scarily fast of the rails. The key difference between ASRAAM and AMRAAM though, is that one alerts your RWR the other does not. If fired used PIRATE, you would have no warning until MAWS detected it;
From