Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: European fighter designs Message-ID: <1991May16.052804.17718@amd.com> Date: 15 May 91 22:37:49 GMT References: <1991May15.060829.3052@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 52 Approved: military@amd.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Andrew Stevens >The Tornado Air Defence variant > This is, *as I understand it*, a very peculiar beast. I.e. the >Tornado was optimised as a strike aircraft the primary concerns being >high subsonic low altitude performance... Actually not true. Tornado's previous name was Multi Role Combat Aircraft -- you'll still find old writeups of it as MRCA -- and the interceptor role definitely figured into the specs. The original, IDS Tornado would make a reasonably good interceptor; the RAF simply wanted a better one, whence the ADV. >The fighter variant is thus >handicapped by relatively low acceleration and so-so turning and >supersonic performance. This aircraft in particular looks very >vulnerable given the widespread deployment of the latest soviet models. You are confusing interceptors with air-superiority fighters. The ADV is an *interceptor*, optimized for long range, heavy armament, acute sensors, and effective operation in heavy-ECM environments (where a two-man cockpit shows to advantage). It is not primarily a dogfighter, although it does that better than (say) a Phantom. Its job is strategic air defence, not maintaining air superiority over a combat zone. General comment: the importance of dogfights is vastly overestimated. 80%+ of all victims of air combat never even see the attacker, much less have a chance to maneuver against him. >The EFA program > As a caricature this seems to boil down to an F16-but-better >project. I.e. a lot of emphasis on agility - but extended supersonic >performance and low observability do not seem to figure much. A reasonable assessment. Not everyone is convinced that stealth is the be-all and end-all for combat aircraft, and supersonic cruise wasn't within the then-practical state of the art for an aircraft with EFA's assorted constraints. >Recent Mirages > What kind of design philosphy (apart from low-cost!) do the >pre-rafale Dassault designs embody? Unless you go back a long way, that's basically the Mirage 2000, which was another F-16-alike. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry