F-16 Block 60 versus EF-2000 Typhoon

wohlstad · by **wohlstad** » 29 Jun 2006, 05:18

toan wrote:1.
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......................

Well, it's actually the other way around. The "BAE" US is actually the former Sanders which was the main airborne EW house in the US. BAE purchased it in the 90s. Thus for all purposes, the BAE in US remains an American company with (I suspect) strong firewalls separating its UK business.

when it comes to EW I suspect the UK is not even in same league.

cru · by **cru** » 29 Jun 2006, 06:18

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

That the EF is an over-all superior design compared to the Viper, there is no doubt; As about the captor being more powerfull than the APG 80, it doesn't matter; APG 80 is in another league.

Dilbert · by **Dilbert** » 19 Jul 2006, 16:01

cru wrote: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.

Are you sure about this? There was an article in which USAF personnel were lamenting that the EW system of the F-16E/F going to the UAE was more advanced than anything they had, specifically because it had this type of jamming. They called it "revolutionary" because it's the first in the world with "cross-pole" jamming (an almost trivially equivalent variation on cross-eye).

The F-15 has a very old ECM system that times-shares the same tiny, non-directive RWR antennas, and the F-18 system depends on towed decoys. I'd doubt rather highly that either system is capable of cross-eye. What's your source?

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 19 Jul 2006, 17:40

I read recently that Captor's max range is a little better than 180km. An improvement over the Tornado's radar. Read in Combat Aircraft's July issue when they did an article on Italy's Typhoons.

There is no way the APG-80 has less performance than the CAPTOR. Being an AESA alone gives it numerous advantages.

Scorpion1alpha · by **Scorpion1alpha** » 21 Jul 2006, 06:57

Personally (and this is just me folks), I wouldn't coun't out the F-16 Block 60. It's the best of its breed.

JCSVT · by **JCSVT** » 22 Jul 2006, 03:31

Scorpion1alpha wrote:Personally (and this is just me folks), I wouldn't coun't out the F-16 Block 60. It's the best of its breed.

True but it's just not as good as the Typhoon especially in outright performance. The Typhoon is probably more aerodynamically sound (wing loading, TW ratio, etc.). The only thing I think is clearly better on the F-16 are it's AG abilities and it's radar, both of which should be matched by Tranche 3 Typhoons(if they ever get produced).

I would hope that the Typhoon is better than the F-16. If not, a couple of European countries just put a few bllion down the drain.

Here's a pic of a heavily loaded EF (6x LGB, 4x medium AAM, 2x AIM-9). Not too shabby.

boff180 · by **boff180** » 22 Jul 2006, 20:16

Also to point out, it displayed twice at Farnborough this week in that configuration and the experts that witnessed the display stated there was no noticable difference in performance between the clean display (RAF) and the heavy display (BAE)...

Personally I think that could be down to the highly advanced FCS and the thrust-weight ratio provided by the awesome EJ-200s.

Andy

Scorpion1alpha · by **Scorpion1alpha** » 23 Jul 2006, 01:03

JCSVT wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:Personally (and this is just me folks), I wouldn't coun't out the F-16 Block 60. It's the best of its breed.

True but it's just not as good as the Typhoon especially in outright performance. The Typhoon is probably more aerodynamically sound (wing loading, TW ratio, etc.). The only thing I think is clearly better on the F-16 are it's AG abilities and it's radar, both of which should be matched by Tranche 3 Typhoons(if they ever get produced).

I would hope that the Typhoon is better than the F-16. If not, a couple of European countries just put a few bllion down the drain.

Here's a pic of a heavily loaded EF (6x LGB, 4x medium AAM, 2x AIM-9). Not too shabby.

Allow me to clarify. In terms of sheer capabilities such as A2A and A2G and their related subcategories, don't count out the Block 60, even though it's based on a 30yr old design. The technolgies and refinements made and intergrated into it make it a very capable aircraft today and should not be taken lightly.

Yes, the Typhoon in just about every KPP will out perform the latest Vipers, as they are designed to. There is no doubt about that, nor should there be. If they have failed at this, then the Eurofighter team should have something to worry about.

snypa777 · by **snypa777** » 24 Jul 2006, 22:46

wohlstad wrote:
toan wrote:1.
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......................

Well, it's actually the other way around. The "BAE" US is actually the former Sanders which was the main airborne EW house in the US. BAE purchased it in the 90s. Thus for all purposes, the BAE in US remains an American company with (I suspect) strong firewalls separating its UK business.

when it comes to EW I suspect the UK is not even in same league.

Guys, I find it sad that some folk believe, for whatever reasons, that nobody outside of the US is capable of making ANYTHING :roll:

US avionics are excellent and are considered as such from what I have read on another forum frequented by a LOT of RAF aircrew. The exception to this is EW systems where they consider, in actual use, UK and Euro systems are just as good if not better. The Typhoons DASS, when fully realised, looks on paper at least very good. It remains to be seen how it will perform in use...Just because an aircraft has X,Y and Z system doesn`t mean it will work as advertised. I read some comments by some RAF aircrew that a RWR system on a particular (older) aircraft was next to useless!!! The system looked great on paper but was a POS in use...

Stop the willy waving, of which I have been guilty of! Saying that BAE UK has had zero input into the EW systems on the F-22 or F-35 is crazy. These silly "statements" are the same as saying there is no US involvement in the AIRBUS program....

toan · by **toan** » 17 Aug 2007, 16:14

skrip00 wrote:I read recently that Captor's max range is a little better than 180km. An improvement over the Tornado's radar. Read in Combat Aircraft's July issue when they did an article on Italy's Typhoons.

An interesting declaration from an Italian pilot about the radar detection capability of CAPTOR radar:

http://www.airpower.at/news07/0512_4stormo/index.html

Dazu zählt auch eine Sensorperformance welche die italienischen Piloten offensichtlich überaus positiv beurteilen. Und Nuzzo - Gunnery Instructor auf dem Tornado ADV - vergleicht: "Alleine die Radarreichweite habe sich im Vergleich zum Tornado ADV mehr als verdoppelt".

Translating from German to English (http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr):

"The radar (detective) range (of Eurofighter) is more than two times of the radar (detective) range of Tornado F3 ADV."

--> CAPTOR radar's (detective) range is more than two times of the radar (detective) range of AI.24 Foxhunter.

As for the detective range of AI.24 Foxhunter:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/Foxhunter.pdf

Original AI.24:
185km vs a bomber target, head on engagement.
130-140km vs a bomber target, tailchase engagement.
120-130km vs a fighter target, head on engagement.
75-90km vs a fighter target, tailchase engagement.

Upgrading AI.24 "Z standard" after 1988 (10~15%+ increase in detective range):
204~213km+ vs a bomber target, head on engagement.
143~161km+ vs a bomber target, tailchase engagement.
132~150km vs a fighter target, head on engagement.
83~104km vs a fighter target, tailchase engagement.

According to the data mentioned above, theoretically, the detective/tracking range of CAPTOR today should be:
408~426km+ vs a bomber target, head on engagement --> 245~300km+ in tracking range.
286~322km+ vs a bomber target, tailchase engagement --> 172~256km+ in tracking range.
264~300km+ vs a fighter target, head on engagement --> 158~210km+ in tracking range.
166~208km+ vs a fighter target, tailchase engagement --> 100~146km+ in tracking range.

As for the capability of detective/tracking range, the EF-2000 + CAPTOR today may be no less than the F-14D + APG-71..........

Fox1 · by **Fox1** » 22 Aug 2007, 08:10

Guys, it seems everyone is saying that the Eurofighter Typhoon seriously outclasses the F-16 in terms of maneuverability. But I just don't see it that way. Yes, the EF-2000 may have the CAPABILITY to pull more G's than the F-16. But the F-16 already pulls as many G's as most pilots can take. So without adding thrust vectoring to the Typhoon, I don't see how it is so superior as to "outclass" the F-16. Take a look at the following demonstration videos. I don't see the Eurofighter doing anything than the Block 50/53 Polish F-16 can't match move for move. If anything, I was actually more impressed with the F-16. That Polish pilot is really, really good. He must love pulling some serious G's. Anyway, here's the videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lToiUSH-Rus
Typhoon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNIcuLGC5eE
F-16

Again, I don't see much difference in maneuverability. They both look pretty comparable actually. Both roll better than any fighter I've ever seen, even the F-22. Either would be a nightmare for anyone to face within visual range.

Now, that's not to say that I think the F-16 and Typhoon are equals by any means. But I don't think the gap between a current Typhoon and a Block 60 F-16 is really as great as some seem to suggest. The Typhoon climbs better and has a slightly better top speed. It also seems to be able to stay up longer flying CAP. So it makes a better interceptor than the F-16. It also carries more A2A weapons, which also makes it superior in that role. The CAPTOR radar seems to have impressive range, probably greater than the APG-80, though being the APG-80 is strictly an export product (look at who's buying Block 60's and where), that may be by design. Something tells me that radar could have much greater range if they wanted it to. But I concede that regardless, the Typhoon, once it has AESA, will be vastly superior to any F-16 with any type of radar. The Meteor missile will also out-range the AMRAAM. So in BVR engagements, it's definately the better plane.

But within visual range, I don't think the F-16 gives up much to a Typhoon in a dogfight. If you give the F-16 pilot the AIM-9X and helmet mounted sighting system, I would rate a close range fight between the two at 50/50. Both aircraft would quite likely be lost in such an engagement. The EF-2000 may be rated for higher G's than the F-16, but I don't see any pilot being able to take advantage of that, since 9 G's are about the max limit pilots can endure. So without TVC, the Typhoon is IMHO not that much better in a dogfight than the F-16. One can look at numbers on paper until they go blind. But comparing the two aircraft by looking at what both can visually do in the air, they look very similar. And I would crap my pants to think I'd have to face either in a knife fight flying pretty much anything else in the world today.

toan · by **toan** » 23 Aug 2007, 03:14

1. The main difference in maneuverability/agility between F-22A/EF-2000 and F-16 is in supersonic / BVR area, not in subsonic / Dogfighting area ~ While F-22 and EF-2000 with six to eight AAMs can pull up and maintain 5 to 7 Gs+ without losing speed at the height of 40,000 to 50,000 fts and the speed of Mach 1.6 (EF-2000) to 1.8 (F-22A), the tradional fighters can only pull up to 2 ~ 3 Gs at the same configuration and condition.

2. In subsonic dogfighting area, F-22A could pull up to and maintain 9.5G with near 100% internal fuel and 8 AAMs, and EF-2000 could pull up to 9.0G with near 100% internal fuel, 6 to 8 AAMs, and one 1,000 L supersonic external fuel tank (or a little degradation in agility with two tanks). As for F-16, the flight envelope of F-16 with 50% internal fuel and two AIM-9 is:

http://photo.pchome.com.tw/chentoan/118742384990/

3. The NG anti-G suites/devices for F-22A/EF-2000/Rafale could help pilots to endure the maximum G force of 10 to 12 G+ if necessary.

5. However, personally I agree the idea that HMS + NG WVRAAM will neglect the difference of maneuverability and agility between the fighters to the mininum in the scenario of subsonic dogfight.

PS:
I think most (if not all) EF-2000s that entered service in or before 2005 had some FCS restriction at that time (2005). The maximum G / AoA that they were allowed to pull up and maintain at that time was less than 8G / less than 30 degrees.

toan · by **toan** » 23 Aug 2007, 04:14

For the capability of EF-2000 that I mentioned above, you can find the evidence in:

AirForce Monthly 2007/08

AIRCRAFT ILLUSTRATED 2007/05

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYY0UR1ozHc

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2939511&C=europe

Maneuverability (of EF-2000, Tranche 1 and Block5) is also improved by increased use of the digital flight system and the extension of the flight envelope up to 9 times the force of gravity at subsonic speed and up to 7 times the force of gravity at supersonic speed, Alenia said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... xml&page=1

Some joker has got his hands on of one of our aircraft. Unfortunately, that joker is me. I am at 36,000ft in an RAF Typhoon (aka the Eurofighter, cost £66.7 million), "flying" the result of Britain's most expensive and probably most controversial weapons project at almost the speed of sound above an unsuspecting part of Lincolnshire.

**********************************************************************************************

The head of 29 Squadron retakes control for another "gentle turn". An invisible hand clamps me to my seat, then hurls me through the sky. Resistance is useless. Because I can't lift my arms. And there's insufficient air in my lungs to beg for mercy. An alarmingly calm voice promises: "That was about 3.5G. Of course, we regularly use 7 to 8G."

**********************************************************************************************

As good as vertical, we rocket to 7,000ft. Then Gp Capt Mackay levels off, by rolling. I am seconds into my flight, and upside down. Things do not improve. As we "supercruise" at Mach 1.2 (Mach 1 is the speed of sound), Gp Capt Mackay decides to spar with a Hawk trainer jet. I see something blue. It might be the sea. I am upside down again.

"We're probably using 5 or 6G now," he says in his best Sunday-drive-in-the-country voice. "All perfectly normal." I could have sworn the nice station doctor promised me I wouldn't encounter more than 4.5G.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ining.html

Fox1 · by **Fox1** » 23 Aug 2007, 05:06

Thanks Toan, your explanation made a great deal of sense. Both the F-22 and the Tiffy do have incredible maneuverability above Mach 1. And of course neither are shabby in subsonic speeds. I guess I must get out of this line of thinking that dogfights almost always occur at subsonic speeds (which is what we were witnessing in both videos). While that was true until very recently, I suppose the latest and greatest aircraft such as the Raptor and Tiffy may re-write the book on that subject.

That said, I am still impressed by what Lockheed did to the F-16 to bring it up to Block 60 standards. Those modifications definately bridged the gap between the F-16 and the latest generation fighters. While it falls short of the F-22 and EF2000 in overall ability, it still keeps the F-16 very relevent and among the best fighters in the world today. I'd love to see all of our F-16's fitted with the APG-80 radar eventually. And I wouldn't mind seeing some of them get the impressive engine the E/F models are using, if it would be relatively simple to swap them of course.

Toan (or anyone), I don't mean to turn this F-16 vs. the Eurofighter thread into a seperate discussion, but how do you think a Block 60 F-16 with the APG-80 radar and the AIM-120D missile would stand up to the Su-30MK1? While I definately consider the Su the favorite against older F-16's with the APG-68 and current AIM-120 missiles in BVR mode, I think the F-16 Block 60 would more than hold it's own in that sort of matchup with the new AIM-120D. In fact, I'd definately favor it against an Su-30 with the new radar and missiles factored in. Would you agree?

Oh, and thanks again for replying to my previous post and explaining the differences in performance in a manner even a moron like me can understand. LOL.

toan · by **toan** » 23 Aug 2007, 05:26

For the Su-30MKI right now, personally I believe F-16 Block60 with APG-80 and AIM-120D will be able to match up, or even better than it, in BVR engagement.

However, Su-30MKI is not the ultimate one in Flanker family. The new ultimate Flanker: Su-35BM, is coming. Personally, I think this ultimate Flanker will at least match up to the EF-2000 nowadays (or even surpass it) and second to F-22A only right now.