F-16.net

Thumper3181 wrote:

I have got to agree with Skip here. Carlo Kopp always does good work and I love reading his papers but he really does have a Raptor bias. No one can argue. given the choice between buying one Raptor or two JSFs I would by the Raptor every time. So while kopp argues against the JSF and for the Raptor he says nothing about the Tiffy. That is what we are discussing here.

I would question his assertion that the Russians will put in series production a true AESA radar anytime soon that outperforms the APG-81. I think he is totally ignoring stealth and the effect of having a netcentric jet .

He says nothing about tiffy for good reason. Tiffy like all 4.5th gen ac are great for supporting roles but they should not be your premier AC either for intercept or IDS.

Again the way you attain air superiority on the cheap over tiffies is to use the JSF to knock out at least one tiffy with it's own slammers and then use the radar and data link to detect, track and engage the rest of the force using your own 4.0 or 4.5 gen AC as missile carriers. Whatever is left gets overwhelmed WVR by sheer numbers.

As per an earlier post of mine, the JSF office itself has released information that the F-35 will carry 6 AAMs for Deffensive Counter-Air missions, equivalent to the maximum AA load of an F-16. I cannot imagine a circumstance short of WW III between the U.S. and China where a load of 6 AAMs could be characterized as "limited" combat persistence. When was the last time an F-16 found itself out of AA missiles?

It is also completely wrong to assume that the USAF will not employ the F-35 for AA work. During operation Deny Flight, plenty of F-16s were used to patrol Iraqi airspace, not just F-15s. F-16s downed more than a few Serbian airplanes over Kosovo and Bosnia. The AA capability of the F-35 will be by no means limited, even in USAF service. It is considered one of its "core" missions.

Any assumptions regarding the F-35's performance are just that, assumptions. As per an earlier poster's comments, we are assuming the F-35 won't supercruise. The EF was not designed to supercruise, and yet, according to its manufacturer and users, it does. The F-35 may not have been designed to supercruise, but for an aircraft that carries its entire load internally for the most dangerous missions, I seriously doubt that it will not be a marginal supercruiser on a part with the EF. Mark my words.

It is also worth remembering the description of the pilot who manned the F-35's first flight, characterizing the aircraft as a "smaller, quicker Raptor." This man flew the Raptor. And this, for an aircraft that weighs about 3,000 lbs. more empty than the production version. Underestimate the F-35 at your own peril.

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Ides I agree with your points. Of course the JSF can carry more AAMs externally. Many times they can and will do so successfully especially when pitted against a lesser opponent than the tiffy. The example here is for the tiffy and nothing else. The point is you could concede(which I don't necessarily think is so either) that the tiffy outperforms JSF and the JSF would still blow the tiffy out of the sky on a regular basis due to the fact it has stealth, a more capable radar, and slammers.

BTW, where did you get the 3000lbs heavier from the production version from. I don't not beleive you, just curious.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Ides I agree with your points. Of course the JSF can carry more AAMs externally. Many times they can and will do so successfully especially when pitted against a lesser opponent than the tiffy. The example here is for the tiffy and nothing else. The point is you could concede(which I don't necessarily think is so either) that the tiffy outperforms JSF and the JSF would still blow the tiffy out of the sky on a regular basis due to the fact it has stealth, a more capable radar, and slammers.

BTW, where did you get the 3000lbs heavier from the production version from. I don't not beleive you, just curious.

The first development aircraft is AA-1, a one-of-a-kind vehicle in that it was designed and built before all the weight-reduction measures undertaken by LM were put in place. Supposedly, LM was able to reduce the weight of the B model by more than 3,000 lbs, and weight-saving changes to the B model were incorporated into the A and C models as well, except for the B's smaller weapon bays. I may be wrong about the 3,000 lbs. figure for the A model, but the AA-1 is at least a couple of thousand pounds heavier than the production model.

By the way, the 6 AAM figure I cited above is for internal carriage. In the document to which I'm referring, it shows the F-35 retaining optimized stealth even while carrying 6 AAMs, which necessarily means internal carriage. If you were to use the external store stations for AAM carriage, you could probably increase the load to up to 16 AAMs. How is that for combat persistence?

Makes sense on the weight. I have a big problem with 6 slammers internally. It's been gone over on this board as well as in what is freely available. True there may be room in the bays for six slammers but as of today there is no known "official" plan to modify them to hold six.

BTW, it would be a mistake to do so in my opinion. Major limiting factor of JSF in A2A against Raptor would be weapons carriage.

Before you write what you are about to write consider we will be selling these things to just about everyone so you never know.

F-22 Vs F-35, F-35 Vs Typhoon, F-15 Vs F-16, My Willy Vs you're Willy. What an obnoxious pissing match, seriously.
In Tech school all the F-16 Crew chiefs and F-15 guys would go at over who's airplane was better. Heck we had never even worked on our own jet, let alone the other. In the end it doesn't matter, Two aircraft, designed for different missions. Both have advantages, both have disadvantages, If either one was the "Best in the World at Everything" It wouldn't have an ejection seat, it wouldn't have chaff and flare and no one would care. THEY ARE COMBAT AIRCRAFT, Not a trophy. They enemy is going to try to exploit it, and technology will always change. The funny thing is you are comparing aircraft that are generally used by allied nations. We will be the first to find out what pit falls both Acft have. We have already done dissimilar training with them. Be progressive, not a bunch of 12 year-olds talking about who's dad could beat up the others dad.

Opie150

If you don't like it don't participate. Frankly I think that people like you whine about threads like this because you do not have the mental capacity to engage in a debate.

This forum is about warplanes. If it where about cars it would be about which one is faster so please if you have nothing constructive to add don't bother posting. I could care less what you "think". There is nothing wrong with debating the merits of one AC over another.

Nahh, Opie150th has it right.

After the hard volley of claims made in this thread pretending to be facts, I’m wondering what some will do when they find a handful-of-feet in mouth; apologize or change their screen name?

Quote:

Frankly I think that people like you whine about threads like this because you do not have the mental capacity to engage in a debate.

Perhaps you should consider that people would like to participate but rather not because this thread come next to caca in the hierarchy of discussions.

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 27, 2006 Posts: 67 Status: Offline

Quote:

As per an earlier post of mine, the JSF office itself has released information that the F-35 will carry 6 AAMs for Deffensive Counter-Air missions, equivalent to the maximum AA load of an F-16. I cannot imagine a circumstance short of WW III between the U.S. and China where a load of 6 AAMs could be characterized as "limited" combat persistence. When was the last time an F-16 found itself out of AA missiles?

Especially since there arent any forces on the earth that outnumber the USAF+USN+USMC in numbers either... Hell, a Carrier air wing is larger than many(most) countries' entire AFs.

Quantity vs Quality? The US has both. Cool

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

Do they have any Typhoon's flying with AESA yet??

Yup Pat you are right, 9 pages of posts, all caca. Maybe you should post something worthwhile to bring these 9 pages up to your standards.

Quote:

Netopia
Quantity vs Quality? The US has both.

Sure if we go to war under the circumstances of our choosing. I think you have to consider in some parts of the world, against some potential adversaries circumstances may find us out gunned at least for the opening stages of a war.One of the reasons why the US has pursued having equipment of the caliber that it has is because there may well be instances where we are outnumbered.

Quote:

Do they have any Typhoon's flying with AESA yet

I may be wrong but my understanding is that AESA is not in production yet. They are talking about fielding it around 2010-2015 but that is being optimistic.It's easy enough to make one but can you make it in numbers small enough, cheap enough and reliable enough to be used effectively in an AC?

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

Yeah, I'm aware of what they're saying also...so you don't know. How about any with IRST?? Last I heard no-one had been exercising that option....Check

checksixx wrote:

Yeah, I'm aware of what they're saying also...so you don't know. How about any with IRST?? Last I heard no-one had been exercising that option....Check

I noticed that too.

Other than what I've seen on early Eurofighters with that Pirate IRST pod on the front of the canopy, its just not there anymore on production models. I not familiar with the Eurofighter as much so I've always wondered why?

According to Eurofighter website they have IRST capability in their PIRATE pod which sounds like a combo FLIR and IRST system using a common IR sensor. They give a range of 30 - 50 nm but they do not say if is frontal or rear aspect for that range.

I wonder if there is a laser range finder slaved to it.

checksixx wrote:

Yeah, I'm aware of what they're saying also...so you don't know. How about any with IRST?? Last I heard no-one had been exercising that option....Check

Because the software for it is in the block 5 software update (tranche 1 max capability)! Which is what operational aircraft are being updated with over the winter (also includes the basic a2g software).

Quote:

According to Eurofighter website they have IRST capability in their PIRATE pod which sounds like a combo FLIR and IRST system using a common IR sensor. They give a range of 30 - 50 nm but they do not say if is frontal or rear aspect for that range.

Correct

Quote:

I wonder if there is a laser range finder slaved to it.

The pirate system does include a laser rangefinder meaning it can effectively range aircraft; it is also desiged to "scan" the sky without queing for IR signatures. The only way to really detect if an aircraft is tracking you via an IRST is to detect a laser signature using LWR (only some irst have laser rangefinders). I know the F-22 doesn't currently have a LWR but I am not sure over the F-35? Only RAF Typhoons at the moment have LWR fitted although I believe the Saudis and Austrians have also requested them to be fitted.

Quote:

Do they have any Typhoon's flying with AESA yet

Last I heard there will be a caesar flying in a typhoon in Feb07. The only reason I believe it is being hurried is for export potential tbh. Typhoon was kind of "unlucky" for its development to be cited towards the end of MSCAN radar technology and AESA was in its infancy. However the Captor is still no obsolete piece of junk and is widely acclaimed as the best and most advanced MSCAN radar ever produced! Although CAESA will still represent a leap in capability though.

Andy

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 27, 2006 Posts: 67 Status: Offline

Quote:

Sure if we go to war under the circumstances of our choosing. I think you have to consider in some parts of the world, against some potential adversaries circumstances may find us out gunned at least for the opening stages of a war.One of the reasons why the US has pursued having equipment of the caliber that it has is because there may well be instances where we are outnumbered.

Trus, but still unlikely, remember Each carrier has abour 60 combat aircraft(fixed wing) on it with AWACS support, five of them equals 300 combat aircraft at our disposal

Remember, the UK in total has about 380 fighters between the RAF and RN, and it's one of the world's larger AFs.

China has about 1800 total now, but the vast majority are ancient MiG ripoffs that would amount to little more than target practice. There are probably only about 250 decent modern planes in it's AF.

India has about 900, but again more than half are MiG-21s and other assorted aerojunk.

Who knows how many planes Russia has that are actually air- and combat-worthy...

Those would be about the only AFs that would significantly outnumber a few CVBGs, and I dont think a war with any of them is very likely.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

So who still thinks Eurofighter is superior to F-35?