Eurofighter Typhoon's FBW FCS and AOA limits

[overscan (PaulMM)]

@Scorpion82 apologies, I will defer to your knowledge of the Typhoon flight test programme and operations, my interests were mostly in configuration development and avionics, there's no good book on the Typhoon in English to my knowledge, and its 16 years since I was last looking at this. However, @DWG has a front row seat to the FCS development.

I don't believe this was actually a "requirement" vs "prediction" from CFD and wind tunnel testing. Some flight physics phenomena emerged during flight test that hadn't been captured in these predictions.

And as well the money/prioritisation of money being diverted to other areas at thatstage of the flight test programme

Happy to accept that the 24 degree AOA limit is less that originally intended limit of something like 29-30 degrees. MBB also clearly had a major interest in post-stall regime (hence X-31) that wasn't shared by BAE Warton and wasn't part of the agreed Eurofighter specification.

Where does the "35 degrees AOA requirement" comes from though, aside from the stated goals of some phase of flight testing? The CFD and wind tunnel testing of the Eurofighter configuration only covered speeds up to Mach 2.0 and AOA to 30 degrees.

 

[DWG]

Thanks @DWG for all those fascinating insights. I wonder how Edgewing and also the FCAS countries will avoid relearning some of the same extensive mistakes around allocate work share and/or work package leadership to the wrong teams just to keep some kind of national balance, requiring the other partners to eventually jump in and fix things.

There's 35 years of extra experience in working cross borders from the British and Italian teams going in, though the Japanese side is rather less experienced in multinational work.

 

[DWG]

The topic matter was AoA performance of the Typhoon. When I hinted at the aircraft performing not as well as many apparently believed, I was met with sceptism. When I stated the 24° figure I was met with disbelief. When I eventually backed that figure with an authorative source, "everyone" suddenly jumped into a defensive mode, not recognizing that 24° vs 35° requirement is a significant shortfall, "everyone" was suddenly talking about "requirements" insisting that a higher ITR and AoA is not only,

Who is this "everyone"? I didn't have a clue what the AoA limits were, why would I be invested in defending them?

(As I keep having to remind people, being on the FCS team doesn't mean you know the aerodynamics limits, you get to deal with things like the third differential of the pitch rate or the rolling average of the rate of change of the yaw rate, or the angular rate of change of the control surface. Or whether there's weight-on-wheels, or which AoA sensor needs to be switched out because its results don't match the others. There are so many caveats and discontinuities in the logic we actually broke the compiler with the level of nested Case statements).

not needed spouting decades old "wisdoms" paraphrasing some pilot's gospel, but pretending that Typhoon's requirements were different and that Typhoon's lack in this respect isn't a deficiency, but "intend by design".

Is it a 'decades old "wisdom"' if it's what I was told at the time and I'm identifying it as that? Or a witness statement from someone with perspective you don't have. Or both?

Is it just 'paraphrasing some pilot's gospel' if he's a Eurofighter test pilot visiting to deliver a lecture to the FCS team on the progress at the flight test end and you're chatting afterwards?

Wrt to BAe being the "Aero" authority it's the first time I hear about that and I seriously question it.

I actually meant aircraft, not simply aerodynamics. But if the UK wasn't lead, how do we explain the aircraft being built for the UK-sponsored* BVR dominant CONOPS, rather than the MBB-sponsored* WVR-dominant CONOPs. (And this is contemporaneous with the Luftwaffe's Phantom ICE requirements which emphasised adding BVR capability, not optimising WVR).

* I'm certain the BVR CONOPS was MoD driven, I've not seen evidence that WVR-above-all-else came from the Luftwaffe rather than MBB. Perhaps it did, but I'd like some precise sourcing.

Unfortunately I'm 300 miles from my copy of the best written source on Eurofighter start-up and organisation I've come across, but if anyone has a copy of Jon Lake's article on the origins of Eurofighter in WAPJ Winter 98, maybe they could have a quick glance to see what it says about dividing up responsibilities? It's very good on the problems with France, and workshare division, but I can't recall what it says about who got what.

 

[H_K]

The impression I got is that it’s very hornet like, consolidation of several aircraft into one.

How it was mean to be use tactically in a little less clear on, my thoughts are that it was a kind of penetration fighter.

The Rafale requirement was indeed for multirole air superiority and low-level penetration, similar to Hornet or the F-15E (which didn't exist yet).

The air superiority mission is evident in certain design choices, especially in the cockpit (heavily reclined seat and F-16 style side stick to help the pilot fly high Gs). It's not a surprise since the French spent most of the 70s trying to come up with a French F-15 equivalent. The penetration mission was also a core requirement given the need to replace the Jaguar in the tactical role against Warsaw Pact forces... basically the French knew they needed something more like Tornado, with automatic terrain following and better fuel consumption than the Atar engines. You can also see the penetration mission's influence in the Mica missile design, with its high off boresight thrust vectoring capability and mini-IRST surveillance mode to help a striker flying low & fast defend itself in a scenario where it was jumped by enemy fighters.

So the French wanted both air superiority and penetration, which made them probably more aligned with RAF requirements than German requirements (which leaned much more towards air superiority only and high maneuverability for WVR combat). However there was a huge gap in expectations around aircraft size, with the French cost models being based on price per kilo which drove them towards the minimum size for a twin-engine fighter (which they thought was around ~8.5t empty), whereas the RAF wanted something Tornado sized (12t empty). In the end the French Jaguar replacement became the Mirage 2000D (initially intended more as a gap-filler in the strike/penetration role), but luckily the Rafale's multirole design requirement was already pretty set in stone by that point.

 

[H_K]

but if anyone has a copy of Jon Lake's article on the origins of Eurofighter in WAPJ Winter 98, maybe they could have a quick glance to see what it says about dividing up responsibilities? It's very good on the problems with France, and workshare division, but I can't recall what it says about who got what.

For what it's worth, the French histories barely mention workshare as the main problem. From their perspective the disagreements in the working teams were about how to translate design requirements, with 2 competing design concepts.

The French sponsored concept was smaller, cheaper, more multirole and easier to navalize (with the landing gear and intake location in particular helping to transfer structural loads during catapult launches and arrested landings, whereas what would become the Eurofighter design was fundamentally ill-suited from a structural load path perspective). In the end the gap in design choices was insoluble and the working teams from the 3 Panavia countries just decided to ignore the French PoV and sign off on their preferred design concept without finding a consensus design. The French and Spanish had 2 weeks to agree to their partners' design concept - the Spanish agreed, the French didn't.

 

[DWG]

For what it's worth, the French histories barely mention workshare as the main problem.

I actually meant workshare as a separate point that the article dealt with, it was mainly an issue with the Germans.

 

[Scorpion82]

Who is this "everyone"?

Ask our dear Paul, just picked it up from him, that's why I put it into quotation marks. ;-)

I didn't have a clue what the AoA limits were, why would I be invested in defending them?

Well, you argued it's no shortcoming... So ask yourself how you arrived at that conclusion, the sources shared here, have made it clear, 35° AoA target, the in-service aircraft being capped at 24°.

Is it a 'decades old "wisdom"' if it's what I was told at the time and I'm identifying it as that? Or a witness statement from someone with perspective you don't have. Or both?

I'm talking about statements like "it's idiocy to bleed off your energy and getting killed by your target's wingman" and the like. This statement isn't untrue per se, but it is oversimplified. There are situationd were this is the case and there are situations where it isn't the case. You can just as well be blown out of the skies while trying to outrate your enemy, which typically takes more time and burns more fuel. There are situations where cjanging your energy state quickly is advantageous in both ways and bleeding energy to get an enemy killed quickly, or killing it at all.

I actually meant aircraft, not simply aerodynamics. But if the UK wasn't lead, how do we explain the aircraft being built for the UK-sponsored* BVR dominant CONOPS, rather than the MBB-sponsored* WVR-dominant CONOPs. (And this is contemporaneous with the Luftwaffe's Phantom ICE requirements which emphasised adding BVR capability, not optimising WVR).

* I'm certain the BVR CONOPS was MoD driven, I've not seen evidence that WVR-above-all-else came from the Luftwaffe rather than MBB. Perhaps it did, but I'd like some precise sourcing.

I think your problem is that you don't really understand MBBs efforts and believe that it was just supermanoeuvrability for the ultimate dogfight performance. MBB started air combat studies in collaboration with McDD in 1970 with the objective to develope a vision of future air combat. On that basis the requirements, or desirable characteristics were to be defined and based on this the design characteristics derived.
In 1974 MBB's view on future air combat was:

WVR
- Digital avionics allowing potential integration of weapon, fire and flight control, opening the opportunity for automatic gun aiming and firing, as well as head on shots
- Future SRAAM with greater agility, all aspect and off-boresight capability

With this in mind the comany concluded that in future WVR battles fights would be decided more quickly, not by chasing the enemy's tail, which was still the norm at that time, but by quickly firing at the enemy, irrespective of the aspect angle. This favoured high ITR and nose pointing. Good STR was seen as a fallout, based on anyway desirable metrics such as low wing loading and hugh TWR.

BVR
- Use of active radar guided BVR missiles, again digital avionics/electronics on one hand allowed for optimal firing calculations to automatically compute optimum launch condition and on the other hand miniaturization of electronics that made active radar missiles feasible within the medium range class, compatible with lighter fighters, compared to the huge and massive AIM-54 Phoenix
- TWS radar with multishot capability and owed to the nature of ARH "fire and forget" capability.

MBB determined that good supersonic performance would notably increase the reach of the missiles and that high sustained turn rates at supersonic speeds would be important to dynamically position for a BVR engagement and for avoiding and/or evading enemy shots.

You may notice that this is already the "Typhoon philosphy" in 1974!

Based on these considerations the TKF was eventually designed, though TKF was a generic Luftwaffe designation that only emerged in 1977, which was the same year that the MBB TKF design was fixed in its initial incarnation, feature normal delta wings and a single fin! The design evolved in an iterative process over many years and was adopted for EFA and adapted for the 4-national requirements. The retention of the TKF configuration is a testimony of the design's general suitability for the requirements, WVR and BVR! Poststall manoeuvrability was entirely TVC dependent and not a requirement by any EFA partner, but the design was prepared to adopt it at a later stage, if needed/wanted.

Unfortunately I'm 300 miles from my copy of the best written source on Eurofighter start-up and organisation I've come across, but if anyone has a copy of Jon Lake's article on the origins of Eurofighter in WAPJ Winter 98, maybe they could have a quick glance to see what it says about dividing up responsibilities? It's very good on the problems with France, and workshare division, but I can't recall what it says about who got what.

It would take to long now to list everything, can do that tomorrow or so, if people here are interested. Just one aspect here, the overall aircraft authority falls under Eurofighter GmbH responsibility, here everything comes together and that's the job that this consortium, staffed with seconded personnel from the EPCs (Eurofighter Partner Companies), is responsible for. So if there is a position at EF GmbH you can apply for it as an employee of BAES, LEORNARDO or AIRBUS DS Spain or Germany. Your contract at the EPC is on hold and you are employed by EF GmbH. These contracts are time limited and when they expire you return to the EPC you come from and typically get into your old department, ofcourse it is likely that somebody else has taken over your responsibility there and you get assigned with different responsibilities, or even switch into another department.

 

[Scorpion82]

For what it's worth, the French histories barely mention workshare as the main problem. From their perspective the disagreements in the working teams were about how to translate design requirements, with 2 competing design concepts.

The French sponsored concept was smaller, cheaper, more multirole and easier to navalize (with the landing gear and intake location in particular helping to transfer structural loads during catapult launches and arrested landings, whereas what would become the Eurofighter design was fundamentally ill-suited from a structural load path perspective). In the end the gap in design choices was insoluble and the working teams from the 3 Panavia countries just decided to ignore the French PoV and sign off on their preferred design concept without finding a consensus design. The French and Spanish had 2 weeks to agree to their partners' design concept - the Spanish agreed, the French didn't.

The French pushed for the lead nation principle, France essentially driving the programme and its requirements. Dassault demanded design authority and inevitably tried to sell the ACX. Dassault wanted single source responsibility for airframe, engine, general systems, equipment and avionics. In its insistance on a 9 t empty weight (initially 8.5t) the French were even willing to compromise on the five nationally agreed EST. Especially the UK, but also the other partners opposed this, as the EST was jointly agreed and the French side was retrospectively trying to compromise for its own objectives mostly impacting the other nation's requirements. The introduction of naval requirements was also a retrospective move, the MN was not a signatory of the EST. just as a side note, one key objective of the ACX was to prove the feasibility of a single aircraft design satisfying AdA and MN requirements.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The final version of P.110 was this:

It aligns almost completely with the ACA being developed in parallel, and adopts almost all TKF-90 design principals.

The last British design for EFA alternative was P.120, which was EFA with fixed intakes.

 

[Scorpion82]

The final version of P.110 was this:

The last British design for EFA alternative was P.120, which was EFA with fixed intakes.

It's interesting that no other P-designation was used, given that this TKF based design has nothing in common with the original P.110.

From an aestethic point of view it's one of the better looking designs.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It's basically British-built ACA at this point, and only needs a single tail to be early EFA. It's not unusual for configurations to evolve over time though. Look at the start point for the F-16.

 

[DWG]

Well, you argued it's no shortcoming... So ask yourself how you arrived at that conclusion, the sources shared here, have made it clear, 35° AoA target, the in-service aircraft being capped at 24°.

The same way I arrived at the conclusion the Cobra, and the J-Turn and so on were over-rated, the past 35 years of aircraft development choosing not to pursue nose-pointing as the be-all and end-all of fighter design. Plus pure logic, killing the other guy before the merge is always superior to killing him after the merge. Not to mention the ubiquitous spread of HOBS missiles and helmet sights. It's easier to turn your head than turn the plane.

I'm talking about statements like "it's idiocy to bleed off your energy and getting killed by your target's wingman" and the like. This statement isn't untrue per se, but it is oversimplified.

It's also the view of the test pilot sent to brief us on what the project was doing, and why it was doing it and entirely consistent with the presentation he'd just delivered. Now was he atypical, or typical of opinion within the flight test department on what mattered? If they're sending him out to deliver presentations, then it's because he stays on the company line.

It would take to long now to list everything, can do that tomorrow or so, if people here are interested.

Not jobs, systems!

 

[F-2]

I don’t think the Eurofighter NEEDs nose pointing, but it is a pretty intimidating thought, you can’t take me any where in the envelope and have me uncomfortable.

Nowadays of course their are other reasons but I’m sure back then the unlimited versatility was appealing.

 

[Ainen]

The same way I arrived at the conclusion the Cobra, and the J-Turn and so on were over-rated, the past 35 years of aircraft development choosing not to pursue nose-pointing as the be-all and end-all of fighter design. Plus pure logic, killing the other guy before the merge is always superior to killing him after the merge. Not to mention the ubiquitous spread of HOBS missiles and helmet sights. It's easier to turn your head than turn the plane.

It's possible to find counter arguments ... and Luftwaffe did eventually buy AMK, after all.

(1)There are always going to be better weapons to do head on than a small WVR missile;
(2)Merge over Fulda was seen as effectively unavoidable, unless you are ready to concede air superiority (Mig-29 experience for Germans; Mig-23 experience that led to Mig-29 in the first place for Soviets); Granted, since 1991 it isn't quite as attractive as before.
(3)However, low altitude authority is very relevant nowadays regardless of ETO nuclear meatball, with the ubiquitous SHAHED threat profile.
(4)Finally, Eurofighter is probably not the most equipped platform for HOBS LOAL - and in general, pointed LOBL shots connect better to this day.
(5)more maneuverable interceptor is more attractive for active defense.

 

[SlowHandClap]

I think people are overlooking that ITR != AoA, and both contribute to "nose pointing" ability.
The ESR doesn't state an AoA requirement at all, let alone a specific number. It does specify a high ITR.

 

[DWG]

It's possible to find counter arguments ... and Luftwaffe did eventually buy AMK, after all.

It's been an MBB/DASA/EADS/AIRBUS Germany hobbyhorse for 35 years, yet they only just managed to get it on the aircraft. That speaks volumes about the priority accorded it.

(1)There are always going to be better weapons to do head on than a small WVR missile;

Yes, Meteor. ASRAAM is literally the third choice weapon for Typhoon in that scenario (after Meteor twice over).

(2)Merge over Fulda was seen as effectively unavoidable, unless you are ready to concede air superiority (Mig-29 experience for Germans; Mig-23 experience that led to Mig-29 in the first place for Soviets); Granted, since 1991 it isn't quite as attractive as before.

I think an awful lot of this was panic over Archer. (Though it's interesting that everyone talks about merge over Fulda, but not merge over Hamburg).

(3)However, low altitude authority is very relevant nowadays regardless of ETO nuclear meatball, with the ubiquitous SHAHED threat profile.

Shahed's not exactly a 9G manoeuvring target (or even a 1G manoeuvring target). Stand back and take it out with APKWS (exactly what the RAF is doing).

(4)Finally, Eurofighter is probably not the most equipped platform for HOBS LOAL - and in general, pointed LOBL shots connect better to this day.

Difficult to think of any combination better than Striker + PIRATE + datalinked ASRAAM or Striker + PIRATE + IRIS-T, especially at their introduction. Not that the Luftwaffe ever actually bought PIRATE, which has always been bizarre, but doubly so for the Quadriga birds.

(5)more maneuverable interceptor is more attractive for active defense.

It's unclear what you mean here.

 

[Scorpion82]

I think people are overlooking that ITR != AoA, and both contribute to "nose pointing" ability.
The ESR doesn't state an AoA requirement at all, let alone a specific number. It does specify a high ITR.

The ESR-D is the European Staff Requirement gor Development, what has been shared here is a single page of a long document that defined the quadrinationally agreed and harmonized requirement for the EFA. The ESR-D was translated into the Weapon System Design and Performance Specification (WSDPS) which formed the baseline for the Main Development Contract (MDC) against which industry was contracted to deliver the weapon system. It would actually help, if people follow a discussion and not treating every post in isolation ignoring the wider context of the discussion. The 35° target AoA has been stated by two Test Pilots, one of that has been shared on the first page, wasn't it even yourself?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The 35° target AoA has been stated by two Test Pilots, one of that has been shared on the first page, wasn't it even yourself?

The quote was about future intended envelope expansion during test flights to 30-35°, that doesn't tell you what the requirement was or even if there was an AOA requirement at all, simply some planned testing.

 

[Ainen]

It's been an MBB/DASA/EADS/AIRBUS Germany hobbyhorse for 35 years, yet they only just managed to get it on the aircraft. That speaks volumes about the priority accorded it.

Hey, it was as high a priority as the new radar!
But yes, indeed.

Shahed's not exactly a 9G manoeuvring target (or even a 1G manoeuvring target). Stand back and take it out with APKWS (exactly what the RAF is doing).

They actually do maneuver (and increasingly apply tactics) when threatened nowadays, plus they tend to fly very low through ridges, deny long lines of sight, etc.
There's also no way to lase in the upper hemisphere on eirofighter, which should deny some approach trajectories/add maneuvering.
I am no pilot with experience, but to me it appears that supreme momentary low speed handling is a must here; all the most successful drone hunters are hardly fast!

Difficult to think of any combination better than Striker + PIRATE + datalinked ASRAAM or Striker + PIRATE + IRIS-T, especially at their introduction. Not that the Luftwaffe ever actually bought PIRATE, which has always been bizarre, but doubly so for the Quadriga birds.

ASRAAM, for all it's long range advantages, is probably least maneuverable of the rail (no TVC). I.e. close range, high angular velocity shots should be it's weakness.

IRST with more AOR and integrated laser rangefinder (OSF, OLS series) should be immediately better than range-less data to get right LOAL through HMD. Rafale, in addition, has buddy WVR targeting for a while, and MICA is also an ersatz IRST for the lower hemisphere.
And on the other hand, since Pirate is relatively limited in angles, does it add that much in WVR over CAPTOR in dogfight mode?
It isn't existential, but PIRATE is heavily tilted towards being a long range sensor first and foremost.

I.e. I am no pilot, but it appears that Rafale (TVC weapon, IRST), Su/Mig (TVC weapon w datalink, IRST), Americans / Swedes / Chinese / Non-ASRAAM eurofighter nations (TVC Weapon). Everyone with HMS/HMD of course.
Add in what you and others discribed in the topic here - and the picture is that Typhoon design always takes small design choices in favour of BVR, against WVR.
It doesn't mean it's anyhow bad at it (it's still a damn unstable millennial delta canard with all digital bells and whistles, i.e. better than most by default), but it's more of "here some, there a bit" feeling.
I.e. some hypothetical AMK eurofigher with IRIS and another IRST(like, OLS) would be a better brawler.

It's unclear what you mean here.

Intercepting incoming missiles with your own.

 

[SlowHandClap]

IRST with more AOR and integrated laser rangefinder (OSF, OLS series) should be immediately better than range-less data to get right LOAL through HMD. Rafale, in addition, has buddy WVR targeting for a while, and MICA is also an ersatz IRST for the lower hemisphere.

PIRATE does provide range estimation - it uses kinematic ranging.

ASRAAM can also function as IRST and has third-party cueing according to MBDA. As for using it with HMD - the Aussies demonstrated it hitting target behind the launching aircraft (some sources I've seen claim 2km separation but unknown speed, and I don't know how reliable that information is).

 

[Ainen]

PIRATE does provide range estimation - it uses kinematic ranging.

ASRAAM can also function as IRST and has third-party cueing according to MBDA.

Well, kinematic ranging is roundabout way of having hard range on target, and it won't produce results on target with it's own angular movement?
I.e. I don't mean it can't, what I mean is that Eurofighter design in all cases goes for a different compromise. Rafale, for instance, always does the opposite, even at the expense of it's BVR capability (MICA design, large OSF at the expense of RBE2).

 

[Scorpion82]

The quote was about future intended envelope expansion during test flights to 30-35°, that doesn't tell you what the requirement was or even if there was an AOA requirement at all, simply some planned testing.

You should read what Keith Hardley actually said here:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ons-fbw-fcs-and-aoa-limits.50687/#post-913683

"We intend to iterarate in this way until we achieve our intended production envelope..."

He is evidently not talking about some "hey we want to push the envelope for the fun and sake of it". He is talking about the AoA capability that the production aircraft was intended to provide.

What else does it need before you accept reality as is? If that's not a clear enough statement, I don't know what is.

 

[Scorpion82]

The same way I arrived at the conclusion the Cobra, and the J-Turn and so on were over-rated, the past 35 years of aircraft development choosing not to pursue nose-pointing as the be-all and end-all of fighter design. Plus pure logic, killing the other guy before the merge is always superior to killing him after the merge. Not to mention the ubiquitous spread of HOBS missiles and helmet sights. It's easier to turn your head than turn the plane.

Once again, historical context vs "wisdom of the aftermath". You are paraphrasing decades old wisdoms of air combat theory, I don't disagree with that, never did and even explicitely expressed that as well. So what exactly is your argument here, other than that "nose-pointing as the be-all and end-all of fighter design"? I haven't insisted on that either.
And just for that matter even an F-35 has an AoA authority of 50°, the F-22 60+°, add diverse Flanker derivatives and Su-57... So that statement of yours "the past 35 years of aircraft development choosing not to pursue nose-pointing..." is therfore false and made up on purpose to create an argument defying actual developments.

It's also the view of the test pilot sent to brief us on what the project was doing, and why it was doing it and entirely consistent with the presentation he'd just delivered. Now was he atypical, or typical of opinion within the flight test department on what mattered? If they're sending him out to deliver presentations, then it's because he stays on the company line.

As said above, I don't disagree with that generally spoken. Doesn't change the fact that the requirements specified a better performance than was actually achieved, for reasons that I have explained and which seem to be ignored on purpose.

Not jobs, systems!

Define "system" in the Eurofighter context. System Design Responsible for mass properties, environment, lightning strike protection... You surely mean "systems" in the sence of equipment like radar, DASS etc.

 

[Scorpion82]

Well, kinematic ranging is roundabout way of having hard range on target, and it won't produce results on target with it's own angular movement?

KR utilizes the angular rate changes between ownship and target. It's essentially triangluation of sorts. The advantage is that it's entirely passive, unlike a laser and that it works against multiple targets, unlike LRF.

I.e. I don't mean it can't, what I mean is that Eurofighter design in all cases goes for a different compromise. Rafale, for instance, always does the opposite, even at the expense of it's BVR capability (MICA design, large OSF at the expense of RBE2).

What exactly is "large OSF" supposed to imply?

 

[Ainen]

KR utilizes the angular rate changes between ownship and target. It's essentially triangluation of sorts. The advantage is that it's entirely passive, unlike a laser and that it works against multiple targets, unlike LRF.

It is, but it only works when you control inputs. IRST doesn't provide instantaneous vector of target flight, and especially change of that vector; as such, ranging against maneuvering target is impossible by default.

LRF works all the time, and frankly I doubt LWR warning has any meaning in head on WVR...provided enemy plane even has LWR.
It isn't a defendable hill - yes, one can range without a rangefinder, but it is a choice against WVR.
And IMHO Eurofighter, UK ones more so than any other, do such compromises at every turn.

What exactly is "large OSF" supposed to imply?

OSF (optronique secteur frontal) is a larger, heavier set when compared to PIRATE, with far more comprehensive set of medium to close range capabilities.
As such, requesting and then installing it on the eventual Rafale (with it's smallish nose, i.e. moving radar further forward, sacrificing available area and moving it's weight further away from cm) represents a larger compromise in favour of optics and WVR in general.

 

[Scorpion82]

It is, but it only works when you control inputs.

There is no input of data. The KR process works automatically, the pilot can aid the system by generating the line of sight spin rates, by flying weaving manoeuvres. Technically spoken, in theory it's ofcourse useful and theoretically possible to prime the IRST with either manual data input or using other sensor data.

IRST doesn't provide instantaneous vector of target flight, and especially change of that vector; as such, ranging against maneuvering target is impossible by default.

IRST provides the angular rate data, hence vectors in azimuth and elevation over time. Taking ownship movements into account. And yes it's not instantanous.

LRF works all the time, and frankly I doubt LWR warning has any meaning in head on WVR...provided enemy plane even has LWR.

That's true though, for WVR it's better, for BVR the limit lies with performance of the laser. In amy case you get essentially an instantaneous solution.

And IMHO Eurofighter, UK ones more so than any other, do such compromises at every turn.

Every design is at the end of the day a choice of compromises.

OSF (optronique secteur frontal) is a larger, heavier set when compared to PIRATE, with far more comprehensive set of medium to close range capabilities.
As such, requesting and then installing it on the eventual Rafale (with it's smallish nose, i.e. moving radar further forward, sacrificing available area and moving it's weight further away from cm) represents a larger compromise in favour of optics and WVR in general.

Thanks for the clarification, agreed.

 

[DWG]

And just for that matter even an F-35 has an AoA authority of 50°, the F-22 60+°, add diverse Flanker derivatives and Su-57... So that statement of yours "the past 35 years of aircraft development choosing not to pursue nose-pointing..." is therfore false and made up on purpose to create an argument defying actual developments

So I'm deliberately lying as opposed to holding a different view to you? I think we're done here.

 

[Scorpion82]

So I'm deliberately lying as opposed to holding a different view to you? I think we're done here.

It's not about opinions or views points here. When you say that over the last 35 years no aircraft has been developed that emphasized nose pointing, it's not an opinion, or view, but simply an untrue statement. Whether you made it deliberately, you are unware of it, or you simply rushed it out without thinking about it, is something only you can tell at the end of the day. It's simply not true and it's somewhat hard to believe that you are not aware of these.

We are in fact not that far apart in several points, albeit I'm of the impression you actually don't recognize it.