Because it is a joint venture one naming reason was due to both the UK and US having previous aircraft called "Lightning" as in the P38 WW2 prop plane and the F6 Mach 2.3 fighter Jet.

SpeaktheTruth, paging SpeakTheTruth... Sad

Firefox137, paging Firefox137...

2 bad becaqusethe Typhoon will be the future .Stealth is allready detectable even the one on the Raptor . And Su 37 and Mig 35 are coming ... So Don't relaly on stealth and the fact that USAf is invincible

2 bad becaqusethe Typhoon will be the future .Stealth is allready detectable even the one on the Raptor . And Su 37 and Mig 35 are coming ... So Don't relaly on stealth and the fact that USAf is invincible

Of course stealth is "detectable". That has been the case since day one. The question is... detectable at what range?

As it stands, an aircraft of the F-35's RCS class is detectable by the best fighter radars currently in service at <20km and the best AWACs/SAM radars at <50km. The Typhoon (assuming 0.5 sq-m RCS) will be detectable by the same sensors at <140km and <350km. The ability to detect VLO targets cannot be achieved through radar improvements simply because the aperture size increase needed would have to be ridiculous to make up the difference -- make something 10 times bigger or 10 times more powerful and you only double the range. To make an F-35 class target as detectable as an F-16 you'll need to make the radar 1000 times bigger or 1000 times more powerful. As it stands, technology paths does not support anything more than the doubling to tripling of radar output in the next three decades even if ALL of the emerging technologies -- such as high density channel cooled MMICs and GaN MMICs --pan out. In other words, under the best case estimate, radars will only improve their range by about 20~30%. In other words, you'll go from say 20km detection range to say 26km. Tangible? Yes. But you are still very screwed.

Alternatives to radars don't really look promising either. IRST has the problem that IR radiation sucks at propagating through the atmosphere without degradation. In addition, these devices are limited by both sensor and optical resolution such that they need very narrow field of views (high magnification) to find anything small at longer ranges. While sensor resolution can improve, optical resolution is basically a glass and/or mirrors problem which cannot improve notably. Scanning at wide angles means that you won't find anything at more than ~20km, scanning at the kind of magnification it takes to locate and track a target at say 80km will mean taking a hour to make the same sweep a radar takes a second to complete. On top of that you have no ranging data and you need to pray for good weather. It means that doing volume search with IRST is, and will remain, a joke. There is a reason AWACs don't carry space observatory style IR telescopes instead of a radar and why IRST turrets are not replacing the radar on a Rafale -- because the physical reality makes them completely unfeasible.

The SU-37 as it is being shown and promoted offers nothing at all to counter the F-35 or the F-22. A little more agility and a little more speed does absolutely nothing for you if you cannot even out the detectability equation.

As far as the Typhoon is concerned, what does it have to offer? Better agility? Nobody cares about that because it will not save you from an AIM-9X shot -- you can neither keep out of the launch envelope of a HOBS missile nor "dodge" a 60G AAM. Speed? It is a Mach 2 aircraft with Mach 1.4 cruise clean. Because it is a 4th gen design without internal bays, that means that operationally it'll be around M1.2 in cruise and 1.7~1.8 with burners with a useful warload and fuel. That is probably how the F-35 will be anyway. The Typhoon also has a 500 times larger RCS, a same size radar (no AESA yet), much worse endurance, last decade's situational awareness aids and a higher price tag. So what does the Typhoon have to offer? Answer, nothing much really other than the fact that buying it supports the European aerospace industry. So as an industrial subsidy program it is certainly useful, but as a fighter it is 20 years late and over priced. A simple way to look at the Typhoon will be to ask oneself what it offers that a re-engined F-16 with conformal tanks does not? The answer is not much at all.

A simple way to look at the Typhoon will be to ask oneself what it offers that a re-engined F-16 with conformal tanks does not? The answer is not much at all.

I really want to hurt the person who decided to put conformal tanks onto the F-16 - are they blind!!
So yes the Typhoon beats the F-16 with conformal tanks on looks anyway

To be fair, the Typhoon "beats" the F-16, period, with the possible exception of the E/F models (Block 60). One of the Typhoon's serious problems right now, though, is the fact that it still lacks an AESA.

The idea that for USAF anyway, it could fill out it's need for additional small fighters with new build Block 6x to a USAF spec F-16. And use F-22, B-2 etc for the big boy work of beating down an IADS. Then we could pay for all the other stuff in the USAF budget that helps win wars (airlift, people, facilities etc etc ) that are being bled white right now.

There are four problems to this "solution".

(1) The Block 60 F-16 or even a hypothetical Block 70 which incorporates everything in the Block 60 plus the XL planform, are not survivable platforms for the next three decades. The F-35 on the other hand is very survivable and is practically almost as good as an F-22 on most missions. Plus it flies further and is capable of packing heavier ordnance.

(2) To renew the US fighter force with enough jets to maintain our global responsibilities and role will be a $200+ billion endeavor and a 2400+ unit purchase over 25 years. Spending that kind of money on an obsolete airframe stuffed with yesterday's systems is wasteful to say the least.

(3) The Block 60 ($40~50 million in volume production) is not any cheaper to build than the F-35 ($48.5 million) and it is probably more expensive to operate or maintain. This is assuming you are not intending to stuff the F-16 with all the systems (stealth aside) which goes into the F-35 -- EOTS, DAS, HMD, 4th gen AESA, precision broadband EW suite with electronically steered antennas, next generation engine, etc. All of this stuff is at least 50% of the F-35 program cost. If you put them in an F-16 and build 2400 F-16s you will spend at best $20 billion less than on the F-35 procurement.

(4) One of the most important arm of US power projection capabilities -- the USN and USMC -- will be completely screwed from the absence of even a small quantity of 5th generation jets. They don't have and cannot have an F-22. They'll have to survive on the F-18E/F and the AV-8. In short they are dead meat in the coming decades.

[quote="elp]The idea that for USAF anyway, it could fill out it's need for additional small fighters with new build Block 6x to a USAF spec F-16. And use F-22, B-2 etc for the big boy work of beating down an IADS. Then we could pay for all the other stuff in the USAF budget that helps win wars (airlift, people, facilities etc etc ) that are being bled white right now.