JSF/Typhoon combination good?

[John Cook]

Hi All

In an almost futile effort to get some aviation related stuff back on
RAM.....Here goes...

Both Italy and the UK are planning to use both the JSF and the
Eurofighter, AIUI the thinking behind this is that the Eurofighter
Typhoon is more AtoA and the JSF F-35 is more AtoG, having two types
does cost more, but does give more strike options, plus single fault
will ground your entire airforce!!!, and you can't be held to ransom
from a sole supplier.

Turkey from recent speculation may look at this model as the
JSF/Typhoon mix looks like a pretty fair combination, the Typhoon now
and the JSF in the middle of the next decade.

The JSF is still very much in development and as such, its capabilitys
are still being balanced with cost, the real question being should any
airforce just go with one aircraft type?

Should those already signed up for the JSF look at this force model,
or if not, Why?, or what other combinations should prospective buyers
look at?.

Any one got any really novel combinations? for instance the Skycat
200 and a squadron of jets, as a sort of aerial carrier, I can see
several advantages, as well as a couple of potential show stoppers.

Cheers



John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 04 May 2004 19:49:50 +1000, John Cook > wrote:
>Hi All
>
>In an almost futile effort to get some aviation related stuff back on
>RAM.....Here goes...
>
>Both Italy and the UK are planning to use both the JSF and the
>Eurofighter, AIUI the thinking behind this is that the Eurofighter
>Typhoon is more AtoA and the JSF F-35 is more AtoG, having two types
>does cost more, but does give more strike options, plus single fault
>will ground your entire airforce!!!, and you can't be held to ransom
>from a sole supplier.

Also, the Typhoon isn't a carrier aircraft. It's likely that Spain
will also buy the F-35, for the same reason.

>Turkey from recent speculation may look at this model as the
>JSF/Typhoon mix looks like a pretty fair combination, the Typhoon now
>and the JSF in the middle of the next decade.

Possibly they'll buy Typhoons now, and see how good the F-35 is when
it is in service.

>The JSF is still very much in development and as such, its capabilitys
>are still being balanced with cost, the real question being should any
>airforce just go with one aircraft type?
>
>Should those already signed up for the JSF look at this force model,
>or if not, Why?, or what other combinations should prospective buyers
>look at?.

Typhoon will almost certainly be more manouvrable and with a better
thrust/weight ratio. F-35 has stealth, but how stealthy will the
export version be?

>Any one got any really novel combinations? for instance the Skycat
>200

What's that?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[ClickRichard]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 04 May 2004 19:49:50 +1000, John Cook > wrote:
> >Hi All
> >
> >In an almost futile effort to get some aviation related stuff back on
> >RAM.....Here goes...
> >
> >Both Italy and the UK are planning to use both the JSF and the
> >Eurofighter, AIUI the thinking behind this is that the Eurofighter
> >Typhoon is more AtoA and the JSF F-35 is more AtoG, having two types
> >does cost more, but does give more strike options, plus single fault
> >will ground your entire airforce!!!, and you can't be held to ransom
> >from a sole supplier.
>
> Also, the Typhoon isn't a carrier aircraft. It's likely that Spain
> will also buy the F-35, for the same reason.
>
> >Turkey from recent speculation may look at this model as the
> >JSF/Typhoon mix looks like a pretty fair combination, the Typhoon now
> >and the JSF in the middle of the next decade.
>
> Possibly they'll buy Typhoons now, and see how good the F-35 is when
> it is in service.
>
> >The JSF is still very much in development and as such, its capabilitys
> >are still being balanced with cost, the real question being should any
> >airforce just go with one aircraft type?
> >
> >Should those already signed up for the JSF look at this force model,
> >or if not, Why?, or what other combinations should prospective buyers
> >look at?.
>
> Typhoon will almost certainly be more manouvrable and with a better
> thrust/weight ratio. F-35 has stealth, but how stealthy will the
> export version be?
>
> >Any one got any really novel combinations? for instance the Skycat
> >200
>
> What's that?

I want to wholeheartedly support this 'real' posting. There are
intelligent humans out there!

Just backing up what Phil mentioned. The Typhoon is a swing role
aircraft so it shouldn't have any trouble with ground support. In
reality, I'm an engineer and realise that whilst some aspects of
performance are of benefit to both roles, there is bound to be
compromise in performance and that this plane has been designed
primarily for air to air sorties. Demonstrations I have seen for the
future pilots would back that up.

I think the JSF inclusion was forced by decisions elsewhere in the MOD
which led to smaller aircraft carriers than the early Eurofighter
designers would have wished for. However, for all the reasons cited
above, the JSF is a good complimentary match for the Typhoon in that,
I believe, it is configured primarily for air to ground (although not
particularly shoddy in air combat).

Whilst I agree with the logic behind two aircraft giving some
redundancy in the event of grounding a fleet, it only gives you
marginal protection from being held to ransom by suppliers. Two
suppliers are still extremely powerful. What'll be more interesting
is how other nations commit and what the Russian's put onto the market
(if anything). Two fighter aircraft options globally would be a break
from the last few decades...

[John Cook]

On Tue, 4 May 2004 23:57:50 +0100, (phil
hunt) wrote:

>>Any one got any really novel combinations? for instance the Skycat
>>200
>
>What's that?

Its a giant Airship, after taking another look, the Skycat 1000 could
be used as a Aerial Carrier (usual caveats), remember the Angels from
Captain Scarlett...

Heres a link
http://www.atg-airships.com/prod/skycat_data.htm
http://www.atg-airships.com/prod/skycat1000_frames.htm
http://www.atg-airships.com/gallery/gall_skycat.htm

couple this airship with fighters (manned or unmanned) and you have
aerial refueller and rearming station..
Just an interesting thought...as for its practicality... Well....


Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[John Cook]

On 5 May 2004 01:38:07 -0700,
(ClickRichard) wrote:

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>> On Tue, 04 May 2004 19:49:50 +1000, John Cook > wrote:
>> >Hi All
>> >
>> >In an almost futile effort to get some aviation related stuff back on
>> >RAM.....Here goes...
>> >
>> >Both Italy and the UK are planning to use both the JSF and the
>> >Eurofighter, AIUI the thinking behind this is that the Eurofighter
>> >Typhoon is more AtoA and the JSF F-35 is more AtoG, having two types
>> >does cost more, but does give more strike options, plus single fault
>> >will ground your entire airforce!!!, and you can't be held to ransom
>> >from a sole supplier.
>>
>> Also, the Typhoon isn't a carrier aircraft. It's likely that Spain
>> will also buy the F-35, for the same reason.
>>
>> >Turkey from recent speculation may look at this model as the
>> >JSF/Typhoon mix looks like a pretty fair combination, the Typhoon now
>> >and the JSF in the middle of the next decade.
>>
>> Possibly they'll buy Typhoons now, and see how good the F-35 is when
>> it is in service.
>>
>> >The JSF is still very much in development and as such, its capabilitys
>> >are still being balanced with cost, the real question being should any
>> >airforce just go with one aircraft type?
>> >
>> >Should those already signed up for the JSF look at this force model,
>> >or if not, Why?, or what other combinations should prospective buyers
>> >look at?.
>>
>> Typhoon will almost certainly be more manouvrable and with a better
>> thrust/weight ratio. F-35 has stealth, but how stealthy will the
>> export version be?
>>
>> >Any one got any really novel combinations? for instance the Skycat
>> >200
>>
>> What's that?
>
>I want to wholeheartedly support this 'real' posting. There are
>intelligent humans out there!
>
>Just backing up what Phil mentioned. The Typhoon is a swing role
>aircraft so it shouldn't have any trouble with ground support. In
>reality, I'm an engineer and realise that whilst some aspects of
>performance are of benefit to both roles, there is bound to be
>compromise in performance and that this plane has been designed
>primarily for air to air sorties. Demonstrations I have seen for the
>future pilots would back that up.
>
>I think the JSF inclusion was forced by decisions elsewhere in the MOD
>which led to smaller aircraft carriers than the early Eurofighter
>designers would have wished for. However, for all the reasons cited
>above, the JSF is a good complimentary match for the Typhoon in that,
>I believe, it is configured primarily for air to ground (although not
>particularly shoddy in air combat).
>
>Whilst I agree with the logic behind two aircraft giving some
>redundancy in the event of grounding a fleet, it only gives you
>marginal protection from being held to ransom by suppliers. Two
>suppliers are still extremely powerful. What'll be more interesting
>is how other nations commit and what the Russian's put onto the market
>(if anything). Two fighter aircraft options globally would be a break
>from the last few decades...


IMHO The STOVL model JSF is the best compliment for the Typhoon, it
allows the JSF to be forward based and used off the smaller carriers,
other nations could buy the STOVL varient for future sea power
projection, whilst given them a useful dispersed runways option.

Hmmm. I can see the combination working very well.

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Lyle]

On 5 May 2004 01:38:07 -0700,
(ClickRichard) wrote:

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>> On Tue, 04 May 2004 19:49:50 +1000, John Cook > wrote:
>> >Hi All
>> >
>> >In an almost futile effort to get some aviation related stuff back on
>> >RAM.....Here goes...
>> >
>> >Both Italy and the UK are planning to use both the JSF and the
>> >Eurofighter, AIUI the thinking behind this is that the Eurofighter
>> >Typhoon is more AtoA and the JSF F-35 is more AtoG, having two types
>> >does cost more, but does give more strike options, plus single fault
>> >will ground your entire airforce!!!, and you can't be held to ransom
>> >from a sole supplier.
>>
>> Also, the Typhoon isn't a carrier aircraft. It's likely that Spain
>> will also buy the F-35, for the same reason.
>>
>> >Turkey from recent speculation may look at this model as the
>> >JSF/Typhoon mix looks like a pretty fair combination, the Typhoon now
>> >and the JSF in the middle of the next decade.
>>
>> Possibly they'll buy Typhoons now, and see how good the F-35 is when
>> it is in service.
>>
>> >The JSF is still very much in development and as such, its capabilitys
>> >are still being balanced with cost, the real question being should any
>> >airforce just go with one aircraft type?
>> >
>> >Should those already signed up for the JSF look at this force model,
>> >or if not, Why?, or what other combinations should prospective buyers
>> >look at?.
>>
>> Typhoon will almost certainly be more manouvrable and with a better
>> thrust/weight ratio. F-35 has stealth, but how stealthy will the
>> export version be?
>>
>> >Any one got any really novel combinations? for instance the Skycat
>> >200
>>
>> What's that?
>
>I want to wholeheartedly support this 'real' posting. There are
>intelligent humans out there!
>
>Just backing up what Phil mentioned. The Typhoon is a swing role
>aircraft so it shouldn't have any trouble with ground support. In
>reality, I'm an engineer and realise that whilst some aspects of
>performance are of benefit to both roles, there is bound to be
>compromise in performance and that this plane has been designed
>primarily for air to air sorties. Demonstrations I have seen for the
>future pilots would back that up.
>
>I think the JSF inclusion was forced by decisions elsewhere in the MOD
>which led to smaller aircraft carriers than the early Eurofighter
>designers would have wished for. However, for all the reasons cited
>above, the JSF is a good complimentary match for the Typhoon in that,
>I believe, it is configured primarily for air to ground (although not
>particularly shoddy in air combat).
isnt the JSF required to be as manuverable as the F-16 if not more?
>
>Whilst I agree with the logic behind two aircraft giving some
>redundancy in the event of grounding a fleet, it only gives you
>marginal protection from being held to ransom by suppliers. Two
>suppliers are still extremely powerful. What'll be more interesting
>is how other nations commit and what the Russian's put onto the market
>(if anything). Two fighter aircraft options globally would be a break
>from the last few decades...

[[email protected]]

Lyle > wrote:

>On 5 May 2004 01:38:07 -0700,
>(ClickRichard) wrote:
>
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>>> On Tue, 04 May 2004 19:49:50 +1000, John Cook > wrote:
>>> >Hi All
>>> >
>>> >In an almost futile effort to get some aviation related stuff back on
>>> >RAM.....Here goes...
>>> >
>>> >Both Italy and the UK are planning to use both the JSF and the
>>> >Eurofighter, AIUI the thinking behind this is that the Eurofighter
>>> >Typhoon is more AtoA and the JSF F-35 is more AtoG, having two types
>>> >does cost more, but does give more strike options, plus single fault
>>> >will ground your entire airforce!!!, and you can't be held to ransom
>>> >from a sole supplier.
>>>
>>> Also, the Typhoon isn't a carrier aircraft. It's likely that Spain
>>> will also buy the F-35, for the same reason.
>>>
>>> >Turkey from recent speculation may look at this model as the
>>> >JSF/Typhoon mix looks like a pretty fair combination, the Typhoon now
>>> >and the JSF in the middle of the next decade.
>>>
>>> Possibly they'll buy Typhoons now, and see how good the F-35 is when
>>> it is in service.
>>>
>>> >The JSF is still very much in development and as such, its capabilitys
>>> >are still being balanced with cost, the real question being should any
>>> >airforce just go with one aircraft type?
>>> >
>>> >Should those already signed up for the JSF look at this force model,
>>> >or if not, Why?, or what other combinations should prospective buyers
>>> >look at?.
>>>
>>> Typhoon will almost certainly be more manouvrable and with a better
>>> thrust/weight ratio. F-35 has stealth, but how stealthy will the
>>> export version be?
>>>
>>> >Any one got any really novel combinations? for instance the Skycat
>>> >200
>>>
>>> What's that?
>>
>>I want to wholeheartedly support this 'real' posting. There are
>>intelligent humans out there!
>>
>>Just backing up what Phil mentioned. The Typhoon is a swing role
>>aircraft so it shouldn't have any trouble with ground support. In
>>reality, I'm an engineer and realise that whilst some aspects of
>>performance are of benefit to both roles, there is bound to be
>>compromise in performance and that this plane has been designed
>>primarily for air to air sorties. Demonstrations I have seen for the
>>future pilots would back that up.
>>
>>I think the JSF inclusion was forced by decisions elsewhere in the MOD
>>which led to smaller aircraft carriers than the early Eurofighter
>>designers would have wished for. However, for all the reasons cited
>>above, the JSF is a good complimentary match for the Typhoon in that,
>>I believe, it is configured primarily for air to ground (although not
>>particularly shoddy in air combat).
>isnt the JSF required to be as manuverable as the F-16 if not more?
>>
>>Whilst I agree with the logic behind two aircraft giving some
>>redundancy in the event of grounding a fleet, it only gives you
>>marginal protection from being held to ransom by suppliers. Two
>>suppliers are still extremely powerful. What'll be more interesting
>>is how other nations commit and what the Russian's put onto the market
>>(if anything). Two fighter aircraft options globally would be a break
>>from the last few decades...

--

-Gord.