F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

No offense taken. I actually don't consider myself too much of a fan of the EF2000, but I don't think it's fair to compare it to 1980's aircraft. (I still think the Gripen NG will dominate in terms of bang for the buck Wink

)

A while ago, someone on this forum compiled L/D and T/W as well as other performance data for a large variety of aircraft, which I'm pretty sure gave the EF an advantage over almost anything save for the F-22. Unfortunately I couldn't seem to dig those up right now and will try to do so once I have more time. Commonly cited values have a T/W ratio of 1.2 for the EF compared to about .9 of the SH, but like I said, this needs to be verified (I'd be very surprised if it wasn't true. Meanwhile, here is some data on BVR:

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eu ... /tech.html

Yes, it comes from the manufacturer, but it is citing an independent review. Keep in mind most data comes from the respective manufacturers, before anyone screams bias.

Conversely, you are also simply assuming that the EF is on par with mid-generation teen's (i'd agree that upgraded versions are similar to the EF), despite the much newer design and advances in technology, which seems a bit pessimistic unless someone presents data (which, really, neither of us have done or can do to a satisfying degree with public info). Secondly, Japan has recently stated it considers the EF2000 as second choice to the F-22 given overall performance. (http://www.idrw.org/2007/10/18/japan_may_buy_eurofighter_defence_minister_says.html) While some politics may be at play, they would know the numbers. There have been several interviews regarding the ability of the EF to pass mach 1 on military power. I'm confused about your stance on this. Are you saying this is a lie, or that it's nothing special? I'd agree that it's not as tactically useful as the F-22's, but a "clean" configuration this was demonstrated with included a full load of A/A missiles to break the sound barrier on mil, which hasn't been demonstrated by any teen-series fighter. If not tactically useful in itself, it's a good indication of its performance compared to them. I believe the F-22 pilot to have flown the EF also commented that it was the next best thing in terms of agility, including transsonic and supersonic realms.

Could you clarify what exactly I need to look at in teen-series weapon configurations? I can understand it doesn't carry the load as an F-15E (different weight class), but an F-16 has 3 under-wing stations, 2 wing-tip stations and 1 fuselage station. This is the exact same (comparable weight classes, too) as the EF, except the Eurofighter adds 4 semi-conformal A/A weapon stations lining the fuselage.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

AeroG33k wrote:

Could you clarify what exactly I need to look at in teen-series weapon configurations? I can understand it doesn't carry the load as an F-15E (different weight class), but an F-16 has 3 under-wing stations, 2 wing-tip stations and 1 fuselage station. This is the exact same (comparable weight classes, too) as the EF, except the Eurofighter adds 4 semi-conformal A/A weapon stations lining the fuselage.

The EF is not really F-16 weight class... The EF is ~11 tons. The Block 50/52+ F-16C/D is about 8.3 tons with a slick top and about 8.6~8.7 tons with the conformal tanks. Since this is an F-35 thread, the production F-35A (post SWAT) is expected to be around 12.7 tons.

Thrust-to-weight wise...
the EF is about 18.614/(11+2.25) = 1.4:1 @ 50% fuel w/no ordnance.
The F-16C is about 13.393/(8.3+1.53) = 1.36:1 @ 50% fuel w/no ordnance & a 29,500 lbs thrust engine.
For the F-35A it is 19.522/(12.7+4.2) = 1.16:1 @ 50% fuel with no ordnance.

However, The F-35 carries nearly twice the fuel as the typhoon, and it's T/W would have been 19.522/(12.7+2.25) = 1.31:1 carrying the same 2.25 tons of fuel as a half filled Typhoon.

Various articles have indicated that the maximum sustainable speed on dry thrust is about Mach 1.3 on a Typhoon with minimal stores. It is about Mach 1.2 on an F-16C (w/-129 or -132 engines) again with minimal stores. It is unclear whether either aircraft can effectively accelerate through the sound barrier on military power, but the preferred method of breeching the sound barrier is with afterburners because it takes too long and actually cost more fuel to drag the aircraft through the high drag transonic zone (Mach 0.9~1.05) than it does to give the aircraft a brief shot of after burning thrust.

[quote="AeroG33k"]No offense taken. I actually don't consider myself too much of a fan of the EF2000, but I don't think it's fair to compare it to 1980's aircraft. (I still think the Gripen NG will dominate in terms of bang for the buck Wink

)

Quote:

A while ago, someone on this forum compiled L/D and T/W as well as other performance data for a large variety of aircraft, which I'm pretty sure gave the EF an advantage over almost anything save for the F-22. Unfortunately I couldn't seem to dig those up right now and will try to do so once I have more time. Commonly cited values have a T/W ratio of 1.2 for the EF compared to about .9 of the SH, but like I said, this needs to be verified (I'd be very surprised if it wasn't true. Meanwhile, here is some data on BVR:

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eu ... /tech.html

I do not question the T/W of the Eurofighter or Super Hornet. Both aircraft satisfy their respective requirements. Both are amazingly agile aircraft too. So much so that it would be up the pilots to determine which is better against an opponent. The EF is faster and quicker being much more oriented toward the pure fighter role while the Super Hornet is more optimized as a carrier based multirole aircraft and I don't question that. So in that case it's really hard to argue one over the other in this respect since the EF is a better designed land based fighter while the SH is a better designed carrier based multirole fighter.

Quote:

Conversely, you are also simply assuming that the EF is on par with mid-generation teen's (i'd agree that upgraded versions are similar to the EF), despite the much newer design and advances in technology, which seems a bit pessimistic unless someone presents data (which, really, neither of us have done or can do to a satisfying degree with public info). Secondly, Japan has recently stated it considers the EF2000 as second choice to the F-22 given overall performance. (http://www.idrw.org/2007/10/18/japan_may_buy_eurofighter_defence_minister_says.html) While some politics may be at play, they would know the numbers. There have been several interviews regarding the ability of the EF to pass mach 1 on military power. I'm confused about your stance on this. Are you saying this is a lie, or that it's nothing special? I'd agree that it's not as tactically useful as the F-22's, but a "clean" configuration this was demonstrated with included a full load of A/A missiles to break the sound barrier on mil, which hasn't been demonstrated by any teen-series fighter. If not tactically useful in itself, it's a good indication of its performance compared to them. I believe the F-22 pilot to have flown the EF also commented that it was the next best thing in terms of agility, including transsonic and supersonic realms.

I'm not assuming. I'm looking at what I could do with a modern F-teen vs an EF in combat. There is more to it than just flight performance. This isn't WW 1 or II where the physical performance of the platform is the key feature. The avionics and versatility are much more crucial now. And the EF marginal advantages in some flgiht regimes are offset by F-Teen/Mig/SU advantages in others. Take the SH ability to point it's nose for example. Or the Mig-29s maneuverability. The F-15's higher speed or the Su-27 longer range or the Vipers smaller size. All of these platforms enjoy some advantage over the others and aerodynamically speaking it's hard to say one is better than the other in that regard since they were all designed around similar requirements. Claiming one is better than the other is bias IMHO.

Quote:

Could you clarify what exactly I need to look at in teen-series weapon configurations? I can understand it doesn't carry the load as an F-15E (different weight class), but an F-16 has 3 under-wing stations, 2 wing-tip stations and 1 fuselage station. This is the exact same (comparable weight classes, too) as the EF, except the Eurofighter adds 4 semi-conformal A/A weapon stations lining the fuselage.

I'm talking about the variety of different weapon options and ability to deliver those weapons. The F-teens are much more flexible and developed compared to the EF. I'm not talking about the number of weapon stations. Sure the EF has more than say an F-16, but the F-16 has demonstrated that it is well suited to its role and doesn't need more. Also, as DL said the F-16 is smaller by about 25%. It's more sized like an F/A-18C IMHO. F/A-18C's can carry a lot of AAMs and bombs too. I've seen photos of them carrying 12 AAMs before. Not that a load like that would be typical for actual combat. The point is it has 4 total dedicated conformal and wingtip AAM stations and 5 other stations that can haul gas, bombs or more AAMs. In short it's not a EF unique feature.

In short, the EF, Rafale, Gripen, Mig-29, Su-27 and the F-teens(I consider the SH different) are all from the same generation and are designed uniquely to their specific aerodynamic requirements so you cannot say one is better than the other since they all have pro's and con's their. This is unlike the platform flexibility and avionics where the F-teens do enjoy a considerable advantage. Much more bang for the buck compared to an EF.

-DA

I know it is late in the thread for AIM-9X LOAL info, but I was gone for the weekend.

The AIM-9X has been developing LOAL capability since 2003 and was tested as early as 2006.

Next year AIM-9X Block II becomes official and it makes LOAL IOC for the AIM-9X, adds a new fuze, and adds more processing power to help with countermeasures.

The F-35 will be the FIRST aircraft that will take FULL advantage of any missile's LOAL capability.

Why you ask. Simple, DAS.

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 28, 2006 Posts: 29 Status: Offline

I thought that AIM-132 ASRAAM had LOAL designed into the missile from day one and that the RAAF (at least - if not the RAF Typhoons) were already able to operate in LOAL with the HMS and sensors they have.

That would make F-35 the second aircraft that will take full advantage of any missile's LOAL capability - after the RAAF Hornets. Oh yes AIM-132 is being integrated into F-35 too.

But then I guess we might have to define 'full'.....

You are right in that I emphasized "FULL".

The F-35 will be the only aircraft (in the near future) that will be able to track both the target aircraft and the missile in a 360 degree globe of Situational Awareness (SA). The pilot will not have to twist his helmet around to fire the missile, just choose it on his display and fire.

With the AIM-9X's datalink, the missile can be updated throughout it's flight as to the target's location.

Does the AIM-132 have a datalink?

Two things...

(1) In addition to Lock-On-After-Launch, what is required for the AIM-9X or ASRAAM to be employed from the internal bays of the F-35 is to adapt the missiles for ejector release rather than rail launch. All internal weapons stations on the F-35 are ejectors, there are no rails. Even the door positions, which exposes the missile to the airstream when the bay doors open, are ejectors.

(2) What may be the next evolution in heat seeking missile technology is Remote-Lock-On-Before-Launch. That is the missile locks on to a target before leaving the aircraft, but does so using sensors other than that in its seeker head. In otherwords, the 360 degree DAS IR imagery is fed directly to the missile. This is vastly higher resolution and offer unobstructed coverage in all directions. The pilot or the aircraft's fire control system can indicated a target and the missile tracks it using the aircraft's sensors - noting bearing, range estimates, target profile, etc. Upon release, the weapon continues to get the data feed wirelessly from the firing aircraft and continues to see the target even if it is not pointed at it. Once released, the missile turns to put its seeker towards the target and allow it to take over. Unlike LOAL, the missile has been tracking the target while it is sitting comfortably in the weapons bay. It knows what the target looks like and what it has been doing before the missile was fired. It continues to get some kind of a feed after release until the seeker is pointed at the target. The missile is never ever blind. In fact, this method of operation removes the need to have an off boresight seeker or even a gimballed seeker. The aircraft itself becomes the ultimate off-boresight seeker.

DarthAmerica wrote:

Also, I'm not inventing laws of physics at all. You are misunderstanding what I am saying Scorpion. If fighter A CAN'T SEE fighter B until fighter B is inside the maximum range of Fighter A's weapons, then obviously the R_Max of the missile is irrelevant since it is not possible to take the shot at a target you cannot provide telemetry for.

However, if Fighter B can see fighter A from well outside of missile kinematic range. Then Fighter B can predict when fighter A will enter that range and fire a missile to "meet" fighter A at the moment he enters that range. This is completely different from what you are talking about. AESA equipped fighters can do this.

-DA

Well so we have that cleared up. But seeing the enemy well beyond its missile engagement envelope is not limited to AESAs only.

Quote:

But the Typhoon is actually less capable as a multirole platform. Its have a very limited variety of weapons and can't even self designate it's own targets(that has or will change but still).

You are in denial if you think a Typhoon is as capable as a late model F-teen. Any of them. And just forget about the F/A-18E/F.

I agree the teen/teenski fighters are currently more capable multirole fighters due to the fact that they have a much wider varity of weapon options and as their avionics are more developed for the AG role providing a greater degree of flexibility. What you obviously ignore are the requirements behind the Typhoon and the priorities set up by the customers. Though the Typhoon was conceived as a tactical multirole fighter its AG capabilities were only of a secondary nature. Like the F-22 the Typhoon was primarily designed as an AA fighter and it was planned from the beginning to introduce the type into service in a pure AA configuration and to develope its AG-/multirole capabilities over the time after the type has entered service. You excuse the F-22s lack of multirole capabilties with its dedication to air dominance, but you are not willed to accept that the situation isn't that much different for the Typhoon, yet picking it up as a negative point. The Typhoon's lack of AG capabilities was/is indeed a problem for export campaigns and was the main reason why the type lost out in South Korea and Singapore, yet it doesn't change the facts stated above.

Quote:

DACT, Exercises and "Proving Oneself against F-Teens". That has never ever happened. That isn't even the purpose of those training events. I'm going to link you to an explanation of what DACT is so that you can avoid this in the future.

So the F-22s success in diverse exercises doesn't tell us anything either for the same reason. BTW do you really think there were no evaluations within the customer nations to figure out how capable the Typhoon is? Italian F-16s and Spanish F/A-18s were used in such evaluations for such reasons. Singapore pitted the contenders (F-15, Rafale and EF) against 3 F-16s for such an evaluation, interestingly only the Typhoon was able to handle these aircraft (blk 52 AFAIK).

Quote:

Also, the Typhoon does not supercruise.

It does, though not in the same way as the F-22. But I know you are not willed to accept it, independent of what kind of information is available.

Quote:

4. Typhoons flight performance is not better than an F/A-18E/F. Both aircraft are built to fly certain flight profiles under specific conditions. They weren't built to compete in some fighter race where the intent was to see who's fighter is fastest, higher flying or more maneuverable. All of those specs are variables anyway. Also, Typhoons avionics are nowhere near as capable as the F/A-18E/F. Nor will they be anytime soon.

Except for way superior supersonic/altitude performance, acceleration, climb and maneuver performance... Of course not superior Laughing

Apart from the AN/APG-79 with its multirole operations tell me in which areas are the Super Hornets avionics so superior!?

Quote:

entirely inferior to any of the AESA F-15Cs, F-16 Blk 50/52, F-16 Blk 60, F-16I, F-15E/I/K/SG variants or F/A-18E/F.

As multirole platform yes, as fighter no. Except for the F-15C which is a dedicated fighter.

Quote:

All the latest F-16/18s have EW and IRST systems

Show me a single yet operational F-16 or F/A-18 with IRST. Every advanced combat aircraft has an EWS, the question is how comprehensive are these systems and what does they include. Apart from the Super Hornets IDECM and the Rafale's SPECTRA no other operational fighter has an equally comprehensive EWS like the Typhoon.

Quote:

Aerodynamic advantage how? Because it is slightly faster?

Slightly faster? No because the Typhoon's flight envelope is significantly larger. The Typhoon mainly pushes the envelope.

Quote:

Aerodynamically neither has an advantage. Just differences unique to their roles.

True. For AA the Typhoon's aerodynamics are just much better suited what can be seen by the performance.

Quote:

since they were all designed around similar requirements.

Like it or not but the Typhoon was not designed around similar requirements as the teen/teenski series. It was designed to superseed these aircraft in terms of aircombat performance and that was its primary design goal and not to be a better multirole fighter. Let alone how long the F-15, F-16, MiG-29 or Su-27 needed to become really versatile multirole fighters. The Typhoon is not serving for some 20-30 years its just in service for a bit more than 4 years and it has yet to evolve.

Quote:

In short, the EF, Rafale, Gripen, Mig-29, Su-27 and the F-teens(I consider the SH different) are all from the same generation and are designed uniquely to their specific aerodynamic requirements so you cannot say one is better than the other since they all have pro's and con's their. This is unlike the platform flexibility and avionics where the F-teens do enjoy a considerable advantage. Much more bang for the buck compared to an EF.

And why is the Super Hornet something different for you? I see no reasonable justification for that and it looks like your opinion is very subjective and biased on that.

[quote="Scorpion82"]

DarthAmerica wrote:

Except for way superior supersonic/altitude performance, acceleration, climb and maneuver performance... Of course not superior Laughing

Apart from the AN/APG-79 with its multirole operations tell me in which areas are the Super Hornets avionics so superior!?

De-coupled cockpits on the F model Rhinos...

Quote:

And why is the Super Hornet something different for you? I see no reasonable justification for that and it looks like your opinion is very subjective and biased on that.

Referring to the fact that the Super Hornet is tehnically an "upgraded platform" as opposed to the "clean sheet" designs of the other aircraft I suppose?

Conan wrote:

De-coupled cockpits on the F model Rhinos...

Well as Typhoon twinseaters are just for training, there is no need for a decoupled cockpit. No real "advantage" as all operational Typhoons (meaning aircraft which are intended for combat actions) are single seaters. So that's a moot point.

Quote:

Referring to the fact that the Super Hornet is tehnically an "upgraded platform" as opposed to the "clean sheet" designs of the other aircraft I suppose?

As is the Su-35 for example, still no explaination of the Super Hornets special status in DAs opinion.

Scorpion82 wrote:

Well so we have that cleared up. But seeing the enemy well beyond its missile engagement envelope is not limited to AESAs only.

Yeah, AWACS and GCI/EW can do it too. Can you tell what the common denominator is? Think physics and properties of EM waves before answering.

Quote:

I agree the teen/teenski fighters are currently more capable multirole fighters due to the fact that they have a much wider varity of weapon options and as their avionics are more developed for the AG role providing a greater degree of flexibility.

In addition to the air to air role. Any operational fighter today with an AESA has a significant advantage over the Typhoon in air to air combat.

Quote:

So the F-22s success in diverse exercises doesn't tell us anything either for the same reason. BTW do you really think there were no evaluations within the customer nations to figure out how capable the Typhoon is? Italian F-16s and Spanish F/A-18s were used in such evaluations for such reasons. Singapore pitted the contenders (F-15, Rafale and EF) against 3 F-16s for such an evaluation, interestingly only the Typhoon was able to handle these aircraft (blk 52 AFAIK).

OK so should I post to you all the times various F-teens acting as aggressors shot down Typhoon in training? Why would I waste my time. They are testing vs a requirement and not vs the platform. Don't be a fanboy. Fanboys read about the one time their favorite fighter did something in a training exercise and then consider it sacrosanct. F-16's and F/A-18E's have had training victories over F-22's. Should we draw conclusions from that? Yes, but not the kind fanboys come up with. No calling you a fanboy just yet, but your mention of EF vs 3 F-16s certainly qualifies. Want to know why?

No EF pilot worth a damn would willingly engage 3 F-16s unless he had some kind of tactical advantage. Perhaps fighting early F-16As in a third world airforce without benefit of BVR weapons or AWACS/GCI. Otherwise, AMRAAM armed AWACS/GCI supported vipers, he would not willingly get into a fight like that. Has nothing to do with platform superiority. The F-22 is different obviously.

Quote:

It does, though not in the same way as the F-22. But I know you are not willed to accept it, independent of what kind of information is available.

Sure the Typhoon supercruises like an F-16 or F-15 does. I don't deny that.

Quote:

Except for way superior supersonic/altitude performance, acceleration, climb and maneuver performance... Of course not superior Laughing

Apart from the AN/APG-79 with its multirole operations tell me in which areas are the Super Hornets avionics so superior!?

Prove "way superior". Prove "superior" at all. Otherwise I wont waste my time. If you are simple going to go to a fact file on some webpage and post V_Max numbers and the like please don't waste my time. Show the Typhoons operationally superior capability. Otherwise, this is another fanboy comment.

Quote:

entirely inferior to any of the AESA F-15Cs, F-16 Blk 50/52, F-16 Blk 60, F-16I, F-15E/I/K/SG variants or F/A-18E/F.

As multirole platform yes, as fighter no. Except for the F-15C which is a dedicated fighter.

No as a fighter, they are all on par with or superior to the EF due to more advanced radars and SA. CAPTOR is a real crutch compared to the radars these fighters can have.

Quote:

Show me a single yet operational F-16 or F/A-18 with IRST. Every advanced combat aircraft has an EWS, the question is how comprehensive are these systems and what does they include. Apart from the Super Hornets IDECM and the Rafale's SPECTRA no other operational fighter has an equally comprehensive EWS like the Typhoon.

You post as if the EF originated all the things we come to expect in a fighter. It's almost like you watched an EADS commercial and just believed it word for word. You really need to do your own research Scorpion. Seriously. If you did, you would know that any fighter carrying a ATFLIR has an IRST.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir/

UAE F-16 Blk 60 have IRST.

With regard to EW, Older F-Teens use dedicated support aircraft which are more powerful and effective for Electronic Warfare that goes beyond the EF defensive EW capability. Newer F-15 and F-16 aircraft carry the same kinds of EWS systems. Did you think the EF pioneered this? How do you think the Israeli's managed to strike Syria?

Quote:

Slightly faster? No because the Typhoon's flight envelope is significantly larger. The Typhoon mainly pushes the envelope.

You are just quoting more EADS marketing hype. PROVE THIS.

Quote:

True. For AA the Typhoon's aerodynamics are just much better suited what can be seen by the performance.

OK, this is the last time I'm going to parse through your comments and respond to every little embedded EADS marketing claim. Next time, back it up, or I'll ignore it. Anyway, I agree that the Typhoon has a good aeroshell. But it is not the only approach or even best approach. The Typhoon's performance is still in the same area as the F-teens. It may be a little faster than some, turn slightly quicker than others. But these are marginal differences. A Mig-29 is probably one of the best aeroshells out there. But has that helped them? No. Aerodynamic performance alone stopped being the dominate platform factor in AA combat a long time ago. Only the F-22 offers any real tangible benefits.

Quote:

And why is the Super Hornet something different for you? I see no reasonable justification for that and it looks like your opinion is very subjective and biased on that.

The Super Hornet has significant situational awareness advantages, better signiture management, is superior as a multirole fighter. In the pure fighter role the only fighters in the F/A-18E class would be the AESA equipped F-15C's and of course the F-22. I'd probably have to include the blk 60 as well but it's a bit stretched compared to these bigger heavier fighters.

-DA

Scorpion,

I hope I don't come off too harsh. But the Eurofighter crowd needs to do a bit better than regurgitate what they have heard in forums and on Eurofighter websites. Also, the ubiquitous "Better Aerodynamic Performance" claim needs to be backed up. That marginal performance advantage was achieved by accepting some serious design compromises which were acceptable at the time but today have been unacceptable. There are reasons why the Super Hornet, F-35 and F-22 are so big. There are reasons why the Su-27 is so successful and why the F-15 continues to be the dominant fighter besides the F-22 even to this day. The Eurofighter really is a "Euro"fighter and that's it's chief drawback. It's too European.

That's why European nations wanting to have an ability to fight elsewhere effectively are buying F-35s. It's why Asians and Australians are buying Su-27s, F-15s and Super Hornets. It's why some of them wish the F-22 was for sale. It's a size thing man.

-DA

Scorpion82 wrote:

Conan wrote:

De-coupled cockpits on the F model Rhinos...

Well as Typhoon twinseaters are just for training, there is no need for a decoupled cockpit. No real "advantage" as all operational Typhoons (meaning aircraft which are intended for combat actions) are single seaters. So that's a moot point.

Er, I think you missed my point there. The SH de-coupled cockpit is designed specifically to improve it's combat effectiveness in strike, CAS and interdiction missions.

It is an avionics advantage that the Typhoon does NOT have.

Quote:

Referring to the fact that the Super Hornet is tehnically an "upgraded platform" as opposed to the "clean sheet" designs of the other aircraft I suppose?

As is the Su-35 for example, still no explaination of the Super Hornets special status in DAs opinion.[/quote]

Er, I think he's made a few pretty good points why he thinks the Super is special, particularly when compared with other 4th gen aircraft...

Quote:

The SH de-coupled cockpit is designed specifically to improve it's combat effectiveness in strike, CAS and interdiction missions.

Air to Air as well I might add. As second pair of eyes and a second battle computer (mind) that can employ the plane's sensors and weapons whielt eh other crew member is busy, distracted or has just plain missed the Eurofighter on it's tail is a distinct advantage. You hava got to like HOBS AIM-9X.

DarthAmerica wrote:

Yeah, AWACS and GCI/EW can do it too. Can you tell what the common denominator is? Think physics and properties of EM waves before answering.

Well a radar which can TWS 2 dozen targets within a 140° FOV at distances beyond 100 nm is not going to give you the oppotunity to detect and track targets well beyond their engagement envelope for sure. Sorry but it's nonsense that just AESA systems are capable to do that, let alone that the radar is just one sensor, though it's the most important one on a fighter.

Quote:

In addition to the air to air role. Any operational fighter today with an AESA has a significant advantage over the Typhoon in air to air combat.

As mentioned above the radar is just one sensor and it is also just one of many factors in aircombat which matters. Claiming every AESA is automatically totally superior is nonsense. Theoretically AESA is the superior technology, the question is if it is that on practical terms either. Range performance at the antennas gimbals for example is still an issue and also an area where an advanced MSA like Captor can easily excel. A very important aspect for SA! So can you guarantee that every AESA enjoys a range advabtage, superior ECCM, FOV etc.? I doubt so.

Quote:

OK so should I post to you all the times various F-teens acting as aggressors shot down Typhoon in training? Why would I waste my time. They are testing vs a requirement and not vs the platform. Don't be a fanboy. Fanboys read about the one time their favorite fighter did something in a training exercise and then consider it sacrosanct. F-16's and F/A-18E's have had training victories over F-22's. Should we draw conclusions from that? Yes, but not the kind fanboys come up with. No calling you a fanboy just yet, but your mention of EF vs 3 F-16s certainly qualifies. Want to know why?

You are dancing around facts here. So do you believe all those results achieved by the F-22 during these exercises are completely irrelevant? It has nothing to do with fan boy behaviour, I'm old enough for that and more importantly I'm dealing with this topic long enough. It's more some kind of confidence by what I have seen, read, heared. I'm not limited to internet forums as you might expect.

Quote:

No EF pilot worth a damn would willingly engage 3 F-16s unless he had some kind of tactical advantage. Perhaps fighting early F-16As in a third world airforce without benefit of BVR weapons or AWACS/GCI. Otherwise, AMRAAM armed AWACS/GCI supported vipers, he would not willingly get into a fight like that. Has nothing to do with platform superiority. The F-22 is different obviously.

Well the evaluation set up by the RSAF was exactly that and the Typhoon was the only of the three contenders which was able to deal with this situation and its Captor was one of the main reasons for that. And it wasn't the only situation. The AMIs experience for exampled unveiled that the Typhoon can deal with 4 times the quantity of enemies like F-16, similar experiences where made by the EdA against F/A-18s and the RAF as well against various types. It is of course true that the entire aircombat system and tactics will in the end define the winner, but have the choice to implement aircraft A or B in the very same operational environment and aircraft A proves to be more effective why you would go for aircraft B?

Quote:

Sure the Typhoon supercruises like an F-16 or F-15 does. I don't deny that.

So the F-15 or F-16 supercruise in all climates in a combat configuration including drop tanks and missiles? They can achieve ~mach 1.3 in such a configuration? They can go 250 nm on supercruise with a full load of 8 AAMs on internal fuel, fly a 30 min CAP before returning to base subsonic? It's new to me I'm surprised Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Prove "way superior". Prove "superior" at all. Otherwise I wont waste my time. If you are simple going to go to a fact file on some webpage and post V_Max numbers and the like please don't waste my time. Show the Typhoons operationally superior capability. Otherwise, this is another fanboy comment.

Some examples to get you satisfied. Mach 1.8 with full load of AAMs, still mach 1.6 with 3 external drop tanks. Ceiling up to 65000 ft, though 55000 ft is the normal operational limit at least at the moment. 9 g envelope between ~mach 0.6 to 1.2. 7 g at higher supersonic speeds with sustained 5 g turning performance at 45k ft at mach 1.5+. ITR of >30°/sec. Climbing to 40000 ft within 90 secs in combat configuration including 8 AAMs and 2 droptanks...
All the pilots I spoke to and all interviews I read/saw told the same. Or as Craig Penrice summed it up: "In the teen series fighters you need a stop watch to make out a performance difference between the different types, in the Typhoon you can just feel it".

Quote:

No as a fighter, they are all on par with or superior to the EF due to more advanced radars and SA. CAPTOR is a real crutch compared to the radars these fighters can have.

Don't you get it? Radars are important but not the sole defining part of SA. It's about all sensors, sensor fusion, how data/information are filtered and presented to the pilot, how much attetion has to be spend on secondary (not combat relevant) actions etc. That all matters for SA not just the radar performance, which might also not so advantages for any AESA type as you think.

Quote:

You post as if the EF originated all the things we come to expect in a fighter. It's almost like you watched an EADS commercial and just believed it word for word. You really need to do your own research Scorpion. Seriously. If you did, you would know that any fighter carrying a ATFLIR has an IRST.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir/

UAE F-16 Blk 60 have IRST.

ATFLIR can be slewed by radar to track a single air target and identify it. That's not real IRST. The Blk 60s IR sensor is AFAIK a 25° FOV NAV FLIR not an IRST.

Quote:

With regard to EW, Older F-Teens use dedicated support aircraft which are more powerful and effective for Electronic Warfare that goes beyond the EF defensive EW capability. Newer F-15 and F-16 aircraft carry the same kinds of EWS systems. Did you think the EF pioneered this? How do you think the Israeli's managed to strike Syria?

And what about customers who would like to buy a new fighter which don't have these dedicated stand-off jammer/dedicated EW support. Not every air force has the resources of the US military (not to say no one has). It's therefore a somewhat moot point. It's not my intention to say that all those things are originated by the EF, though the EF was one of the first aircraft to be from the outset designed to include all those technologies/capabilities. There was a F-22 pilot who said something which I can just roughly repeat it was something like "Of course you can put those new sensors/systems on a legacy platform, but it is difficult to get them in the right place, if they weren't designed in from the beginning".

Quote:

You are just quoting more EADS marketing hype. PROVE THIS.

Should I invite you on a ride Laughing

. Everything which sounds somewhat positive about the Typhoon is "marketing hype" for you. For the rest see above.

Quote:

OK, this is the last time I'm going to parse through your comments and respond to every little embedded EADS marketing claim. Next time, back it up, or I'll ignore it. Anyway, I agree that the Typhoon has a good aeroshell. But it is not the only approach or even best approach. The Typhoon's performance is still in the same area as the F-teens. It may be a little faster than some, turn slightly quicker than others. But these are marginal differences. A Mig-29 is probably one of the best aeroshells out there. But has that helped them? No. Aerodynamic performance alone stopped being the dominate platform factor in AA combat a long time ago. Only the F-22 offers any real tangible benefits.

Well you do so as if I say it's all about airframe performance, it isn't. Though airframe performance is still not completely irrelevant. Why do you expect people claim things such as "Even without stealth the F-22 would be a superior platform"? You will probably say now the F-22 enjoys a distinctive advantage in terms of performance while the Typhoon will not. Something I don't agree with with for reasons mentioned above.

Quote:

The Super Hornet has significant situational awareness advantages, better signiture management, is superior as a multirole fighter. In the pure fighter role the only fighters in the F/A-18E class would be the AESA equipped F-15C's and of course the F-22. I'd probably have to include the blk 60 as well but it's a bit stretched compared to these bigger heavier fighters.

-DA

That doesn't answer my question why you don't consider it as being of the same generation like the teen/teenski series and (according your opinion) ECDs.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 vs. EF for the UK