|
|
Post by Graylion on Oct 14, 2016 18:13:07 GMT
So we have: The A-35 suffers from the US holding the keys. Not happy about that. We have the Typhoon for the high end role and the Gripen for the low end role, Rafale-M for CATOBAR. Europe needs to develop stealth capability and a long range bomber. |
|
|
|
Post by zen9 on Oct 14, 2016 23:16:09 GMT
Yeap and that's not cheap, but we need to think about LO strike, and at least two LO successors to the three current aircraft. After all China is doing this and so is Russia.
We can assume a fleet of over 600 for a twin engined F/A type and potentially similar numbers for a single engined light F/A type.
Theoretically we can achieve our own F35 type. In theory variants could do a lot of Typhoon and Grippen roles at the cost of lower total than the combined of the two we'd need for the whole EU.
This could then mate the single engine to a larger twin dedicated to strike
But we need to think about medium to long ranged strike. Of these the medium 1,200nm ROA type is possibly more valid a focus considering the distances over the Med and into Russia's western side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graylion on Oct 14, 2016 23:43:35 GMT
Also a good learning experience
|
|
|
|
Post by zen9 on Oct 15, 2016 14:53:55 GMT
OK so we'd need a competition between SAAB/and some other (BAE Systems for example) EADS, Eurofighter Consortium and Dassault.
This is incomplete and a work in progress.....
Light Multirole Fighter-Attack
Aim for mach 1.6+ maximum, but a definate requirement to supercruise at 'normal' (internal carridge weapons) weights.
ideally a requirement for 9G manouver limits with AA loadout
360 EO/IR system
AESA
Comprehensive EW suite. (see Grippen)
Basic requirement for internal weapons comprising:-
two Self Defence AAMs upto Meteor size and weight
two 500kg freefall bombs or similar weight but space for AASM, Brimstone or SPEAR III or Paveway IV.
External carridge for four pylons rated for NSM AASM Brimstone SPEAR III (these two ideally using the tripple launcher mount) Paveway IV and two pylons rated for two SCALP/Apache or Taurus stand off ALCM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graylion on Oct 15, 2016 20:38:24 GMT
Do we need a lot of manoeuvrability? This is basically an F111 replacement. I am with Mach 1.6 and dry all the way. I would like to carry 2 Storm Shadow, or 4 JSM + 4 self defence missiles (see missile thread) internally I make takeoff weight somewhere around 60 Mg. Two seater side by side IMO - better for a bomber as experience proves. How about 3 * EJ2x0 Stage 3 as powerplant? Ability to cruise high up to FL 600, but also nap-of-the-earth. Internal fuel for 1200 nm combat radius on hi-lo-hi mission proper intermediate bomber  As for consortiums: Saab belongs to BAe and would be one contender, possibly partnered with Kongsberg for stealth technology. Dassault is the EU company that have done the most stealth work AFAIK, so they might even run alone, and Airbus as a 3rd contender. |
|
|
|
Post by zen9 on Oct 17, 2016 11:24:08 GMT
I was thinking of the Grippen's replacement.
But yes a Theatre Bomber with 1,200nm ROA, ideally with 4 SCALP/Apache, and 4 AAMs. Full 360 EO/IR sensor suite, possibly two AESA and a comprehensive EW/ECM suite.
Two crew, onboard toilet and food preparation (microwave?).
Option 1 is possibly accepting reasonable performance from two EJ270.
Option 2 is three EJ270 and higher performance
Option 3 is scaling up the EJ200-270 powerplant to 30,000lb dry.
Option 4 is fund a new engine in Option 3 size.
Ideally I'd fund Options 3 and 4. But we can get a lot of what we want with Option 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graylion on Oct 17, 2016 19:32:59 GMT
Do you have data on the EJ270? I couldn't find anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graylion on Oct 18, 2016 12:46:14 GMT
And this might be a project for a wider audience. Can you think of a good board to take this to? Not sure navweaps would be the right one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graylion on Oct 20, 2016 0:06:10 GMT
I was thinking of the Grippen's replacement. But yes a Theatre Bomber with 1,200nm ROA, ideally with 4 SCALP/Apache, and 4 AAMs. Full 360 EO/IR sensor suite, possibly two AESA and a comprehensive EW/ECM suite. Two crew, onboard toilet and food preparation (microwave?). Option 1 is possibly accepting reasonable performance from two EJ270. Option 2 is three EJ270 and higher performance Option 3 is scaling up the EJ200-270 powerplant to 30,000lb dry. Option 4 is fund a new engine in Option 3 size. Ideally I'd fund Options 3 and 4. But we can get a lot of what we want with Option 1. Stealth is such a radical step for Europe that developing the powerplant is probably minor by comparison. So I'd probably go with option 4. As for crew facilities - 2400 nm @ 400 kts is 6h. Fighter pilots should be used to that? |
|
|
|
Post by zen9 on Nov 2, 2016 22:42:29 GMT
Certainly they can cope with it, CAP endurance figures with tanking etc....only big issue is human...err...requirements......Hence the need for onboard...facilities.
LO is so important, I'd invest in a demonstrator program. Its not just about being LO but being a calculable return signature which is important in the longer term if one was to invest in active reflection cancellation technologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graylion on Nov 7, 2016 22:37:46 GMT
I agree. BTW, can you think of a board where we can take this idea to flesh it out further?
|
|
|
|
Post by Graylion on Nov 25, 2016 0:46:28 GMT
Having read a little, I am thinking going to 6 or 8 internal cruise missiles.
|
|
|
|
Post by zen9 on Dec 12, 2016 12:43:10 GMT
Agreed, Tornado and Typhoon struggle to get any real range with four cruise missiles. Hence why I think the old Russian JCB concept with internal volume for 8 is a much better future solution.
Especially if we can swap a cruise missile for an internal fuel tank, then we have quite a flexible system.
|
|
