F-16.net

Hi guys, Norway have hosted two interviews over the past few days... with JSF and Eurofighter

Now both say alot of propaganda... especially the JSF guy but there are some very interesting points in both.

JSF:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/05/01/464964.html

Eurofighter:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/05/01/464965.html

Summary of points by EF:
-Typhoon has 1/3 turning circle of latest F-16's
-Typhoon will out-accelerate, out-turn, out-climb F-35
-Only advantage F-35 really has is radar stealth, although technology to counter this is in development.
-Except for radar stealth, all other technology is the same generation as Typhoon.
-If you want to bomb baghdad, buy F-35, if you want to defend your countries airspace and attack baghdad at stand-off range, buy Typhoon.

Andy

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Mr. Hamilton also declared: "Eurofighter has stealth features to reduce its signature (it is 10% of the F-15 radar signature for example).

The same class of RCS performance as F-16.........What an excellent performance to a fighter for 21th century.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2850

They make funny comparisons in many ways. Each trying to out do the other in not so glorious ways. What hurts Typhoon is it has a terrible economic model building it. Not that the JSF is any prize but right off the bat JSF started out as a best value program for contractors providing things. Not a EF2000 jobs program where every GD politico and their cousin wants their finger in the pie. If the original buy of JSF numbers in the thousands was to happen, you would have a cheap per unit jet. As it is with less JSF numbers, JSF goes expensive quick. The way EF2000 is produced I just don't see the efficientcy. Wacked union rules in the finest of euro tradition, kill a lot of efficentcy the way this program is set up and ..... already in place to be grossly inefficent. However I do agree that an EF2000 with a J-UCAS ( or euro equal ) UCAV teamed up with it, is the way to go. Also like it or not ( x mishap rate per 100,000 flying hours or no... )... If I buy 50 JSF and 50 EF2000. At the end of 25 years I will have more EF2000 airframes on hand, simply because of the EF2000 having 2 engines. Like it or not, history always proves that out. So that has a cost of ownership value all its own. I don't really care about turning to the nth degree, everyday all the time. Pursuing that is a fools errand. HOBS helmet-heater kit in WVR take that issue right off the table. So yeah even though it will never happen, I would rather see EF2000 in USAF/Reserve/Guard hands than a JSF. I will be real curious though to see how much wing life a EF2000 can do though if you were to use it with the flying hours we do with bomb truck taskings as a matter of daily chores- training or real world. Efficient wing or not, the laws of science change for no one. Give me a good proper LEAN run wing shop for wing refirb and EF2000 would be OK. What EF2000 needs to make it really killer is to stand up to the plate and have the incredible quality of air to ground flight test fly time that F-18E/F is getting. While I am not too hip on the platform, it with the AESA is going to have world beating A-G killing ability. The setup driving the F-18E/F at least in A2G uses it is doing, seems to be showing a no-peer group attitude.
So anyway, I don't see how a small wing A model JSF is going to be some big turning performance jet ( I could be wrong ) but I think it will just be "OK". Which again I don't really care, HOBS will take care of that. We don't need JSF. But if it is fielded, I would rather have that chipping away at an integrated air defense as opposed to EF2000. Any Ram coating on EF2000 and design tricks will only help it some. At the end of the day it is still a legacy jet with a strait vertical tail and hanging external stores. Good luck on reducing the effective range of a super SAM by any significant margin. JSF Stealth quality: Consider the insane level of QC put into F-22 stealth: worrying about drain holes on doors etc. And then look at the Buick of Stealth JSF and the mind boggles: Too bad the taxpayer doesn't have a clearance to know how much stealth they're not getting. I wish I knew. Doesn't seem though like some in the public consumption world are too impressed. Again though, I can to the job better / cheaper etc with legacy EF2000 and a J-UCAS fleet as opposed to JSF alone. Both manned jets are stupid expensive. However at least you can use some of the money not wasted on JSF and put it into a few J-UCAS squadrons. Add to that, EF2000 is already in production.

So I would prefer EF2000 and J-UCAS as opposed to JSF alone. J-UCAS for SEAD/DEAD, tag team jamming, ESM/ELINT and oh yes btw C2-ISR as a whole concept, and of course I would rather drop cheap, JDAM ( or "laser"/JDAM) or datalink JDAM, dual use Paveway, under 15 miles SDBI & SDBII at over ______ miles... as opposed to gold plated uber expensive Storm Shadow or whatever: Stupid expensive. Incluing having the U-UCAS do post strike ISR. And have 24/7 persistance in a geographic area to put quick pain down as threats pop up. Where also most important targets the first few nights of a war are fixed and the later die as pop up threats falling victim to what is now, ever maturing net centric warfare ( NCW ). Dectectors-Decison_Makers-Shooters all logged into the same page. Detect-Decide-Shoot-Evaluate-Shoot_More_If_Needed. All within a short time frame, so that when the threat pops up, it dies fresh. Good luck on stopping a persistant train of J-UCAS from delivering the mail at night. Anything that is fixed and known ( like airfields etc ) gets killed right away. After that it is fun time.

Newbie Joined: May 08, 2006 Posts: 1 Status: Offline

boff180 wrote:

Hi guys, Norway have hosted two interviews over the past few days... with JSF and Eurofighter

Now both say alot of propaganda... especially the JSF guy but there are some very interesting points in both.

JSF:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/05/01/464964.html

Eurofighter:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/05/01/464965.html

Summary of points by EF:
-Typhoon has 1/3 turning circle of latest F-16's
-Typhoon will out-accelerate, out-turn, out-climb F-35
-Only advantage F-35 really has is radar stealth, although technology to counter this is in development.
-Except for radar stealth, all other technology is the same generation as Typhoon.
-If you want to bomb baghdad, buy F-35, if you want to defend your countries airspace and attack baghdad at stand-off range, buy Typhoon.

Andy

What drivel Andy, but typical of eurofanatic EUnuchs...

The JSF isn't meant to be an interceptor-like the Typhoon is supposed to be.

The US Air Force's F-22 Raptor versus the Typhoon would be an appropriate comparison, and in that case the F-22 would simply crush the Typhoon.

I also liked your "well, the JSF is practically invisible-but that's being worked on" bit. We here in America have been reading that type of garbage for over a decade on the F-117, and no one can see that plane on radar...

Eurofighter my ****. It's a dinosaur-with performance to match Laughing

great a troll ^^^^

1. I DID NOT write those articles or take the interviews.
2. I'd ask the pilots of 17sqn before making sweeping statements about the F-22 crushing all opponents.
3. If you bothered to keep up with current events, Norway are seriously considering pulling out of F-35 and opting for Typhoon or Gripen and this website which btw is Norwegian if you hadn't noticed is trying to hold a legitimate debate on the good and bad points of each system. A civil democratic debate where representatives of BOTH sides have been invited to "sell" their product; unlike others

Andy

Enthusiast Joined: May 21, 2005 Posts: 28 Status: Offline

Quote:

The US Air Force's F-22 Raptor versus the Typhoon would be an appropriate comparison, and in that case the F-22 would simply crush the Typhoon.

That may be true but it is irrelevant since the F-22 has not been offered to Norway.

The "Eurofighter vs. JSF" question may also be of interest to HAF, who are likely to decide on their next fighter this year.
In this case Eurofighter is more likely due to political pressure.
As elp points out, it is also a better choice due to being a more capable air dominance aircraft.

As Andy said, both reps` have had their say. LM and Eurofighter have aircraft to sell. The best opinions of the Typhoon would come from end users, not people on a company payrole.
That is impossible at this time with the JSF. However, I have only heard good things about the Typhoon in service, apart from teething trouble. The kind of trouble the Typhoon, F-14, `15, F-22 have had. The kind of problems the JSF WILL have as well.

A country will sometimes buy the most politically expedient aircraft. Not one that just suits the operational needs of an airforce. There have been few exceptions. The system has to fit into the economic/political/flexibility jigsaw, which is becoming increasing complex when dealing with anything other than an indigenous airplane. Even then there are different problems.

Good aircraft have never gone past the prototype stage because they were political footballs. The same can be said of operational aircraft in terms of purchasing the things.

Whatever platform Norway chooses, I will bet it will be about greased palms and promises, operational needs will be secondary.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2850

What number of airframes was Norway looking at?

I have seen figures quoted at between 48 and 60 airframes. Norway cannot get any jets before 2012. I guess the figure will be different if they go for Typhoon/different mission/capabilities/deployment methods.

On some of the links posted, I find it interesting that some Norwegians feel they don`t need a stealthy aircraft. They are just not going to do the mission profiles the USAF does. I wonder about that, a low observable force has to be more survivable by definition, no matter what role it is used in.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2850

Guess it all depends. Defense of their airspace with a EF2000 should be nice I would think. Doing some NATO / GWOT patrol off yonder carrying PGMs way up high in a low threat bug hunt support role shouldn't be a problem for it either. Considering the JSF procurement is all about the idea of best value... EF2000 for a lot of users, I think, would have a "best value" all it's own. Including: Exercising with two other nearby EF2000 users ( Germany and England ) would be a benefit too I think. IMHO it would be nice to see the rest of Europe secure their attitude toward this airframe and just get it. It's in production now... just finish what they started and I don't think they will be sorry with the more air arms you have using this thing.

Thats why the decision of Norway is being watched so closely.

If they pull out of JSF, Denmark will also (and take Gripen) which could have a snow ball effect and see alot more nations pull out of the JSF program, probably including us and Australia (who would probably go for F-22, if allowed). All in all, pushing the unit costs of JSF up higher for the remaining customers.

Andy

If the main role of Norway`s airforce is to defend their own airspace or NATO sector, the Typhoon will be the way to go, agreed. A Typhoon/Meteor combo` seems very attractive. I suppose though, that it can be compared to the stealth factor and AMRAAM shooting JSF...The two virtues could equal themselves out.

Overall, the Typhoon would be the preferred air superiority model, hell it was designed as such. There are some interesting developments with the Typhoons CAPTOR radar.

There is an E-scan upgrade kit being tested right now. This enables the CAPTOR to go AESA at a knock down price, or at least cheaper than an all new unit like AMSAR. I think SELEX is taking the lead on the CAPTOR upgrade kit. With the A2G modes you get with AESA,SAR, Typhoon will look more attractive as a multi-role ship.

A lot of people are watching this with interest as Andy said. The decision could be quite far reaching in terms of European wide interest in JSF/Typhoon.

With the Saudi orders, the Typhoon project can be called a success. Orders of 700+ so far.

As an aside, I am smirking as I am writing this. BAE systems wins hands down in all cases. Craftily played I thought. Is that called consolidation?
They have their fingers in a lot of pies.....
They have a hand in JSF/Typhoon and Gripen. I wonder if they will push Norway towards the JSF B model!

Snypa mate,

CAPTOR was always designed to be upgraded to AESA, its certainly not on the "cheap" as it were, the software already exists and has been tested in all production units. Whoever, designed the system was smart. All they have to do is change the antenna assembly, and hey presto a full blown AESA radar! The T/R modules are european developed and produced aswell. The data that has been banded about puts it in the detection/scan class of the APG-77 and possibly better. It remains to be seen if it will be able to be used as a datalink device like the APG-77 though.

Also, the info I have found on the APG-81 shows it to have what I would call quite a limited "look down" detection capability. Especially in A2G mapping modes... it will have a 40 degrees downwards scan azimuth, that to me gives quite a big minimum detection range.

Andy

That`s a new one on me Andy. The AESA switch on CAPTOR was planned during development? Very smart move. I had heard that it would just involve an antenna change along with software but wasn`t sure. I also saw pictures of it being tested on a 1-11, just like the APG 81.
Still cheaper than a full-blown AMSAR swap over! The CAPTOR upgrade will make it look even better in export terms.

I don`t know what the scan angle usually is for a ground mapping radar. 40 degree could be the norm? Also, do AESA radars have a small mechanical scan/movement? As well as electronic beam steering? Or are they physically fixed. Not looking for specific details on a system, just generic info`.

EF2000 Typhoon info.

AVIONICS SUITE

Attack and Identification System (AIS)

Combines all data streams from the on-board sensors and any information obtained from external platforms such as JSTARS, ASTOR, AWACS etc, the AIS gives pilots excellent SA.

ECR-90 CAPTOR

The CAPTOR radar is a third generation coherent X-band (8 to 12 GHz) multi-mode Pulse Doppler system with a 1m resolution developed from GEC's Harrier FA.2 Blue Vixen system. It uses DAS (Data Adaptive Scanning) to provide accurate information on selected targets and minimize antenna movement, for close combat, CAPTOR switches to High Precision Single Target Track.

To increase effectiveness in a heavy ECM situation, the CAPTOR has a dedicated Third Channel to screen ECM sources. When performance degradation is detected in the radar, the AIS compensates by using other sensors.

The CAPTOR will be replaced by AMSAR (Airborne Multi-mode Solid-state Active-array Radar). This radar will equip both the European fighters - the Typhoon and the Rafale.

PIRATE IRST

The PIRATE system is designed to allow the Eurofighter to passively scan the airspace. If a target is found, radar can be activated. It incorporates both a Forward Looking Infra Red (FLIR) and Infra Red Search and Track (or IRST) capability. The system itself utilizes a highly sensitive Infra Red sensor mounted to the port side of the canopy.

This equipment scans across wavelengths from 3 to 11 µm in two bands. This allows the detection of hot exhaust plumes as well as surface heating caused by friction. The actual output from the system can be directed to any of the displays mounted within the cockpit. Additionally the image can be overlaid on both the Helmet Mounted Sight and Head Up Display.

The IIR sensor is stabilized within its mount so that it can maintain a target within its field of view. Up to 200 targets can be simultaneously tracked by the system using one of several different modes; Multiple Target Track (MTT), Single Target Track (STT), Single Target Track Identification (STTI), Sector Acquisition and Slaved Acquisition.

ARMAMENT

It is equipped with a single Mauser GmbH developed BK-27 cannon mounted internally in the fuselage forward of the starboard wing. It utilizes 27mm HE shells (DU?) with a maximum firing rate of some 1700 rounds a minute. With the ability to engage moving targets swiftly and with accuracy, the system is fitted with an automatic firing mode. When the radar solution shows that the target is passing through the line-of-fire of the cannon, it will fire a burst.

SELF-DEFENSE

The Typhoon utilizes the DAC (Defensive Aids Computer) to create a 360-degree coverage of all threats around the aircraft. The DAC fuses all information from the RWR, MAW and LWR.

While the current MAW is an active system, a passive system is under development, which will allow detection of missile command links passively.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

JSF on Typhoon, Typhoon on JSF