Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: bxr307@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: European fighter designs
Message-ID: <1991May16.052825.17795@amd.com>
Date: 16 May 91 01:19:38 GMT
References: <1991May15.060829.3052@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Lines: 57
Approved: military@amd.com


From: bxr307@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)


Andrew.Stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) writes:
>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.  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.

	When designed in the early to mid-1970's the Tornado ADV was designed
to fulfill a very specific function.  It was intended to have a long loiter
time at long range from its base, and to fight Soviet Bombers attacking
Britain coming in over the North Sea.  It was felt that it was unlikely at
the time that the Soviets would be dispatching their relatively short range
fighters of the time (MiG21/23) that far from the Central Front where they
would be required, while their longer range aircraft like the MiG25 were
even less maneavreable than what the ADV promised to be.
	If you require a similar type of aircraft it would be best to compare
the Tornado ADV to the F14 Tomcat.  Both were designed to be reasonably 
maneavreable at long range from their base and to engage a limited threat with 
Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) missiles.  Whereas the F14 was designed to defend a 
carrier which could be sunk, the ADV was designed to defend the unsinkable, but still very vulnerable carrier called Britain.
	Since then the nature of the threat has changed, with now it being
recognised that the ADV is inadequate as a dog fighter.  Even so its Radar is
perhaps one of the best in service today and it remains a very potent aircraft
if it is allowed the chance to use both that radar and its BVR Skyflash 
missiles.

>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.

	For the threat environment it was designed to function in (ie Central
Front Europe) that is basically what was required.  Supersonic speed is not
of much use when distances are short and where agility is of value.
	The EFA was designed to overcome some of the shortcomings inherent in
the F16 and to provide a homegrown European solution instead of buying from
the US, which is what had happened with the F16.

>Recent Mirages
>	What kind of design philosphy (apart from low-cost!) do the
>pre-rafale Dassault designs embody?

	"More Bang for your buck" just about sums it up very well as far as
the Mirage series goes.  Each was intended to be better than the previous
design and still be affordable for most nations to buy.  Dassault also very
purposely designed "stretch" and rebuild capability into their designs which
meant that they could offer to their customers the chance to upgrade things
without too much cost.  Its also meant they get a lot of return business.

--
Brian Ross