Eurofighter vs F-16/F-15

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Viperalltheway

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 14:16

Unread post13 May 2005, 22:13

Yeah but the question is : would the DASS be able to jam an AESA radar? And also how resistant is the captor to jamming?

The F-16E carries that AN/ALQ-165, which is very advanced.

http://www.ittavionics.com/165.asp

The viper can also carry advanced external jammers like the AN/ALQ-184.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... lq-184.htm
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post14 May 2005, 03:52

You're right. However, if both aircraft have AWACS and GCI control help, none will be able to surprise the other thanks to its lower RCS.

A: According to the information I know, the modern AWACSs today like E-2C Hawkeye 2000 and E-3C are capable to the detect the target of RCS = 1m2 class 250~300 km away.

And their maximal effective detection range to the fighters in the world should be:
  • F-15C & Su-27 (RCS = 10~15m2): 450 ~ 600 km
  • Tornado (RCS = 8 m2): 420 ~ 500 km
  • MIG-29 (RCS = 5 m2): 370 ~ 450 km
  • F/A-18C (RCS = 3 m2): 330 ~ 395 km
  • F-16C (RCS = 1.2 m2): 260 ~ 310 km
  • JAS39 (RCS = 0.5 m2): 210 ~ 250 km
  • Su-47 (RCS = 0.3 m2): 185 ~ 220 km
  • Rafale (RCS = 0.1~0.2 m2): 140 ~ 200 km
  • F-18E (RCS = 0.1 m2): 140 ~ 170 km
  • MIG-42 (RCS = 0.1 m2): 140 ~ 170 km
  • EF2K (RCS = 0.05~0.1 m2): 120 ~ 170 km
  • F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2): 50 ~ 60 km
  • F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2): < or = 30 ~ 45 km
Even the tradional fighters (F-15, F-16) have the modern AWACS on their side, the stealthy fighter like F/A-22 with AIM-120 is still capable to give them the big surprise.

As for the low RCS NG fighters like EF-2000, MIG-42, and Rafale, if they are equipped with the NG BVRAAM like Meteor (Effective range: 90~100 km+ to the 9G maneuverable fighter, and 150~200 km+ to the big, slow and clumsy airplanes like AWACS...) and R-77M-PD (Maximal effective range: 160 km+), I think they also have certain amount of chance to give tradional fighters + modern AWACS today a surprise....
Offline

dimik

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 10 May 2005, 23:04

Unread post14 May 2005, 07:21

well, toan, according to this, the Meteor will only have a range of 100km

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00047001

is this correct?

"The RCS of EF-2000 is about 1/3 of the RCS of Rafale"

are you serious, link?

"F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2): 0.111 (about 28 km for the radar of Su-35/37)"

wow, that's it
Offline

kubam4a1

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005, 14:26

Unread post14 May 2005, 08:44

What about F-16C/D with APG-68V9? I think it's quite comparable to Typhoon.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post14 May 2005, 09:59

dimic wrote:well, toan, according to this, the Meteor will only have a range of 100km

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00047001

is this correct?

A: Partially correct. The European countries want Meteor to has the capability to engage the fighter with 9G maneuver 100 km away and the "No Escape Zone" at the range of 20~80 km.

However, as for the big, slow, and dumb target like AWACS, the Meteor will have a much longer effective range. According to one report of IDR in 1998, the UK declared that Meteor is "A missile with the range of AIM-54, the size of AIM-120, and the agility of ASRAAM". In the special report for EF-2000 of the megazine of Royal Air Force last year, the test pilot of EF-2000 declared that with the help of future NG BVRAAM, EF-2000 may be able to attack the target 200 km away in the future.

"The RCS of EF-2000 is about 1/3 of the RCS of Rafale"

are you serious, link?


A: WAP, 1999, a special report for EF-2000.

Personally, I think it as an advertisement of BAES more than the truth. The manufacturers and/or the users of F/A-18E/F, EF-2000, and Rafale have all declared or hinted their plane has the lower frontal RCS than the other two. I think their frontal RCS should be roughly the same ~ around 0.1 m2 class.
Last edited by toan on 14 May 2005, 10:11, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post14 May 2005, 10:09

kubam4a1 wrote:What about F-16C/D with APG-68V9? I think it's quite comparable to Typhoon.


A: If we just take air-to-air detective range into consideration:

The AN/APG-68V9, according the information I know, has the air-to-air detective range 30% longer than the previous AN/APG-68V5/V7.

As for the Captor radar of EF-2000, according to the special report of IDR 1999/03, the Norwagian test-pilot stated that it has the air-to-air detective range three times of the radar of F-16C/D Block50N.
Offline

reserved

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2005, 15:22

Unread post23 Jun 2005, 15:26

Article at http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk ... =673262005 says an EF outflew 2 F-15s. Just wondering if anyone heard any details?
Offline

Viperalltheway

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 14:16

Unread post26 Jun 2005, 01:27

F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2): < or = 30 ~ 45 km


I hadn't seen that one.. lol.. that's too funny..
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post26 Jun 2005, 06:03

That my personal calculation. The USAF officer had declared that the frontal RCS of F/A-22 is roughly the size of ping-pung ball to marble a few years ago, so I took a ping pung ball and a marble to measure thier radii, and then calculating their areas (radius * radius * 3.1416).....

However, according to the declaration of one friend here recently, the frontal RCS of F/A-22 has been reduced to the size of house-fly. According to a research report I got from the Mainland China (RCS of different objects, including a fly), if the F/A-22's frontal RCS has been really reduced to size of house-fly, its will be much, much smaller than the data I mentioned above.
Offline

Viperalltheway

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 14:16

Unread post26 Jun 2005, 13:51

That's unbelievable.
Offline

Northax

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2005, 05:42

Unread post26 Jun 2005, 19:58

To those that've seen me say this on other boards, sorry for repeating myself in front of you so many times, but not many think this way...

The thing we must think here is: What IF the F-22 and F-35 weren't being made? The F-16 MATV (3D TVC, and easily throw canards on it) and F-15 ACTIVE (3D TVC, canards) would've most likely been militarized, to stand up to the Su-30 series aircraft in maneuverability.

Also, these kind of F-16's/15's would've been worked on to majorly reduce their RCS as well, if they weren't being replaced. If the U.S. majorly worked on the F-16's RCS, I bet it'd be smaller than the Typhoons RCS: In that #1 The U.S. has the most experience in making stealthy aircraft, above any other country on Earth, and #2 the F-16 is naturally smaller in size.

The F-15 would've most likely been fit with two F119 engines, putting out 35,000+ lbs. of thrust each; the F-16 would get the new engine with around 32,000-35,000 lbs. thrust. AESA radar, AIM-9X, etc. on both aircraft, they'd definitely be a force to be reckoned with, for sure. :)

Sadly, they've been majorly neglected in light of something better: F-22, F-35. These will be better in the stealth regime; the F-22 will have good maneuverability, due to it's TVC. The F-22 lacks canards, to remain more stealthy, so some sacrifices of maneuverability have been made for more stealth; stealth is really what you want more of in real world combat situations, though, so no biggy.

So, you're comparing an aircraft that has been majorly worked on by 3-4 countries for the last decade, compared to 2 kinds of aircraft that've been majorly neglected by 1 country in light of them making much better aircraft to replace them. Not much to be proud of really, if you beat'em. :D
Offline

Viperalltheway

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 14:16

Unread post26 Jun 2005, 23:13

Mmh.. I don't know if it would have been possible to lower the viper's RCS. Some RCS reducing techniques are already used on it. I guess they have already done the max that could be done cost-effectively. But as you say, maybe with a couple of billion of R&D it would have been feasable to get in the 0.1-0.5 sqm range.

As for the F-15, its shape is not stealthy at all, so it would probably not have been worth it.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post27 Jun 2005, 02:46

Boeing had made the study for reducing the frontal RCS of F-15, and the result showed that the frontal RCS of F-15 could be reduced to 1~3m2 class if USAF wanted. However, it is obvious that USAF doesn't not think this upgrade deserves its price...
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post27 Jun 2005, 04:10

Can F-15 and F-16 be upgraded to much better fighters?? Techonologically, yes, but if you take the work-load and cost-effectiveness of this up-grade into consideration, it may not be the good choices.

Take F-16E/F Block60 for example, comparing with F-16C/D Block50, 100% of its softwares and more than 70% of its hardwares are completely new designs and equipements, therefore, the F-16E/F is actually almost a new fighter with the old shape and name of F-16, and price of 80 million USD per fighter (including R&D cost).

Now, if you want to make a "Dream Falcon" with better stealth and agility that can be comparable with or even better than EF-2000/Rafale, it shall at least be something like:

F-16E/F Block60 + re-designment of air-intake + new and bigger main wing + engine upgrading to 37,000 Ib class + TVC introduction with re-writing of FCS + increasing of internal fuel + (perhaps) cacellation of vertical and horizontal tail-wings and re-designment of pylons for stealthy improvement.

With the almighty of USA's techonology, can this design be achieved and produced?? I think the answer is "yes". However, what is the relationship between this "Dream Falcon" and the original ones (F-16C/D Block40/50)??? It is actually a completely new-designed fighter with perhaps some external shapes that are similar to F-16C/D Block40/50, and the price that may no less than JSF, but the stealthy capability that is still much less than (JSF). It should be OK if you give it a completely new code name such as "F-26".
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post27 Jun 2005, 12:55

toan wrote:F-16E/F Block60 + re-designment of air-intake + new and bigger main wing + engine upgrading to 37,000 Ib class + TVC introduction with re-writing of FCS + increasing of internal fuel + (perhaps) cacellation of vertical and horizontal tail-wings and re-designment of pylons for stealthy improvement.


But what it really be worth it? After all, even if it would be as stealthy as the Typhoon, it would still show up on radar, and besides, a box intake and no vertical tail would kill it's looks. :wink: I do agree though that the Viper would need a more powerful engine with TVC. To make the aircraft more stealthy, it should use Plasma Stealth technology (When it's available), which instead of refecting or absorbing radar waves, it would just neutralize them all together.

As far as it being redeisignated F-26, I not sure if that would work, seeing that this aircraft (Below) has already been given that designation, at least unofficially.

Then again though, seeing that this aircraft is most likely fake, I guess it wouldn't matter if an aircraft was named F-26 or not. Here's a link where I heard about this "F-26".

http://www.stavatti.com/f26/f26_homepage.html
Attachments
STALMA_TAIWAN_3.jpg
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests