Baaheeduk
Inactive User
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 6,479
- Reaction score
- 151
Eurofighter 'fully combat ready'
- Thread starter karym6
- Start date
karym6
DW Regular
ah, that would be it then and it does have VTOL capability 
Baaheeduk
Inactive User
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 6,479
- Reaction score
- 151
ah, that would be it then and it does have VTOL capability
No Karym, The CGI in the movie dramatized it that way!
It's definitely STOVL
karym6
DW Regular
ahhhh, too early in the morning.
the STOVL feature is probably why we want it for our carriers then. Looks like (if we get it) that it will be a punchy little plane when it comes into service.
the STOVL feature is probably why we want it for our carriers then. Looks like (if we get it) that it will be a punchy little plane when it comes into service.
daveleebond
Inactive User
to reiterate my point ll the way i would say the typhoon is way outdated. UCAV's all the way, like the X47.
Baaheeduk
Inactive User
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 6,479
- Reaction score
- 151
How can the Typhoon (Fighter Jet) be outdated by a UCAV (Bomber)?
You have to fight to get air superiortiy before you can even think about launching a UCAV? They would get picked off like sitting ducks before they reached their primary target?
karym6
DW Regular
The name Typhoon is just a designation for a fighter - for instance the RAF call Eurofighters Typhoons.
I think the articles above make the point that the Eurofighter was designed as an air superiority fighter, but the RAF have taken steps to adapt it for ground attack etc.
I think the articles above make the point that the Eurofighter was designed as an air superiority fighter, but the RAF have taken steps to adapt it for ground attack etc.
karym6
DW Regular
actually, it looks like the Eurofighter isnt fully combat operational yet:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/01/eurofighter_austere_air_to_ground_what_joy/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/01/eurofighter_austere_air_to_ground_what_joy/
daveleebond
Inactive User
how? the latest incarnations have the latest stealth tech and can carry a multitude of payloads
fit it with a x34 scramjet and it could out run anything (inc missiles)
karym6
DW Regular
lol, and who is going to be paying for all that?
What we need, and have needed for about 20 years, is a dependable fighter. We dont need the worlds fastest fighter, or a stealth fighter. We just need something in the air that will last and will support the troops. Unfortunately, the RAF doesnt have the many varied types of fighter that the USAF is lucky to own.
What we need, and have needed for about 20 years, is a dependable fighter. We dont need the worlds fastest fighter, or a stealth fighter. We just need something in the air that will last and will support the troops. Unfortunately, the RAF doesnt have the many varied types of fighter that the USAF is lucky to own.
Baaheeduk
Inactive User
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 6,479
- Reaction score
- 151
There only one X34 and that's a demonstrator? The program was scrapped in 2001. Actually it only flew three times between 1999 and 2001
I don't think they will ever use UCAV without human input during flight. If ground forces were making headway on a target after a UCAV was lauched, they would have to stand ground until the UCAV had fired upon the target as there would be no way to redirect the UCAV as it is programmed to do a nuumber of jobs that cannot be changed. This would give the enemy time to rethink their strategy and re-contact.
Drones survey target area's today the allow manned aircraft to respond immediatley with an airstrike.
I would imagine this is much quicker than having to program a UCAV then lauch it to strike?
That's just my opinion though.
Last edited:
english
Inactive User
karym6
DW Regular
fine, in that case dont misrepresent. In this instance he mis-represented the content of the article to back up his point without first allowing others to form an opinion based on it entirely.
Bollocks, the link was there for others to read, how the **** do I know who and who hasn't read it before giving my opinion
daveleebond
Inactive User
you really think that the military would let NASA stop researching on scramjet tech? it reached MACH 6.8 could of gone to 10 theoretically. I do not think a human could react or survive in a plane that fast.
Warp speed Mr Sulu!
mind you, you would have to nhave scramjet missiles since otherwise would be slower than the plane!
Last edited:
Baaheeduk
Inactive User
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 6,479
- Reaction score
- 151
That was the X43A that hit MACH 6.8 and it held it for all of 11 seconds. It did reach MACH 9.6 later though.
Anyway,
A) It's progammed so is it going to hit it's primary target travelling at 6,800Mph - Probably not!
B) Are they designed for military use - No
C) Was the initial debate about the X34 or X43A - No, It was about the UCAV
D) Will the UCAV ever be used in combat without human Controllers - No, The Geneva Convention and other and other laws of war say so.
E) Do we need manned aircraft to protect our skies - Yes
karym6
DW Regular
Hypersonic planes are one of the key things needed for a sub-orbital vehicle are they not? I would imagine if it can be achieved, then it would be for this end, not so much for out running missiles etc.
english
Inactive User
karym6
DW Regular
prove me wrong how?no i think ur upset because he used your own link to prove you wrong
english
Inactive User
maybe not YOU but your source .. which really means YOU too, as this is ur source of all the information you believe on this subject (apparently).
this is the problem with Wikipedia, they say two things at once without moderation. another word for this is disinformation, which is why i wouldn't quote it on anything. except maybe the ingredients of bread or a banana split. LOL :banana:
I have spoken. Read my words
Similar threads
