F-16 Block 60 versus EF-2000 Typhoon
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 632
- Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
- Location: Romania
Guys, all this talk about RCS is useless. The fact that NOBODY mentioned so far in any thread about the RCS is that radars are just as different as the various planes. There is no standard, no reference point. It's not like they all took those planes to the same lab and measured them with the same equipments.
The same plane might have let's say an RCS of 2 square meters for an APG-79/80 and from the same distance and aspect it might have an RCS of say 1 square meter if you use a MiG-21 radar.
Saying that plane "A" has an RCS "B" is not enough. What kind of radar was used to calculate this RCS? Under which environmental conditions (altitude, distance...) was it measured? Furthermore, in which band and frequency did the radar work?
...hope you got my point. There's just too many variables.
The same plane might have let's say an RCS of 2 square meters for an APG-79/80 and from the same distance and aspect it might have an RCS of say 1 square meter if you use a MiG-21 radar.
Saying that plane "A" has an RCS "B" is not enough. What kind of radar was used to calculate this RCS? Under which environmental conditions (altitude, distance...) was it measured? Furthermore, in which band and frequency did the radar work?
...hope you got my point. There's just too many variables.
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
- Active Member
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 23:49
I think I should deploy a cm-wave-weather radar at the next airshow and make my own estimates. 
Btw. It was said, that F-35 best stealth performance is in military x-band. If that is true, this is a small section of the spectrum.
I'm still wondering, how such low RCS (<0,1m²) can be achieved. I know from an incident where a wooden sailplane was detected from a civil surveilance radar at 150 miles.
Btw. It was said, that F-35 best stealth performance is in military x-band. If that is true, this is a small section of the spectrum.
I'm still wondering, how such low RCS (<0,1m²) can be achieved. I know from an incident where a wooden sailplane was detected from a civil surveilance radar at 150 miles.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 535
- Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14
The target of F-117, Baghdad's city, had the highest density of AAAs and SAMs at that time, and F-117 was the fighter allowed to attack the target in Baghdad's city, so I don't think it had SEAD aids from other fighters at that time.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-117.htm
The stealth fighter attacked the most heavily fortified targets during Desert Storm (January-February 1991) , and it was the only coalition jet allowed to strike targets inside Baghdad's city limits. The F-117A, which normally packs a payload of two 2,000-pound GBU-27 laser-guided bombs, destroyed and crippled Iraqi electrical power stations, military headquarters, communications sites, air defense operation centers, airfields, ammo bunkers, and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons plants.
Although only 36 stealth fighters were deployed in Desert Storm and accounted for 2.5 percent of the total force of 1,900 fighters and bombers, they flew more than a third of the bombing runs on the first day of the war. In all during Desert Storm, the stealth fighter conducted more than 1,250 sorties, dropped more than 2,000 tons of bombs, and flew more than 6,900 hours. More than 3,000 antiaircraft guns and 60 surface-to-air missile batteries protected the city, but despite this seemingly impenetrable shield, the Nighthawks owned the skies over the city and, for that matter, the country. The stealth fighter, which is coated with a secret, radar-absorbent material, operated over Iraq and Kuwait with impunity, and was unscathed by enemy guns.
========================================================================
http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/gulf.htm#G ... Chronology
The lost of Tornados:
Day1:
1 x British GR-1 Tornado on a Runway Strike in Iraq
- based with the Composite Squadron at Tabouk
- Downed after dawn (in daylight) on a 8 x aircraft Loft Bomb Attack against Ar Rumaylah Southwest Airfield
- Carrying 8 x Mk-83 1000 lbs Bombs
- 200 ft ALG, 600 kts, 4 miles from target, 4-G pop-up, 1500 ft release, pull towards egress tightly and down
- After drop, heading outbound HIT by Shoulder fired IR SAM.
- GR1 ZD791/BG, No XV Squadron.
UK GR-1 Tornado was lost on JP233 attack on runway
- Lost during the evening of the 17th January
- JP233 atatcks against Tallil (twice), Shaibah, Ubaydah Bin Al Jarrah, Wadi Al Khirr, and Al Asad (2nd attack)
- GR1 ZA392/EK, No 617 Squadron, No 3 aircraft in flight of four
- This crew had just completed their attack against Al Shaibah when 40 to 50 seconds into the egress a fire-ball was seen on the ground.
- no other flight members saw enemy fire, assumed he hit the ground.
- this was the only Tornado that was killed delivering JP-233 and the cause appears to be disorientation, almost a minute after the attack.
Italian GR1 Tornado downed
- conditions were not discussed but believed to be Ground Fi
Day4:
Saudi GR-1 Tornado downed by AAA fire over Iraq
- attacking West Tallil Airfield with CBU's
UK GR-1 Tornado from 20 Squadron, suffered control problems soon after takeoff from Tabuk. Jettisoned bomb load on a Saudi range and returned to base but control problems prevented landing, crew ejected and are OK.
- GR1 ZD893/AG, based at Tabuk
Day 5:
UK GR-1 Tornado from No. 31 Squadron
- Eight aircraft low altitude loft-bombing attack with MK-83 1000 lbs bombs against a radar site at Ar Rutbah.
- no clear indication of why the aircraft was lost, no witnesses
- GR-1 ZA467/"FF", based out of Tabuk
- became the 4th combat loss, both crew members MIA and never found
- possibly NVG problems, AAA night flashes might have caused distractions
- suspected that they might have impacted with ground on break maneuver
- bodies still not recovered
In first week:
RAF Tornado's flew around 300 sorties during the first four days of STORM and had 4 x downed aircraft in combat with (6) crewmen MIA.
- loss rate would be 7.5 losses/1000 sorties.
- RAF 4% of coalition air and suffered 26% of losses.
- 3 x downed to non combat causes since SHIELD.
========================================================
Day 8:
UK GR-1 Tornado recovered after serious damage from SAM's
- GR-1 ZD843/"DH", based at Muharraq, Bahrain
- crew almost lost it after the jet rolled inverted when hit by a SAM
- also had engine problems and fuel leaks, holes in tailplane
- recovered on a wing and a prayer
Day22:
UK GR-1 Tornado from No. 27 Squadron
- based at Muharraq Air Base, Bahrain
- ZD717
- mission to suppress AAA fire around Al Alili Airfield, West of Basra with 4 x 1000 Lbs LGB's for Buccaneer Laser Work with Pave Spike, 2 x AIM-9L's, Skyshadow ECM Pod, and Boz Pod with Flares & Radar Decoys.
- Aircraft downed in Baklawiya, 12 miles west of Fallouja
- became the 6th and final combat loss for UK GR-1's
- from Roland SAM
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-117.htm
The stealth fighter attacked the most heavily fortified targets during Desert Storm (January-February 1991) , and it was the only coalition jet allowed to strike targets inside Baghdad's city limits. The F-117A, which normally packs a payload of two 2,000-pound GBU-27 laser-guided bombs, destroyed and crippled Iraqi electrical power stations, military headquarters, communications sites, air defense operation centers, airfields, ammo bunkers, and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons plants.
Although only 36 stealth fighters were deployed in Desert Storm and accounted for 2.5 percent of the total force of 1,900 fighters and bombers, they flew more than a third of the bombing runs on the first day of the war. In all during Desert Storm, the stealth fighter conducted more than 1,250 sorties, dropped more than 2,000 tons of bombs, and flew more than 6,900 hours. More than 3,000 antiaircraft guns and 60 surface-to-air missile batteries protected the city, but despite this seemingly impenetrable shield, the Nighthawks owned the skies over the city and, for that matter, the country. The stealth fighter, which is coated with a secret, radar-absorbent material, operated over Iraq and Kuwait with impunity, and was unscathed by enemy guns.
========================================================================
http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/gulf.htm#G ... Chronology
The lost of Tornados:
Day1:
1 x British GR-1 Tornado on a Runway Strike in Iraq
- based with the Composite Squadron at Tabouk
- Downed after dawn (in daylight) on a 8 x aircraft Loft Bomb Attack against Ar Rumaylah Southwest Airfield
- Carrying 8 x Mk-83 1000 lbs Bombs
- 200 ft ALG, 600 kts, 4 miles from target, 4-G pop-up, 1500 ft release, pull towards egress tightly and down
- After drop, heading outbound HIT by Shoulder fired IR SAM.
- GR1 ZD791/BG, No XV Squadron.
UK GR-1 Tornado was lost on JP233 attack on runway
- Lost during the evening of the 17th January
- JP233 atatcks against Tallil (twice), Shaibah, Ubaydah Bin Al Jarrah, Wadi Al Khirr, and Al Asad (2nd attack)
- GR1 ZA392/EK, No 617 Squadron, No 3 aircraft in flight of four
- This crew had just completed their attack against Al Shaibah when 40 to 50 seconds into the egress a fire-ball was seen on the ground.
- no other flight members saw enemy fire, assumed he hit the ground.
- this was the only Tornado that was killed delivering JP-233 and the cause appears to be disorientation, almost a minute after the attack.
Italian GR1 Tornado downed
- conditions were not discussed but believed to be Ground Fi
Day4:
Saudi GR-1 Tornado downed by AAA fire over Iraq
- attacking West Tallil Airfield with CBU's
UK GR-1 Tornado from 20 Squadron, suffered control problems soon after takeoff from Tabuk. Jettisoned bomb load on a Saudi range and returned to base but control problems prevented landing, crew ejected and are OK.
- GR1 ZD893/AG, based at Tabuk
Day 5:
UK GR-1 Tornado from No. 31 Squadron
- Eight aircraft low altitude loft-bombing attack with MK-83 1000 lbs bombs against a radar site at Ar Rutbah.
- no clear indication of why the aircraft was lost, no witnesses
- GR-1 ZA467/"FF", based out of Tabuk
- became the 4th combat loss, both crew members MIA and never found
- possibly NVG problems, AAA night flashes might have caused distractions
- suspected that they might have impacted with ground on break maneuver
- bodies still not recovered
In first week:
RAF Tornado's flew around 300 sorties during the first four days of STORM and had 4 x downed aircraft in combat with (6) crewmen MIA.
- loss rate would be 7.5 losses/1000 sorties.
- RAF 4% of coalition air and suffered 26% of losses.
- 3 x downed to non combat causes since SHIELD.
========================================================
Day 8:
UK GR-1 Tornado recovered after serious damage from SAM's
- GR-1 ZD843/"DH", based at Muharraq, Bahrain
- crew almost lost it after the jet rolled inverted when hit by a SAM
- also had engine problems and fuel leaks, holes in tailplane
- recovered on a wing and a prayer
Day22:
UK GR-1 Tornado from No. 27 Squadron
- based at Muharraq Air Base, Bahrain
- ZD717
- mission to suppress AAA fire around Al Alili Airfield, West of Basra with 4 x 1000 Lbs LGB's for Buccaneer Laser Work with Pave Spike, 2 x AIM-9L's, Skyshadow ECM Pod, and Boz Pod with Flares & Radar Decoys.
- Aircraft downed in Baklawiya, 12 miles west of Fallouja
- became the 6th and final combat loss for UK GR-1's
- from Roland SAM
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 535
- Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14
Radar with long wave-lenth (cm or even decameter......) can detect LO fighters at a much longer range than X-band radars, right.
However, the longer the wave-length of radar is, the less accurate it will be, and up to now, the radar with long wave-lenth still can't be used for guiding missiles, and that is why the fire-control radars and active-seekers in the world today are still X-band.
If you use a radar with long wave-lenth, it is true that you may find the existence of LO fighters at a much longer distance, but then??? You still can't attack them at that distance.
However, the longer the wave-length of radar is, the less accurate it will be, and up to now, the radar with long wave-lenth still can't be used for guiding missiles, and that is why the fire-control radars and active-seekers in the world today are still X-band.
If you use a radar with long wave-lenth, it is true that you may find the existence of LO fighters at a much longer distance, but then??? You still can't attack them at that distance.
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 10 May 2006, 09:02
elp wrote:Worrying about RCS as a major factor on a legacy jet is a fools errand. It is only there to help some and is not a be_all_end_all. Especially since stores will be hung. Coating and methods are only a small help on legacy jets.
The Eurofighter was supposed to be very stealthy with air to air missiles. Obviously not in the same league as the F-22 and F-35 but still it is disappointing and this RCS figure is bad for a new fighter.
- Active Member
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 23:49
X-Band is 8-12GHZ, modern Radrs, like Tphoon use I,J Band (8-20GHZ theoretically). J-band is good for long range, but unadequate for close encounter (what ever this means) . For WVR combat up to 25km EF can rely on PIRATE and IRS-T.
I think in net-centric warfare even a stealthy aircraft can be detected at long ranges. Stealth is an advantage against less potent opponents.
But what you gonna do, if your aircraft lacks speed, acceleration and turning performance in a scenario where both sides have strong airforces?
I think in net-centric warfare even a stealthy aircraft can be detected at long ranges. Stealth is an advantage against less potent opponents.
But what you gonna do, if your aircraft lacks speed, acceleration and turning performance in a scenario where both sides have strong airforces?
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 29
- Joined: 16 Mar 2006, 16:13
Hi guys,
I would like you to sent opinions and info you got on this subject. Eurofighter is a 4.5 generation platform and avionics, F16 BLK 60 a third generation airframe but i guess comparable to a 4.5 generation aircraft avionics. By that time the F16 blk 60 radar APG 80 AESA is superior than the Eurofighters. Eurofighter a twin engine fighter giving thrust of 18000 kg comparing to the f16 14500kg. Maximum take of for the f16 blk 60 is about 23500kg about the same with the EFA. F16 blk 60 also has conformal fuel tanks that gives them a range comparable to the F15. EFA not confirmed for conformal fuel tanks and its internal fuel about 4900kg. Ending the costs.. EFA 85mn F16 BLK 60, 65mn Cheers
I would like you to sent opinions and info you got on this subject. Eurofighter is a 4.5 generation platform and avionics, F16 BLK 60 a third generation airframe but i guess comparable to a 4.5 generation aircraft avionics. By that time the F16 blk 60 radar APG 80 AESA is superior than the Eurofighters. Eurofighter a twin engine fighter giving thrust of 18000 kg comparing to the f16 14500kg. Maximum take of for the f16 blk 60 is about 23500kg about the same with the EFA. F16 blk 60 also has conformal fuel tanks that gives them a range comparable to the F15. EFA not confirmed for conformal fuel tanks and its internal fuel about 4900kg. Ending the costs.. EFA 85mn F16 BLK 60, 65mn Cheers
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 535
- Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14
With the help of AESA techonology, APG-80 should have better performance than CAPTOR in system's life, logistic cost, LPI, and handling multiple modes / missions at same time right now. These advantages might not be changed until the incorporation of AESA techonology to Captor radar (CAPTOR-E) after 2011~2012.
However, according to the information released by USAF, LM, and RAF, it seems that the detection and tracking range of CAPTOR is still better than APG-80's.
The comparison between F-16 Blk60 and EF-2000 is somewhat like the comparison between Rafale and EF-2000 ~ The former (F-16 Blk60 and Rafale) is better for the missions of multirole, while the later's (EF-2000) performance now is concentrated at A-A mission. And the A-G capability of EF-2000 won't be fully explored untill 2012 (The A-G weapons that EF-2000 can use right now are: (1) BK27 gun, and (2) 500 or 1,000 Ib LGB).
The maximal thrust of EF-2000 in peace time is 9,185 kg * 2, while it is said that it could be increased to 9,690~10,205 kg * 2 at war time with the cost of shortening of engine's life.
The maximal thrust of F-16 Bk60 now is around 14,500 kg * 1, while it is said that its maximal potential is 15,420 kg * 1, and can be further upgraded to 16,783 kg * 1 if necessary.
The internal fuel capacity of EF-2000 today is around 6,250 liters
However, according to the information released by USAF, LM, and RAF, it seems that the detection and tracking range of CAPTOR is still better than APG-80's.
The comparison between F-16 Blk60 and EF-2000 is somewhat like the comparison between Rafale and EF-2000 ~ The former (F-16 Blk60 and Rafale) is better for the missions of multirole, while the later's (EF-2000) performance now is concentrated at A-A mission. And the A-G capability of EF-2000 won't be fully explored untill 2012 (The A-G weapons that EF-2000 can use right now are: (1) BK27 gun, and (2) 500 or 1,000 Ib LGB).
The maximal thrust of EF-2000 in peace time is 9,185 kg * 2, while it is said that it could be increased to 9,690~10,205 kg * 2 at war time with the cost of shortening of engine's life.
The maximal thrust of F-16 Bk60 now is around 14,500 kg * 1, while it is said that its maximal potential is 15,420 kg * 1, and can be further upgraded to 16,783 kg * 1 if necessary.
The internal fuel capacity of EF-2000 today is around 6,250 liters
- Active Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 08:25
When comparing the thrust of the two planes, one must remember that the EF weights 12500 kg and the blk. 60 some 9500. So the T/W ratio is ~ the same. Also don't forget the Falcon Edge suite considred by many the best EW suite in the world, better than the latest version of the ALQ 135 (F 15E). Compared to tjis one, the EF's DASS is patetic
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 999
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 10:58
Cru, in europe the DASS is considered the best EW in the world... apples and oranges... and its certainly not pathetic as you imply.
Its a further developed deriretive of the EW suite found in the Tornado ECR... which until DASS came along was the worlds best EW suite.... its not just for any reason why the ECR is the SEAD platform of choice in NATO operations! Even if its standard loadout is just 2 HARMs.... (compared to a standard loadout of 7 alarms on raf aircraft)
Its a further developed deriretive of the EW suite found in the Tornado ECR... which until DASS came along was the worlds best EW suite.... its not just for any reason why the ECR is the SEAD platform of choice in NATO operations! Even if its standard loadout is just 2 HARMs.... (compared to a standard loadout of 7 alarms on raf aircraft)
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 535
- Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14
1. The range of empty weight of the single-seat EF-2000 is around 10,995 ~ 11,150 kg right now (http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/).
2. As for the empty weight of F-16E, according to the information in this web-site (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html), is near 10 tonnes (22,000 Ibs).
3. Therefore, when the both fighters equip the same percentage of internal fuel and the same amount of external A-A loadings, the T/W ratio with A/Bs of EF-2000 will be roughly 6~10% higher than F-16E's, while the T/W ratio with Max. Mil of EF-2000 will be roughly 18~23% higher than F-16E's in the peacetime right now.
4. The main components of the EWS for F-22A, F-35, and EF-2000 today are all provided by BAES, and personally, I don't think that Englishmen will put a EWS on their own NG fighter which is much worse than the EWS they offer to the new American fighters......................
2. As for the empty weight of F-16E, according to the information in this web-site (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html), is near 10 tonnes (22,000 Ibs).
3. Therefore, when the both fighters equip the same percentage of internal fuel and the same amount of external A-A loadings, the T/W ratio with A/Bs of EF-2000 will be roughly 6~10% higher than F-16E's, while the T/W ratio with Max. Mil of EF-2000 will be roughly 18~23% higher than F-16E's in the peacetime right now.
4. The main components of the EWS for F-22A, F-35, and EF-2000 today are all provided by BAES, and personally, I don't think that Englishmen will put a EWS on their own NG fighter which is much worse than the EWS they offer to the new American fighters......................
- Active Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 08:25
Believe me it is. In a recent article, an EF offical said proudly that in the near future, they will start investigating crosshair jamming techniques. Investigating! Something that an ALQ 135 (F 15 Eagle) or ALQ 165 (US Hornet and SKorean F 16) can do for years.Cru, in europe the DASS is considered the best EW in the world... apples and oranges... and iCru, in europe the DASS is considered the best EW in the world... apples and oranges... and its certainly not pathetic as you imply.
EF only 11 tons? In their dreams!. The range of empty weight of the single-seat EF-2000 is around 10,995 ~ 11,150 kg right now (http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/).
2. As for the empty weight of F-16E, according to the information in this web-site (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html), is near 10 tonnes (22,000 Ibs).
Re-do your math, but with 12.5 tons for the EF.... 3Therefore, when the both fighters equip the same percentage of internal fuel and the same amount of external A-A loadings, the T/W ratio with A/Bs of EF-2000 will be roughly 6~10% higher than F-16E's, while the T/W ratio with Max. Mil of EF-2000 will be roughly 18~23% higher than F-16E's in the peacetime right now.
Young man, the ALR 94 (one of the most sensitive system on that plane) of the F 22 is indeed made by BAE, but by BAE North America (former Sanders Corporation) located in Nashua, New Hampshire. Did you know that when US Govt. gave its accord for the aquisition, BAE had to agree that no non-US personel will have acces to some selected technologies? Sorry to dissipoint you, but no EW subsystem of the F 22, is made outside US.4. The main components of the EWS for F-22A, F-35, and EF-2000 today are all provided by BAES, and personally, I don't think that Englishmen will put a EWS on their own NG fighter which is much worse than the EWS they offer to the new American fighters......................
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 999
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 10:58
Cru, care to share this article as what the DASS can and cannot do like every ECM pod is HIGHLY CLASSIFIED.
And what you are probably referring to is a system called Cross-Eye which is a new specialist type of jamming developed by the Italians. Which is going to be added to DASS in the near future. Thats the only upgrade or capability to the system that has been publically mentioned.
Also your weight for EF? If you check all OFFICIAL sources its 11 tons... thats from the official website and the official figure not one of the other figures bounding round the internet from other "sources"... people should go to university there they are taught what to trust on the net and what not to.
http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/
Knowing what BAE have got up to in the past I wouldn't be half surprised that they have managed to have a look at the technology though... I read in an article the other week that the F-35's EW suite is developed from taking the great bits of DASS and combinging it with the F-22s great bits to make a new highly advanced EWR suite.
Andy
And what you are probably referring to is a system called Cross-Eye which is a new specialist type of jamming developed by the Italians. Which is going to be added to DASS in the near future. Thats the only upgrade or capability to the system that has been publically mentioned.
Also your weight for EF? If you check all OFFICIAL sources its 11 tons... thats from the official website and the official figure not one of the other figures bounding round the internet from other "sources"... people should go to university there they are taught what to trust on the net and what not to.
http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/
Knowing what BAE have got up to in the past I wouldn't be half surprised that they have managed to have a look at the technology though... I read in an article the other week that the F-35's EW suite is developed from taking the great bits of DASS and combinging it with the F-22s great bits to make a new highly advanced EWR suite.
Andy
- Active Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 08:25
Don't ask me for a link to that article-- I did't figure that I'll need it. Some EF official declared something like " we will start to investigate crosseye jamming for future integration". Also, crosseye is not an (Italian??) system, is a jamming technique, that require two separated emitter and it is one of the few effective ways to fool a monopulse seeker. US had it for years on its top EW suites.Cru, care to share this article as what the DASS can and cannot do like every ECM pod is HIGHLY CLASSIFIED.
And what you are probably referring to is a system called Cross-Eye which is a new specialist type of jamming developed by the Italians. Which is going to be added to DASS in the near future. Thats the only upgrade or capability to the system that has been publically mentioned.
Really?Also your weight for EF? If you check all OFFICIAL sources its 11 tons... thats from the official website and the official figure not one of the other figures bounding round the internet from other "sources"... people should go to university there they are taught what to trust on the net and what not to.
http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/
All official sources graciously omit to mention the empy weight of the EF:http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html(that the main user, by the way...) while the main contractor (http://www.baesystems.com/programmes/airsystems/typhoon4.htm) conveniently mention only the take-off weight... Look, I won't start a dsipute about some plane on a F 16 forum. What I saw on many sites is that the EF become fatter than initially expected
No way. Is UK would sneak in some sensitive technology (classified as such by DoD) of BAE System North America, it will result in frozing (i.e. confiscating the assets!). The US Govt. gave its blessing for BAE to buy Sanders for its parent company (LM) only conditioned by "firewalls" between what BAES NA will produce for US and what is produced for export. As for EW suite of the F 35 being based on DASS, that's a joke and not even a good one ...Knowing what BAE have got up to in the past I wouldn't be half surprised that they have managed to have a look at the technology though... I read in an article the other week that the F-35's EW suite is developed from taking the great bits of DASS and combinging it with the F-22s great bits to make a new highly advanced EWR suite.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 999
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 10:58
Right I have spent the morning doing some heavy reading into it all.
Cross-eye is installed on some Typhoons. Due to the unique contracting, each operator has the opportunity to pick and choose what equipment was installed as part of their individual DASS requirements. At the current time, only Italian aircraft have cross-eye. The RAF have in its place a TRD system along with LWR, but are currently looking at installing cross-eye to the RAF DASS system as part of their tranche 2 order. The most advanced version of DASS probably currently ordered is for the Saudi aircraft which are based on the RAF spec. It is however a more advanced version of cross-eye than the system you are talking about, and has been developed by the Italians and patented in 2003. It took more in-depth research to dig that out.
Oh and on the weight, the RAF don't list any weights for any of its fast jet fleet, I checked with the webmaster who I happen to know and he confirmed its not their policy. But an omission by BAE doesn't show its different, the Eurofighter site is the only site with an official figure, and its the figure used by Janes.etc not media reports of it being 12500...
At the end of the day, the F-16 is at the end of its upgrade path with the block 60 showing the definitive version. The Typhoon represents massive upgrade potential for the future. However, currently the Block 60 wins by miles in the air to ground arena until the a2g suite is completed on Typhoon. However in the a2a arena and general manouveurability.etc this is where the Typhoon is far superior, with the Captor being more powerful than the APG-80, greater manouverability both instantaneous and sustained partially down to less draggy appendicies such as CFT. And with the further addition of Meteor.... and a heavy a2g swing-role loadout in the near future the Typhoon can be considered superior to the block 60 in every way. Afterall a loadout of 2 wvr, 4 bvr, 1 fuel, 2 sead, 4 JDAM or for CAS 18 brimstone, 2 wvr, 4 bvr, 1 fuel isn't anything to be scoffed at.
I think a good addage here is to think back 20 years or so... the F-16 was just entering service with great a2a capability but a very limited A2g system. At the same time, the F-4 was an excellent a2a platform but also a brilliant bomb truck however being at the end of its upgrade path. Now apply that to now... the early F-16 is the Typhoon...and the F-4 is the F-16.
Andy
EDIT:
Reading on BAE's website the F-35 EW suite is not only being developed in the US (its been test flown on a T-39) but its also being partially produced at their Preston facility; with the tails being produced alongside the typhoon line at Salmesbury. So you can bet there is some DASS technology in it.
Cross-eye is installed on some Typhoons. Due to the unique contracting, each operator has the opportunity to pick and choose what equipment was installed as part of their individual DASS requirements. At the current time, only Italian aircraft have cross-eye. The RAF have in its place a TRD system along with LWR, but are currently looking at installing cross-eye to the RAF DASS system as part of their tranche 2 order. The most advanced version of DASS probably currently ordered is for the Saudi aircraft which are based on the RAF spec. It is however a more advanced version of cross-eye than the system you are talking about, and has been developed by the Italians and patented in 2003. It took more in-depth research to dig that out.
Oh and on the weight, the RAF don't list any weights for any of its fast jet fleet, I checked with the webmaster who I happen to know and he confirmed its not their policy. But an omission by BAE doesn't show its different, the Eurofighter site is the only site with an official figure, and its the figure used by Janes.etc not media reports of it being 12500...
At the end of the day, the F-16 is at the end of its upgrade path with the block 60 showing the definitive version. The Typhoon represents massive upgrade potential for the future. However, currently the Block 60 wins by miles in the air to ground arena until the a2g suite is completed on Typhoon. However in the a2a arena and general manouveurability.etc this is where the Typhoon is far superior, with the Captor being more powerful than the APG-80, greater manouverability both instantaneous and sustained partially down to less draggy appendicies such as CFT. And with the further addition of Meteor.... and a heavy a2g swing-role loadout in the near future the Typhoon can be considered superior to the block 60 in every way. Afterall a loadout of 2 wvr, 4 bvr, 1 fuel, 2 sead, 4 JDAM or for CAS 18 brimstone, 2 wvr, 4 bvr, 1 fuel isn't anything to be scoffed at.
I think a good addage here is to think back 20 years or so... the F-16 was just entering service with great a2a capability but a very limited A2g system. At the same time, the F-4 was an excellent a2a platform but also a brilliant bomb truck however being at the end of its upgrade path. Now apply that to now... the early F-16 is the Typhoon...and the F-4 is the F-16.
Andy
EDIT:
Reading on BAE's website the F-35 EW suite is not only being developed in the US (its been test flown on a T-39) but its also being partially produced at their Preston facility; with the tails being produced alongside the typhoon line at Salmesbury. So you can bet there is some DASS technology in it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests