Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35 ... ter-2013-2

However, when time comes for air dominance, some other ingredients like thrust to weight ratio and wing loading tend to regulate the sky. And in that nothing comes close to a Typhoon, except an F-22 which has very similar values. The F-35 thrust to weight ratio is way lower and its energy-maneuverability diagrams match those of the F/A-18, which is an excellent result for a single engine aircraft loaded with several thousand pounds of fuel and significant armament.

But it also means that starting from medium altitude and above, there is no story with a similarly loaded Typhoon.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35 ... z2L0FJfBTb

A counter argument from EF fans, how do we address this gents? are there signs of improvement from the lightning's recent shortcomings or do we simply fall back to the F-35s electronic suite

Thanks

F-16.net Sponsor

First the F-35 is not likely to fight the Eurofighter.

Secondly the F-35 is not designed to fight in air to air combat in the same manner as the Eurofighter. It has a completely different concept of operation. With the F-35 ever turn and burn with the Eurofighter in clean or air to air configurations? No, probably not. If they were hypothetically in conflict with one another in realistic tactical scenarios though I have little doubt the F-35 would clean up fairly handily. The Eurofighter would almost always be fighting defensively which is not a recipe for getting a lot of kills.

Last edited by spazsinbad on Feb 15, 2013 - 11:02 PM; edited 1 time in total

First of all the original article is by David Cenciotti. Have not we referred to this article before? Why do so again and go around and around in this endless 'war of words' about this topic which by now Shirley has been covered?

Here is the original Cenciotti article:

“No way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat” Eurofighter test pilot says February 11, 2013 by David Cenciotti

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/ty ... R6vfJC4aOI

You know I am actually going to take the opposite tack on this one: I think the EF is superior, and that the Europeans should begin marketing it worldwide, where it will obviously sell well beyond the F-35, and leave the F-35 with around only a 100 in service with its biggest user. I predict the EF will sell somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 aircraft over the next 15 years. I think their first stop should be Japan, and then onto India.

I agree 100 percent. In a fight that takes away the F-35s advantages and accentuates the Typhoons advantages, Typhoon will win. I think we can all put this to bed now. Typhoons phorever

Things like T/W Ratio and wing loading and EM diagrams, are what rule the skies, which why things like avionics and radars and advanced missiles and targeting systems are not installed in the Raptor or Typhoon. Stupid things like range, and draggy EFTs, and heavy bombs do not appear on diagrams because all aircraft fight "near clean" with only AA missiles. Tankers are always nearby to refuel as well, and are of course "off limits" to the enemy.

All victories in the air are won by maneuverability as well, so when a heavily loaded F-18 kills a Iraqi Mig-21 whilst on the way to bombing its runways and exiting safely- thats just LM propaganda. We also know that even an F-22 can't over play its hand and stall making it easy meat, as described by an F-16 pilot years ago. The most efficient way to kill airplanes is not by smashing them on the tarmac or in their hangers, or even destroying their runways, but with close in swirling dogfights where the ROEs are made to make the contest fair in a magical environment devoid of SAMs and AAA and other electronic interference.

This is why the Typhoon will always beat the F-35. And I think its time we all forget everything we know about the other 99 percent of air combat that isn't dog fighting and acknowledge this.

<Snark>

Your jab is pointless f414...
The F-35 cant be great or best in everything.

The F-35 can't dress up like this and still have a good range.
Also on the kenetics performance with ext load. Not enough lift, cause the external loadout will give lots of penalty.

haavarla wrote:

Your jab is pointless f414...
The F-35 cant be great or best in everything.

The F-35 can't dress up like this and still have a good range.
Also on the kenetics performance with ext load. Not enough lift, cause the external loadout will give lots of penalty.

I didn't say it was. I'm impressed by the flanker's ability to dress up like a warplane by the way. Congratulations Flanker.

Is this the part where you tell me the Flanker would dominate the Typhoon? no worries man, the Flanker can't be great or best in everything.

Quote:

A counter argument from EF fans, how do we address this gents? are there signs of improvement from the lightning's recent shortcomings or do we simply fall back to the F-35s electronic suite.

There is no one simple answer to this.

The Eurofighter and F-35 are very different designs with very different concepts of operation.

The Eurofighter was designed primarily for air to air with a heavy emphasis on speed and maneuverability, particularly at higher speeds and altitudes.

The F-35 was designed primarily as a strike fighter, dangerous in an air to air mission, but with a design optimized to carry out long-range strike missions as well.

At lower speeds(transonic and below) and altitudes where the F-35 is optimized the two will offer similar performance. At higher speeds and altitudes the Eurofighter has the advantage.

Overall a Eurofighter will have a kinematic advantage over an F-35 while an F-35 will have a large advantage in stealth/situational awareness and avionics in general.

It isn't really a question of who would kill who to determine which is "better." That is almost exclusively something fanboys concern themselves with.

In the real world the question is one of how each plane fits into the broader system. The Eurofighter is faster and more maneuverable, but it needs to be as that is primarily how it fights and survives. The F-35 is neither slow nor unmaneuverable, but by virtue of its stealth it can operate places a Eurofighter can not and generally possess a lot of advantages that a Eurofighter doesn't.

Putting things another way by paraphrasing an old joke...

"A Spitfire pilot and a Mustang pilot are arguing in a bar about who's plane is better. The discussion goes around and around with nothing being decided. Eventually, the Spitfire pilot, growing exasperated, proposes they settle the matter in the sky the next morning. The Mustang pilot agrees instantly and says, "I will see you at 0900 over Berlin." The Spitfire pilot responds, "That is too far, my plane can't get there," to which the Mustang pilot replied... "Too bad, that is where the fight is."

Much of the F-35's design is driven in one way or another by a need to get there. The F-35's stealth allows it to operate places the Eurofighter can not. The F-35B and C's ability to land on carriers or operate from short strips gives them the ability to operate from places the Typhoon can't. These attributes are extremely valuable to air and naval air forces, but they forced trade-offs in the F-35's design that limited its raw kinematic performance.

If I were going to pick a plane for a "fair" BFM exercise, clean jets, no pre-merge shots, etc etc... I would pick the Typhoon over the F-35.

If I were going to pick a plane to go to war in where anything goes I would pick the F-35 without a second thought.

The F-35's stealth and sensors will buy it crucial moments to build an understanding of potentially lethal situations. It will allow the F-35 pilot to maneuver to a position of advantage and take high percentage shots against unwitting or less-witting opponents, or if the F-35 pilot decides, to avoid a fight altogether.

In a few years when F-35's start showing up at various exercises, etc, expect to see the usual nitwits brag about their favorite plane beating F-35's in the usual mock dogfights with restrictive rules that take away most of the F-35's advantages. At the same time... expect to hear glowing reports on the effectiveness of F-35s in more realistic scenarios like Red Flag.

In summary, an F-35 with Meteors in its bays isn't the same thing as a Eurofighter with Meteors... but both are exceptionally unpleasant aircraft for an adversary to have to deal with.

Addendum (a few extra thoughts):

1. This assumes the F-35 never develops the 360 degree engagement capability (paired with a missile like Stunner/Python-6 and/or Cuda) envisioned for it, which would largely remove the relevance of most BFM.

2. We spend a ridiculous amount of time going over air-to-air scenarios, when in fact they make up a tiny percentage of the threat. In an air-to-ground scenario the F-35 will win across the board, including kinematically.

3. Missiles like Meteor do not benefit from high/fast launches as much as an AMRAAM. It is always better to launch high and fast, but the difference will be smaller.

Last edited by hobo on Feb 16, 2013 - 01:56 AM; edited 1 time in total

haavarla wrote:

Your jab is pointless f414...
The F-35 cant be great or best in everything.

The F-35 can't dress up like this and still have a good range.
Also on the kenetics performance with ext load. Not enough lift, cause the external loadout will give lots of penalty.

An F-35 can haul around large stand-off weapons as well as any other plane...

...of course it can also carry NSM, JSOW, and eventually other weapons internally.

I get it I get it... fast is cool... but what you once again don't seem to realize is that if you have an F-35 with a couple NSMs in its bays you are talking about an aircraft that can still hit M1.6, something your Flanker would not be doing with the load-out in your picture.

If you want to talk about pure maneuverability there are planes that will beat the F-35. If you want to talk about strike missions the F-35 really doesn't have any direct competitors.

f414/euro/gripenng/sbug wrote:

You know I am actually going to take the opposite tack on this one: I think the EF is superior, and that the Europeans should begin marketing it worldwide, where it will obviously sell well beyond the F-35, and leave the F-35 with around only a 100 in service with its biggest user. I predict the EF will sell somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 aircraft over the next 15 years. I think their first stop should be Japan, and then onto India.

That's right. With the legendary kinetic performance, Typhoon didn't win the bid for MMRCA. Future air combat shouldn't be measured by legacy gen of criteria.

Last edited by firstimpulse on Feb 16, 2013 - 04:01 AM; edited 1 time in total

Methinks the Eurofighter pilot that was interviwed was feeling a bit defensive about his airplane. I'm quite certain that the JSF would lose in a manuvering contest against the EF. I'm just as certain that the EF2000 wouldn't even know a Lightning II was in the area before it was fried like chicken. 5th gen fighters are in a different league than their decades-old 4th/4.5 gen counterparts. Simply put, the F-35 is the better air-to-air machine. But there is no way you'd want to go toe-to-toe with an EF2000 in the dogfight with an F-35, even with the JSF's sensors.

Wink

Last edited by luke_sandoz on Feb 16, 2013 - 02:19 AM; edited 1 time in total

Hobo . . . Very lucid explanation . . . Thnx

Could you elaborate on this para

"1. This assumes the F-35 never develops the 360 degree engagement capability (paired with a missile like Stunner/Python-6 and/or Cuda) envisioned for it, which would largely remove the relevance of most BFM."

I reckon that gunpod for the B/C should be able to swivel to cover all the sectors it can (being underneath is OK as it is). That way the gun can swivel with the HMDS II view with suitable fire cutoff as needed for own aircraft safety. Pass the money to me via this forum. Very Happy

And if need be it can just be automatic (for the people).

spazsinbad wrote:

I reckon that gunpod for the B/C should be able to swivel to cover all the sectors it can (being underneath is OK as it is). That way the gun can swivel with the HMDS II view with suitable fire cutoff as needed for own aircraft safety. Pass the money to me via this forum. Very Happy

And if need be it can just be automatic (for the people).

Like on an attack helicopter? Laughing

firstimpulse wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

I reckon that gunpod for the B/C should be able to swivel to cover all the sectors it can (being underneath is OK as it is). That way the gun can swivel with the HMDS II view with suitable fire cutoff as needed for own aircraft safety. Pass the money to me via this forum. Very Happy

And if need be it can just be automatic (for the people).

Like on an attack helicopter? Laughing

That would add a lot of weight, not to mention a fair amount of drag whenever it turned sideways.

Not as much drag if that F-35 catches some metal from elsewhere. If the turret is round with minimal barrel on the outside then it is good to go. ???

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

"F-35 will never match the EuroFighter" -Dave Maju