F-16.net

Found this over the 'net, it's kind of interesting because everybody's wondering how the Typhoon would square up against the F-22.

http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html

And to those who think the F-22 is "too big" and will be "the first to be seen visually", I checked and the results are in: The Flankers are bigger and longer, and the Migs are more or less the same size. Neither can supercruise, and neither have stealth Cool

F-16.net Sponsor

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 14, 2006 Posts: 505

Tinito_16 wrote:

Found this over the 'net, it's kind of interesting because everybody's wondering how the Typhoon would square up against the F-22.

http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html

And to those who think the F-22 is "too big" and will be "the first to be seen visually", I checked and the results are in: The Flankers are bigger and longer, and the Migs are more or less the same size. Neither can supercruise, and neither have stealth Cool

This is not about the EF2000 or directly addressing anyone here. I think the EF2000 and the SU-37 excellent aircraft however I feel the F-22 has a substantial edge, even WVR.

What I say about the SU-37 in this old post, I think also applies comparing the EF2000 to the F-22.

Quote:

You falsely assume that just because the aircraft are within visual range that the SU-37 would be able to see the F-22. The F-22's first detectability can give it the ability to dictate the fight, so the F-22 can sneak in from a blind spot and gun down the SU-37 without it even having a clue the F-22 is there.

I'm not saying that will always happen, however you seem to be assuming it never will.

You also seem to be thinking in the digital arcade mode. The real life as an along. Odds are the ranges that you are talking about the F-22 would be detected, however just because it is detected doesn't mean that is advantage is over. If the F-22 has the ability to detect a lot better, then as still as a significant edge.

Analogy. Let's say you and me are in a boxing match, I have 2020 vision I can see clearly. You need glasses to see properly, however you took them off the box, your eyes are watered up, and you are squinting to see. We both can see each other, however I have the advantage because I can see detail and is easy for me to interpret what I see, whereas you to you I look fuzzy and them hard to make out from the surrounding. Who do you think is going to have the advantage?

Another analogy. The wolf or the hunter that is stalking deer, the wolf or hunter can clearly see the deer, the deer suddenly sees the wolf or hunter, the wolf or hunter can see that they are detected so they freeze, the deer's vision detects movement so when wolf and hunter froze, they became invisible to the deer, as soon as the deer relaxes and puts it had down and starts feeding again the wolf or hunter starts approaching again.

An opponent isn't going to be exactly matched. Each aircraft has his own advantage and disadvantage. Like in the lion analogy scenario. A hunter is going to try to put itself in an advantage where it can detect the prey, but the prey cannot detect it, so it can sneak up on its or lurk until the lion sees a safe opportunity for a kill. If you've ever watched lions they will sometimes test their prey and run, circle back and repeat until an opportunity for a relatively safe attack arises.

You can't expect an enemy to attack you on your terms. You can't expect the terms to be equal. You can't expect the scenario to be simple or stable or predictable.

Lions often attack at night when their senses are superior to their prey.

This is what can happen when a hunter/lion puts himself at weakness. It is rather long, but it is interesting, at least to me. I'm afraid some of you will be bored. (ADD warning)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g5BoU8dKZ4

Do you remember the F-18 that apparently was shot down in the first Gulf War by a Mig-25? The Mig-25 did not get its kill head on.

The ROE stated that the F-18 pilot could not shoot without permission unless the Mig-25 fired first. So the F-18 and the Mig-25 past head-to-head and the Mig-25 ran, so the F-18 went on with its mission, the Mig-25 used its superior speed to double back and sneak up behind the F-18 and kill it with an IR missile. (We are not positive this is what happened but the review of the data/radar/voice/cockpit recorders and witness testimony strongly suggest it is)

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

TINTO 16,
A few things if you please!

1. It was written by Carlo Kopp, his name is a genuinely dirty word in air force circles, seen as a man with only a modicum of real understanding as far as air warfare is concerned. On a forum I peruse -Pprune, it is frequented by quite a few serving aircrew and I am always taken aback by the vehemence of their attack whenever Kopp`s name is mentioned!

2. That piece was written SEVEN years ago.

3. There is absolutely NO mention of Typhoon`s supercruise ability.

4. Systems slated for Typhoon in 2000 have been supplanted and upgraded since then.

5. It is full of assumptions about a jet that wasn`t even in service at the time.

6. The Typhoon operators` would disagree with a hell of a lot in that piece AND they don`t WORK for BAE so have no axe to grind. The RAF state that the Typhoon has fantastic potential and they are only just scratching the surface with what the jet can do.

7. The A2G capabilities which are now being integrated were not even a factor in 2000 so not mentioned by Kopp.

8. Finally, I agree with those comments that the Typhoon is the ultimate incarnation of the "teen" series of fighters, the Typhoon IS 4th gen` and cannot match some of the capabilities of the F-22, mostly stealth but it comes in at roughly half the price, you get what you pay for, but what do I know. Cool

It certainly doesn`t represent a "Thrashing of the Typhoon" as your thread title suggests.

Show me an article written by a Typhoon USER stating the same opinion as Kopp and you will have me converted!

I recently read an article by an RAF Sqn LDR who has flown F-16 C/J on secondment to the USAF and he states that he wouldn`t swap his Typhoon for ANY other fighter. He actually says that the most challenging aircraft he has fought against in simulated WVR combat was the F-16 but he would keep his Typhoon thank you.

In the same article a Typhoon test pilot who flew the full F-22 SIM says that obviously stealth separates the F-22 from the rest but he struggled to find any advantage in the F-22 cockpit compared to Typhoon`s `pit. He also said that the Typhoon is better in some areas than the F-22 but obviously wouldn`t go into any detail and refused to be drawn.

The F-22 users are happy with their mount and so are Typhoon users..

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

The Typhoon is certainly a good aircraft, but I'd hate to get a new jet and only be told that were operational only with AIM-9 and AIM-120's. I think they should have slowed down and completed the baseline weapons carriage and integration issues before full rate production. It just seems like they're doing it backwards to me.

I have got to agree with Snypa about Carlo. He writes a good, thorough, easy to read paper but I think his conclusions are often flawed based on his prejudices.

As for supercruise. The F-15 can supercruise, the old BAC lightening could too. I would think an F-14b/d and an F-111 could as well. The reason why it was never really brought up is that they could only do it marginally (around M1.1-M1.4), they could only do it while fairly clean and they could not do it for long so it would not really be tactically significant.

No one to date has ever been able to prove that the Typhoon is any different from these fighters. Supercruise only started being used by BAE when it was revealed that the Raptor could do it. The two are not alike. Raptor does M1.7 or M1.8 depending on who you listen to. It does it with a full war load and it does it for a long time.

Quote:

Show me an article written by a Typhoon USER stating the same opinion as Kopp and you will have me converted!

What are they supposed to say. We should have bought upgraded F-15s for even less money, gotten the same A2A capability, better A2G capability, and more range?

Quote:

but it comes in at roughly half the price, you get what you pay for, but what do I know.

After taking in to account most prices get misquoted from pounds or Euros to dollars and when you add in all the goodies being talked about being added to blk II and III tiffies. Compared to later production runs of Raptors that half the price is a bit of a stretch.

Typhoon as flying today would have been top of the class in 1990, but compared to upgraded Superhornets, F-15s and F-16s with AESA it is no match. If they ever get a decent AESA radar then it regains parity with these jets.

Lastly, I agree with Check, I would only add AESA to the statement.

I'm not saying the Eurofighter is a bad airplane, I just thought his views were interesting, second, I did not know Kopp was so despised. It's just one of those articles where some things are put forth and it makes you think about what really might be going on.

btw I put thrashing in "", because it wasn't a true trash job, however, the capabilities he's saying the jet can actually do pale in comarison to the Raptor's capability. I meant it because alot of people were saying that the Typhoon was almost as good as the Raptor (even in stealth for chrissakes!) and the article doesnt say the Typhoon's bad but it also reveals some shortcomings compared to the Raptor as well as 4rth gen. American fighters.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

(1) To be honest, the Typhoon’s supercruise speed is probably a little better than the F-16/F-15/SU/Rafale and most others -- ~M1.4 vs ~M1.2 clean.

(2) Tactically there are two problems with the Typhoon in that it has to carry external weapons and it has very little fuel. Weapons will impact cruise speed notably and external fuel can basically eliminate it. With conformal missiles and a pair of heatseekers on outboard pylons the Typhoon can probably pull M1.3+ on a good day at the right altitudes. The problem is that it won’t go very far at that speed because it does cost more fuel than subsonic cruise and it only has ~4000 kg of it – about ½ that of the F-35 or ~40% that of the F-22. This is nonetheless about Mach 0.15~0.2 better than a similarly clean sixteen or fifteen can achieve. But is it significant tactically? Probably not.

(3) Stealth aside, supercruise in the F-22 is different from that in previous aircrafts because it is at least about 60% faster than achievable in with a full combat load and with enough fuel to for the jet to go as long as legacy jets could go with 2~3 external tanks.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

checksixx wrote:

The Typhoon is certainly a good aircraft, but I'd hate to get a new jet and only be told that were operational only with AIM-9 and AIM-120's. I think they should have slowed down and completed the baseline weapons carriage and integration issues before full rate production. It just seems like they're doing it backwards to me.

Check`, valid points unless you look at the program origins...It was designed as an air superiority platform only. A2G and a multi-role capability wasn`t even considered early on. During the cold war when this jet was conceived, the carriage of 8 air to air missiles, an excellent AI radar and defensive aids were all that was thought would be necessary to shoot down Bears and Badgers over the North Sea.

There comes a point where you have to "fix" the design so you can start to build the thing! Everything else has come later. The A2G capabilities are being "bolted on", compared to the F-35 where this multi-role capability is inherent in the design.
The push for A2G integration really came after the failed Singapore airforce deal which was a real wake up call to the Eurofighter people to get things moving on the ground attack suite. Yes, they are certainly doing it backwards, that`s the problem without the luxury of hindsight. The sales game has changed and now forces want to pay for "multi-role" aircraft. Only the US can afford pure air to air thoroughbreds that will do very little bomb dropping, it certainly is NOT a mission Raptor pilots want to do.

Thumper wrote:

Supercruise only started being used by BAE when it was revealed that the Raptor could do it. The two are not alike. Raptor does M1.7 or M1.8 depending on who you listen to. It does it with a full war load and it does it for a long time.

I agree that the supercruise capability is different between Tiffy and Raptor, but Typhoon has demonstrated supercruise with external stores @ M1.4, IF the EJ 220 engines are acquired, there is no reason to think that they will not be, this should improve. The F.3 Tornado has through it`s life received improved versions of the RB-199 Turbomecca units and I don`t see how this policy would be discontinued with Typhoon. M 1.4 supercruise capability is beyond what F-15,16 or 18 can achieve.

Snypa wrote:

Show me an article written by a Typhoon USER stating the same opinion as Kopp and you will have me converted!

Thumper wrote:

What are they supposed to say. We should have bought upgraded F-15s for even less money, gotten the same A2A capability, better A2G capability, and more range?

Certainly not the case. Believe me, if you go over to Pprune forum you will see that the Tornado F.3 gets an absolute shellacking! I see comments like "The F.3 can barely make 30K ft with a full load, a supertanker turns better, when the F.3 tank`s above 30Kft it actually burns as much fuel as it takes on!" .
The aircrew know the limitations of the F.3, the aircrew on the forum don`t share the same view on the Typhoon, I think we would have seen SOME negative comment by a user by now... The value of such an aircraft in a post war world where the enemy has an RPG strapped across his shoulder instead of being strapped into a PAK-FA, IS questioned, along with the validity of the F-22 in 2007...although it is recognised as the excellent fighter it is.

On price, no-one is ever going to convince me that the F-22 is ONLY slightly more expensive than Tiffy. I am talking R&D and the cost of ownership, maintaining that all important RCS. I don`t care how R&D was absorbed, it was money spent, a fraction of the F-22 budget has been spent on Typhoon.
You get what you pay for, that`s why the F-22 is a superior fighter. Please don`t get started on unit price, that is only one aspect of owning, flying and maintaining a jet in terms of costs. Yes, the F-22 would be cheaper if the air force bought more, but it ain`t. Live with that, it`s a damn expensive jet. You pay handsomely for the capability, we can`t afford to do that without emasculating the rest of our military.

Tinto_16, I am certainly not attacking you personally! Laughing

Just Carlo`s plodding journalism.

I agree with Dwight` on the fuel capacity/range of Typhoon but you have to remember the area of operations the fighter was designed for originally and the fact that it is an F-18 sized fighter, not a Raptor. Wink

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

snypa777 wrote:

Only the US can afford pure air to air thoroughbreds that will do very little bomb dropping, it certainly is NOT a mission Raptor pilots want to do.

Quote:

Why you would assume that is very strange...not only do they not mind that mission...they brag about what they can do with a JDAM

The value of such an aircraft in a post war world where the enemy has an RPG strapped across his shoulder instead of being strapped into a PAK-FA, IS questioned, along with the validity of the F-22 in 2007...although it is recognised as the excellent fighter it is.

Quote:

Anyone questioning the need for the F-22 isn't working in an F-15 unit.

On price, no-one is ever going to convince me that the F-22 is ONLY slightly more expensive than Tiffy. I am talking R&D and the cost of ownership, maintaining that all important RCS. I don`t care how R&D was absorbed, it was money spent, a fraction of the F-22 budget has been spent on Typhoon.
You get what you pay for, that`s why the F-22 is a superior fighter. Please don`t get started on unit price, that is only one aspect of owning, flying and maintaining a jet in terms of costs. Yes, the F-22 would be cheaper if the air force bought more, but it ain`t. Live with that, it`s a damn expensive jet. You pay handsomely for the capability, we can`t afford to do that without emasculating the rest of our military.

You can't be convinced that you NEVER factor in R&D to the end user cost? Okay, but its flat out wrong to do so. Point in fact, as you said, the Raptor is only slightly more expensive than the Typhoon. All the numbers are there, just look at them. RCS expense is NOT a factor with the 22...trust me...its not a Nighthawk.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

checksixx wrote:

You can't be convinced that you NEVER factor in R&D to the end user cost? Okay, but its flat out wrong to do so. Point in fact, as you said, the Raptor is only slightly more expensive than the Typhoon. All the numbers are there, just look at them. RCS expense is NOT a factor with the 22...trust me...its not a Nighthawk.

Let's get the numbers out and you guys can decide what is cheap and what is not.

The F-22 is currently about $130 million a piece to build. Realistically even at full line capacity is is probably ~$100 million. That is the cost of extra Raptors for the USAF. Period. R&D is spent and non-refundable.

The build cost of a Typhoon (excluding R&D) is probably around
$60~65 million. That'll be the cost of additional orders by the member nations who originally paid for its development.

So yes, the Raptor is about twice as expensive. But no, it is not astronomically expensive to buy more Raptors. It is only very expensiv compared to the build cost of the F-35 which is around 1/3 as much.

I posted this about a year ago, as several people seem to forget about exchange rates. The figure from the RAF's website from an article dated April 2006 was a unit cost for a Tranche II being 64.8 Million UK Pounds - allowing for the exchange rate at the time of GBP1.00/USD1.85 then that figure equates to just under USD120 (at today's rate then those figures are virtually equal!)

Which aircraft had the larger R&D budget is irrelevant in any discussion regarding capabilities; and on that note both nations fund and account for R&D in very different ways (far too much state funding in the aviation/military manufacturing in Europe) so any comparison is damned hard, and that's assuming you can get accurate data in the first place.

I do not have any reliable information on the operational footprint on the Tiffie, and sure as hell don't for the F22. I'm sure some aspects, such as those related to stealth techs are still nicely hidden way, but I'd defer to people closer than I to comment (Check, Andy...?).

Ultimately, the Tiffie is the second best production aircraft in the world at the moment, but unlike the F22 (and eventually the F35) it does not offer a huge leap over the latest variants of 4th gen aircraft - and don't forget that it is logical to expect key components from the Tiffie to be fitted on other aircraft. A block 60+ F16 with all the extras does not offer significantly less capability to a Tranche II Tiffie, and I have few doubts that the F16's development has finished yet - to take one random example, who thinks that the Meteor will not be adapted for the F16's large number of foreign users?

Example: From a mission planners perspective, a strike on a target defended by a modern IADS (including its own CAP) using Tiffies would not be very different than one using late block F15/16/18's, and against a 'worst case' IADS the predicted losses would only be slightly better than with a force entirely made up of the 'teens'. Try the same mission with a handful of F22s (or speculatively, the F35) thrown into the mix and no current target is safe, and you would likely get away with minimal losses.

As you can see and unlike most Brits, I am not totally enthralled over our commitment to the Tiffie, but we are in a position where our combat air fleet does desperately need replacing (the reliability of Tornados for the last decade is farcical for example), and following the political, job creating decisions made 10-20 years ago it is now logical to proceed with it procurement. When the F35 is fielded we will have a well balanced and capable force, but as it always the case with the budget strapped UK armed forces it will not be as capable as it could have been for the cost.

Right, I need to get back to work - this was a long tea break!

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Snypa` wrote:

Only the US can afford pure air to air thoroughbreds that will do very little bomb dropping, it certainly is NOT a mission Raptor pilots want to do.

Check` wrote:

Why you would assume that is very strange...not only do they not mind that mission...they brag about what they can do with a JDAM

I refer to Lt.Col Showers comments on Fencecheck where he feels that he wants to maintain the air superiority role for the F-22 and leave the ground attack job for the F-35, not representative for the whole F-22 community I admit, an influential figure though I think you would agree given his new command.

Snypa` wrote:

The value of such an aircraft in a post war world where the enemy has an RPG strapped across his shoulder instead of being strapped into a PAK-FA, IS questioned, along with the validity of the F-22 in 2007...although it is recognised as the excellent fighter it is.

Check` wrote:

Anyone questioning the need for the F-22 isn't working in an F-15 unit.

Fair enough, I personally agree! I was talking about the views of aircrew on the other forum.

Snypa` wrote:

On price, no-one is ever going to convince me that the F-22 is ONLY slightly more expensive than Tiffy. I am talking R&D and the cost of ownership, maintaining that all important RCS. I don`t care how R&D was absorbed, it was money spent, a fraction of the F-22 budget has been spent on Typhoon.
You get what you pay for, that`s why the F-22 is a superior fighter. Please don`t get started on unit price, that is only one aspect of owning, flying and maintaining a jet in terms of costs. Yes, the F-22 would be cheaper if the air force bought more, but it ain`t. Live with that, it`s a damn expensive jet. You pay handsomely for the capability, we can`t afford to do that without emasculating the rest of our military.

Check` wrote:

You can't be convinced that you NEVER factor in R&D to the end user cost? Okay, but its flat out wrong to do so. Point in fact, as you said, the Raptor is only slightly more expensive than the Typhoon. All the numbers are there, just look at them. RCS expense is NOT a factor with the 22...trust me...its not a Nighthawk.

Check`, what I was getting at was the TOTAL cost of the F-22 program from the bottom up. From concept to flying at squadron level with 183 jets. How much did it cost the tax payer?

$69.7 billion estimated total program price tag for 183 F-22s` US expenditure. Globalsecurity.org.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 2-cost.htm

$37.8 billion estimated total program cost for 232 Typhoon for RAF, UK expenditure. Same site. That`s half the money for 50 more aircraft.

We couldn`t afford to build the F-22 from the bottom up in Europe.

Apologies for the RCS care comment in service, I remember reading that the F-22 skin requires much less care than the F-117 and that there are some pretty neat methods to keep a health check on each individual jet`s RCS status other than putting it in front of a radar test rig before every flight.

Laughing

Whoa! I promised myself that I would NEVER get into the cost thing of F-22 on this site! It upsets a LOT of people but there is no getting away from it, a $100 million+ a copy jet IS expensive, but you get a lot for the money!

EDIT: shadowhawk27, I get a unit price for RAF Typhoon at $70 million, that`s DOLLARS not pounds, the F-22 @ $120 million a copy. Don`t forget that RAF versions have ALL the Gucci kit so will be more expensive than a German or Italian Typhoon.

Can anybody get a DEFINITIVE price tag for each jet or is that an impossible dream Cool

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Remember also that the old old plan for F-22 was 750 or so aircraft. Given that plan in 2005 dollars is about $59million each. And yes I don't make to much of a big deal on fighter cost either as once you add up all the different colors of money/budget sources, you can pad the numbers any way you want. 200 of that 750 being LOEXCOM approved export variants to our closest allies.... I could deal with.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

snypa777 wrote:

Can anybody get a DEFINITIVE price tag for each jet or is that an impossible dream Cool

I can get it for the Raptor:

F-22A 2007 (20) Aircraft Flyaway Unit Cost: $137.7 Million

Keep in mind that the price per airframe would have been much lower had the boys in Washington left the program alone...but now with this advance procurement payment crap (muliti-year), you have to factor in an additional $684.9 Million for that which of course actually drives up airframe cost.

For the hater's out there:

F-22A Total Unit Flyaway Cost with R&D factored in: $157.7 Million

The numbers are public folks, there are no secrets here....Check

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Interesting "thrashing" of the Typhoon