Forum: F-22A Raptor

idesof wrote:

Thumper3181 wrote:

Spudman

You came to the wrong conclusion about what I was saying. Today, stealth is a game changer, tomorrow it remains a game changer, but what about 15 or 20 years down the line? Surely someone will come up with an effective counter. Why put all our eggs in the the Stealth basket. Without stealth the Raptor is a formidable AC with plenty of growth potential. The same cannot be said for the JSF.

Oh really? Why don't you back up this assertion with some facts. What exactly is the F-35 lacking that the aircraft it's replacing already have?

Quote:

An updated F15 using targeting data from a Raptor or UCAV along with AESA radar will kill gen 4.5 AC with AMRAAMS just as well as the JSF and it will carry more of them.

No it will not. A Eurofighter equipped with Meteors will see the F-15 before the F-15 sees the EF and will shoot Meteors before the F-15 shoots Amraams. In contrast, the F-35 beats the EF every time thanks to its much greater LO characteristics. The F-35 also shoots down the F-15 ten times out of ten. Moreover, the F-35 should be able to carry six AAMs internally in a fully stealthy configuration. In a less-stealthy but still more LO configuration than anything flying right now except dedicated LO platforms, the F-35 can carry up to 16 AAMs, ten external, six internal.

Quote:

An updated F15 with the helmet mounted sight and AIM-9X will kill at short range just as well also.

No. It will die at short range just as well. At that point, it's a 50-50 split with any opponent similarly equipped.

Quote:

The F-15 flys farther and faster with a bigger payload.

Wrong yet again. The F-15 on internal fuel only is does not even fly as far as an F-16, much less an F-35, which has almost 50% more internal fuel than an F-15 and only one engine. Mount fuel tanks on the F-15 and AAMs, guaranteed it does not aerodynamically outperform an F-35 clean, which it will be with 6 AAMs and full internal fuel.

Quote:

The Raptors, UCAVs, and cruise missiles and heavy bombers knock down the door. When the F-15s o in for interdiction there are no radars anymore.

You will probably knock down all fixed radars and SAM sites on the first day/night. The same cannot be said of mobile systems.

Quote:

The Marines have a fine a/c in the FA-18, they just don't want to use it. They could also update the harrier with the money saved.

The Marines have never been particularly enamored of the F-18 for a very good reason: it ties them to carriers and/or long airstrips while being a short-legged platform. As for the AV, that AC had one of the highest loss ratios in the first GW. It is simply not a survivable airplane in a truly modern battlefield. Find for Afghanistan. Not so sure how well it would do against a future high-tech China (and that WILL happen) or a resurgent Russia helmed by a former Communist tyrant like Putin who is actively murdering his opposition, including members of the press.

Quote:

As for UCAVs, the prototype flies next year. It could be in production by 2011.

USN program, no longer USAF.

Excellent post! Although, I would not argue so favorably for the JSF. Otherwise, well said.

F-16.net Sponsor

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

idesof wrote:

Thumper3181 wrote:

Spudman

You came to the wrong conclusion about what I was saying. Today, stealth is a game changer, tomorrow it remains a game changer, but what about 15 or 20 years down the line? Surely someone will come up with an effective counter. Why put all our eggs in the the Stealth basket. Without stealth the Raptor is a formidable AC with plenty of growth potential. The same cannot be said for the JSF.

Oh really? Why don't you back up this assertion with some facts. What exactly is the F-35 lacking that the aircraft it's replacing already have?

Quote:

An updated F15 using targeting data from a Raptor or UCAV along with AESA radar will kill gen 4.5 AC with AMRAAMS just as well as the JSF and it will carry more of them.

No it will not. A Eurofighter equipped with Meteors will see the F-15 before the F-15 sees the EF and will shoot Meteors before the F-15 shoots Amraams. In contrast, the F-35 beats the EF every time thanks to its much greater LO characteristics. The F-35 also shoots down the F-15 ten times out of ten. Moreover, the F-35 should be able to carry six AAMs internally in a fully stealthy configuration. In a less-stealthy but still more LO configuration than anything flying right now except dedicated LO platforms, the F-35 can carry up to 16 AAMs, ten external, six internal.

Quote:

An updated F15 with the helmet mounted sight and AIM-9X will kill at short range just as well also.

No. It will die at short range just as well. At that point, it's a 50-50 split with any opponent similarly equipped.

Quote:

The F-15 flys farther and faster with a bigger payload.

Wrong yet again. The F-15 on internal fuel only is does not even fly as far as an F-16, much less an F-35, which has almost 50% more internal fuel than an F-15 and only one engine. Mount fuel tanks on the F-15 and AAMs, guaranteed it does not aerodynamically outperform an F-35 clean, which it will be with 6 AAMs and full internal fuel.

Quote:

The Raptors, UCAVs, and cruise missiles and heavy bombers knock down the door. When the F-15s o in for interdiction there are no radars anymore.

You will probably knock down all fixed radars and SAM sites on the first day/night. The same cannot be said of mobile systems.

Quote:

The Marines have a fine a/c in the FA-18, they just don't want to use it. They could also update the harrier with the money saved.

The Marines have never been particularly enamored of the F-18 for a very good reason: it ties them to carriers and/or long airstrips while being a short-legged platform. As for the AV, that AC had one of the highest loss ratios in the first GW. It is simply not a survivable airplane in a truly modern battlefield. Find for Afghanistan. Not so sure how well it would do against a future high-tech China (and that WILL happen) or a resurgent Russia helmed by a former Communist tyrant like Putin who is actively murdering his opposition, including members of the press.

Quote:

As for UCAVs, the prototype flies next year. It could be in production by 2011.

USN program, no longer USAF.

Excellent post! Although, I would not argue so favorably for the JSF. Otherwise, well said.

FireFox137 wrote:

Spudster!

While I do agree with you that a modified F-15 (new production) would be a formidable aircraft, she can't hold a candle to the Raptro

Thanks for thinking of me... but that was Thumper3181 Smile

SpudmanWP wrote:

FireFox137 wrote:

Spudster!

While I do agree with you that a modified F-15 (new production) would be a formidable aircraft, she can't hold a candle to the Raptro

Thanks for thinking of me... but that was Thumper3181 Smile

Sorry dude! But my minds on 500 different subjects and I read about as well as I can type! I'm better strapped into an AC than behind a desk. Though all I get to fly a pipers and what not.... Sad

P.S. Can you active force fellows cool your jets when intercepting us guys because we don't happen to know that there's a just published flight restriction because so and so is visiting s school house or whatever on a given day!

Newbie Joined: Nov 20, 2006 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

Hi,

I found an interesting info source at: http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/tech.php

The Eurofighter project has been subject to several operational evaluations. These have been carried out, independently from the Eurofighter consortium, primarily by Britain's DERA, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL). Unlike many previous theoretical operational capability studies, the Eurofighter analysis utilised a true simulation approach. This was achieved through a number of networked battle simulation computers, termed JOUST, each of which can be flown by human pilots.

BVR Combat Rating
F-22 Raptor rating : 91%
Typhoon rating : 82%
Rafale rating : 50%
F-15C rating : 43%
F-18+ rating : 25%
F-18C rating : 21%
F-16C rating : 21%

This system was used to comprehensively evaluate the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) performance of the Eurofighter and other aircraft against an upgraded Su-27 Flanker (comparable to an Su-35 Super Flanker and its equivalents). The studies investigated all aspect best performances from the major systems on each aircraft; avionics, structure (including RCS data), engine performance (including fuel usage), defences and man-machine interfaces. In these tests the French Rafale utilised the Matra-BAe MICA air to air missile (which is the primary AA weapon of the French airforce) while the other aircraft used the Raytheon-Hughes AMRAAM.

These simulations concluded that Eurofighter has a win rating of 82% (100% equals always win, 0% equals always lose, 50% equals parity) against the target aircraft. A more typical way to present this data is as a combat exchange ratio, for the Typhoon this equals 4.5:1. In other words statistically one Eurofighter would be lost for every 4.5 Su-35 fighters shot down. This compares extremely favourably to the other aircraft (see also the BVR Combat Rating table); F-16C Falcon (0.3:1), F-15C Eagle (0.8:1), F-18C Hornet (0.3:1), F-18+ (0.4:1, NB this is not the current F-18E/F which is apparently a downgraded version of the F-18+ used in the studies) and Dassault Rafale (1:1). Only the LM/Boeing F-22 Raptor bettered the Eurofighter's performance with a combat exchange ratio of 10.1:1.

In addition to these overall combat performance results a number of individual comparisons have been made available. Of enormous importance for BVR combat is acceleration at medium altitudes and here the Eurofighter's acceleration at Mach 0.9 and 22,000ft equals that of the F-22. At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22. Only the Rafale comes close to the matching the Eurofighter's capabilities in these comparisons.

An important point to keep in mind when examining this data is that full details on the simulations have not been released. Without this information it is not possible to determine whether Eurofighter optimal profiles were examined at the expense of more varied combat missions. However these studies do give some indication as to the potential of the Typhoon.

What do u think?

1) How did they simulate the F-22 given the simple fact that many of its key technologies are classified. I don't think that the DoD or State Dept will hand off to the Brits (are closest allies) any classified information for their study. So the numbers of the E-Fighter versus the F-22 are most like simple extrapolations and assumtions.

2) The legacy fighters have been around for eons, so those numbers are more close (in all probability) closer to a real world engagement.

3) I just scanned that article and I don't see anywhere where the US AWACS a/c came into play which in real world scenarios would be the case.

4) I believe that that the E-Fighter is a heck of an aircraft, and I don't believe that many on this board give her credit where credit is due: in WWII, the Germans looked upon the Spitifre as nothing more than a "toy" and it whipped the daylights out of thier more "capable" fighters.... I see an analogy here between what the USAF thinks of the E-Fighter and what the Germans thought of the Spitfire. At least if there is another war, we'll be going in together "hand in hand" with the Brits so.... I'm glad they have a very capable a/c.

Newbie Joined: Nov 20, 2006 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

I will try to understand why, in your opinion, the Eurofighter consortium payed an indipendent agency DERA (the Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) if is really not possible to estimate/valuate the BVR performance of many aircraft via computer simulation?

I think that once they know the presumed features (trust vectoring, power, 3d model, etc) they can simulate via computer how Ef, F22, F16 etc can perform in flight envelope, engaging, radar visibility etc no?

Of course only a real match con confirm the rating.. by now we have only simulations based of non comfirmed data.. only the Singapore test: Eurofighter vs 6 virtually shooted down F16 is a given fact)

Sorry for my bad english.. i'm from Italy (Ef2000 4 defense and the F35 4 attack in my country)

An F-22A's BVR performance can be determined by theoretical missile ranges using the "worst-case" scenario. Where they will set a variable that given the target's radar performance, and the F-22A's stealth considerations, the enemy will not detect a F-22A head on until say... 65km. Even though the actual distance may never be known.

They then would continue using such variables for other aspects, and then grade aircraft performance based on that. Factor in WVR capabilities, etc, and you have a grading system that DERA gave us.

It may not be entirely realistic... but its a good benchmark for civilians and such.

Then variables like missile perfromance comes into play and such.

Which is fine with me... because if the F-22A performs that well under theoretical "worst-case". Then its all good to me.

A worst case scenario that assumed the Typhoon carried Meteor-like AAMs to achieve such a high exchange ratio, while other western aircrafts had nothing better than AIM-120B.
Add to this that the DERA study was done while the program was in a bad shape, and you can easily imagine it's biased toward earning domestic support.

Elite Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 535 Status: Offline

The stimulations mentioned above were done during the period of 1993 ~ 2001. Both Raptor and Eurofighter hadn't expand their full capability at that time, and the anticipated enemy at that time, the Su-35 of 1990s edition, has never become the truth since then.

Therefore, the stimulations are much more an advertisement than a reality. At first (from 1993 to 1997), it was used to showed the superiority of EF-2000 that UK believed it will have, then from 1997 to 2001, these kind of stimulations were used to prove the necessity of Meteor BVRAAM............

PS:
At end of 1990s, Western world beliveved that Russia would soon developed a ramjet-powered R-77 variant and put it into service before 2005, and with the help of this new BVRAAM, Su-35 will be able to defeat any Western fighter that still uses AIM-120B at that time except Raptor.

According to UK's stimulation at that time (1999~2001), when facing the threatness of Su-35 + ramjet-powered R-77 in BVR engagement, the exchange ratio of EF-2000 with different BVRAAM shall be:

* EF-2000 + AIM-120B vs Su-35 + ramjet-powered R-77 --> 1 : 3~4 (Loss)

* EF-2000 + FMRAAM vs Su-35 + ramjet-powered R-77 --> 1~3 : 1 (Equal or Little Win)

* EF-2000 + Meteor vs Su-35 + ramjet-powered R-77 --> 8~10+ : 1 (Great victory of Raptor class with the price that is less than the 1/2 of Raptor's........)

A BS advertisement?? perhaps. However, this advertisement still help Meteor win the project of UK's NG BVRAAM in 2002, although the ramjet-powered R-77, just as Su-35, hasn't become the truth up to now..........

As TOAN stated, the JOUST simulations were done ten years ago or longer....

Interestingly, there were some hints that the Typhoon has already exercised with Rafale and some NATO F-16s, the results were described as good, but not the quantum leap in capability drummed out by EUROFIGHTER Consortium! These comments were from a poster on another forum, and take them as you will!!!!

Elite Joined: May 29, 2006 Posts: 640 Status: Offline

snypa777 wrote:

As TOAN stated, the JOUST simulations were done ten years ago or longer....

Interestingly, there were some hints that the Typhoon has already exercised with Rafale and some NATO F-16s, the results were described as good, but not the quantum leap in capability drummed out by EUROFIGHTER Consortium! These comments were from a poster on another forum, and take them as you will!!!!

Would you care to share on what forum such comments were posted?

It would, by the way, be very interesting to have the EF go up against an F-16E (Block 60) or F/A-18E/F with AESA. My guess is that right now either of those aircraft could take the EF in BVR (oh, yes, and also the upgraded F-15C with AESA). The EF's current lack of AESA is a huge drawback for a so-called 4.5 Gen fighter.

Elite Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 535 Status: Offline

I think it is natural that the EF-2000 today can't showed the quantum leap in capability drummed out by EUROFIGHTER Consortium. The EF-2000 today hasn't been developed completely right now, especially for the early productional blocks (Before Block 2B), a Royal Air Force pilot describe them as "Nothing more than a flyable machine".

Even the newest productional blocks (Block 2B and Block 5) of Tranche I EF-2000 now still have many restrictions and undeveloped areas in their capability and function:

1. Captor radar:

a. As everyone knows, it won't get AESA upgrading formally until post-2014 at least.

b. The processor and softwares it is using right now is outdated, and it will receive a upgrading and replacement in these items after 2007 for Tranche II fighters.

c. The Radar hadn't get complete basic modes for A-A combat until the newest blcoks (Block 2B and Block 5) fighters entered service after 2005.

2. Data fusion, Electronics, and DASS EWS:
They only has the basic functions right now, and they won't get its full capability until post-2008 ~ 2010 at least. An Italian pilot declared that the elctronics in the EF-2000 right now had just been explored about 20% capability of its full potential in this year.

3. PIRATE IRST and HMD: It won't be equipped in EF-2000 until post-2008 at least.

4. BVRAAM:
The Eurofighter today still uses AIM-120B as its main BVRAAM. It won't be able to equip AIM-120C5 / Meteor BVRAAMs formally until post-2008 / post-2012 at least.

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 621 Status: Offline

FireFox137 wrote:

idesof wrote:

Thumper3181 wrote:

Spudman

You came to the wrong conclusion about what I was saying. Today, stealth is a game changer, tomorrow it remains a game changer, but what about 15 or 20 years down the line? Surely someone will come up with an effective counter. Why put all our eggs in the the Stealth basket. Without stealth the Raptor is a formidable AC with plenty of growth potential. The same cannot be said for the JSF.

Oh really? Why don't you back up this assertion with some facts. What exactly is the F-35 lacking that the aircraft it's replacing already have?

Quote:

An updated F15 using targeting data from a Raptor or UCAV along with AESA radar will kill gen 4.5 AC with AMRAAMS just as well as the JSF and it will carry more of them.

No it will not. A Eurofighter equipped with Meteors will see the F-15 before the F-15 sees the EF and will shoot Meteors before the F-15 shoots Amraams. In contrast, the F-35 beats the EF every time thanks to its much greater LO characteristics. The F-35 also shoots down the F-15 ten times out of ten. Moreover, the F-35 should be able to carry six AAMs internally in a fully stealthy configuration. In a less-stealthy but still more LO configuration than anything flying right now except dedicated LO platforms, the F-35 can carry up to 16 AAMs, ten external, six internal.

Quote:

An updated F15 with the helmet mounted sight and AIM-9X will kill at short range just as well also.

No. It will die at short range just as well. At that point, it's a 50-50 split with any opponent similarly equipped.

Quote:

The F-15 flys farther and faster with a bigger payload.

Wrong yet again. The F-15 on internal fuel only is does not even fly as far as an F-16, much less an F-35, which has almost 50% more internal fuel than an F-15 and only one engine. Mount fuel tanks on the F-15 and AAMs, guaranteed it does not aerodynamically outperform an F-35 clean, which it will be with 6 AAMs and full internal fuel.

Quote:

The Raptors, UCAVs, and cruise missiles and heavy bombers knock down the door. When the F-15s o in for interdiction there are no radars anymore.

You will probably knock down all fixed radars and SAM sites on the first day/night. The same cannot be said of mobile systems.

Quote:

The Marines have a fine a/c in the FA-18, they just don't want to use it. They could also update the harrier with the money saved.

The Marines have never been particularly enamored of the F-18 for a very good reason: it ties them to carriers and/or long airstrips while being a short-legged platform. As for the AV, that AC had one of the highest loss ratios in the first GW. It is simply not a survivable airplane in a truly modern battlefield. Find for Afghanistan. Not so sure how well it would do against a future high-tech China (and that WILL happen) or a resurgent Russia helmed by a former Communist tyrant like Putin who is actively murdering his opposition, including members of the press.

Quote:

As for UCAVs, the prototype flies next year. It could be in production by 2011.

USN program, no longer USAF.

Excellent post! Although, I would not argue so favorably for the JSF. Otherwise, well said.

With so much discussion on Stealth and RCS. Many forget the performance advantages of carrying weapons and fuel internally as the F-22 and F-35 do? The gap is so great that its hardly worth debating............ Confused

Elite Joined: Oct 21, 2005 Posts: 744 Status: Offline

toan wrote:

I think it is natural that the EF-2000 today can't showed the quantum leap in capability drummed out by EUROFIGHTER Consortium. The EF-2000 today hasn't been developed completely right now, especially for the early productional blocks (Before Block 2B), a Royal Air Force pilot describe them as "Nothing more than a flyable machine".

Even the newest productional blocks (Block 2B and Block 5) of Tranche I EF-2000 now still have many restrictions and undeveloped areas in their capability and function:

1. Captor radar:

a. As everyone knows, it won't get AESA upgrading formally until post-2014 at least.

b. The processor and softwares it is using right now is outdated, and it will receive a upgrading and replacement in these items after 2007 for Tranche II fighters.

c. The Radar hadn't get complete basic modes for A-A combat until the newest blcoks (Block 2B and Block 5) fighters entered service after 2005.

2. Data fusion, Electronics, and DASS EWS:
They only has the basic functions right now, and they won't get its full capability until post-2008 ~ 2010 at least. An Italian pilot declared that the elctronics in the EF-2000 right now had just been explored about 20% capability of its full potential in this year.

3. PIRATE IRST and HMD: It won't be equipped in EF-2000 until post-2008 at least.

4. BVRAAM:
The Eurofighter today still uses AIM-120B as its main BVRAAM. It won't be able to equip AIM-120C5 / Meteor BVRAAMs formally until post-2008 / post-2012 at least.

Good grief!

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22A and Typhoon meet.... (actually they met a while back)