F-35 versus Typhoon

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

franciwzm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2006, 11:55

Unread post04 Oct 2016, 12:03

hornetfinn wrote:
franciwzm wrote:I have written also that batch 4 typhhon use for exercise neither had irst operative: typhoon irst os best ion the world by huge margin (double range that one used on su-35 despite beeing more compact) anc can detect an f16 size thermal signature 90km away..what about f22 thermal signature ?smaller then a fighter of its class, but for sure not smaller then an f16...
Keep crying like 15yo babies and keep offending me, pls.


Typhoons Pirate IRST is not the best in the world at all. The best current system is definitely F-35s EOTS and it's not even close. It uses the latest sensor technology which is about 10-15 years newer than what is used in Pirate. Pirate is early 1990s technology but development was protracted and it entered service way after it could've been. Pirate uses 2nd generation scanning array which has lower sensitivity, resolution and contrast than 3rd gen staring array used in EOTS. EOTS also has more powerful optics as it's basically an internally mounted FLIR/IRST pod and the image quality is extremely high as you can see in public videos. The Swiss said Rafale Front Sector Optronics was a special strong point for it and did not mention Pirate being something special in their evaluation report. I would think that would've been mentioned if Pirate indeed the best system in the world. Pirate is definitely a good and effective system, but not the best there is.

Russian OLS-XX are just crappy compared to any western IRST system. They use basically slightly upgraded 1960s technology non-imaging sensors which western countries abandoned decades ago. It can only detect a very small number of heat sources and can not create any images of surroundings and can not identify targets at all. It would not be able to tell a forest fire from afterburning F-15. OLS-35 can track 4 of such heat sources at best compared to hundreds in western systems. Sensitivity of such non-imaging systems is also way lower than in imaging systems which means they have much shorter effective range. Even AN/AAS-42 IRST used in F-14D 25 years ago was better system as it was imaging system. Russia has not had any choice as they've been unable to field their own imaging systems until very recently.


I f you are right, and you could be, that doesnt change a fact about typhoon irst beeing able to detect f16 90km far, and for sure f22 and f35 from not less distance...That could only mean that f35 could detect f22 or other f35s at much longer distances with irst then with its radar. Is irst on f35 operative>? It too5-6 years to one on typhhoon to be operative, and it was not at langley in 2006. What we know that recently typhoon pilots have described f22 as an "hot bird"
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post04 Oct 2016, 13:28

There is a huge difference between the maximum range one can theoretically see a target at with IR sensors and the ability to conduct a volume search at that range. IRST is particularly effective when cued by AWACS or a planes radar. Less so to a pretty good degree when operating on its own.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post04 Oct 2016, 14:30

bigjku wrote:There is a huge difference between the maximum range one can theoretically see a target at with IR sensors and the ability to conduct a volume search at that range. IRST is particularly effective when cued by AWACS or a planes radar. Less so to a pretty good degree when operating on its own.

Can EOTS be slaved to Barracuda like how the APG-81 can?

In that case when Barracuda detects and geo-locates a source, the EOTS can be slaved to it and use a very narrow beam.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7720
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post04 Oct 2016, 14:42

botsing wrote:
bigjku wrote:There is a huge difference between the maximum range one can theoretically see a target at with IR sensors and the ability to conduct a volume search at that range. IRST is particularly effective when cued by AWACS or a planes radar. Less so to a pretty good degree when operating on its own.

Can EOTS be slaved to Barracuda like how the APG-81 can?
K
In that case when Barracuda detects and geo-locates a source, the EOTS can be slaved to it and use a very narrow beam.

Most certainly. A benefit of the fusion engine.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post04 Oct 2016, 14:58

franciwzm wrote:that doesnt change a fact about typhoon irst beeing able to detect f16 90km far,

You ignored the main question, where did you get this "fact" from? and what were conditions of the detection such as speed, altitude, target aspect?

franciwzm wrote:and for sure f22 and f35 from not less distance...

Nonsense, F-35, F-22 has various ir reduction measures while F-16 has none, no reason to conclude that they cant have smaller thermal signature
And you will still need LRF to generate firing solution, so detection range and lock on range isn't the same
Last edited by garrya on 04 Oct 2016, 15:06, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post04 Oct 2016, 15:04

franciwzm wrote:Are you neither able neither to see picture trough link I had to post on request as you are very short memory and dont remeber thousands of comments about this not official encounter in 2006 ?

So the encounter was in an exercise but somehow it is not official? if Typhoon's radar was so good like you suggested then why Laurie Hilditch said that they need an AWACS station at a specific direction in regards to F-35 to defeat its stealth features? why not just use Typhoon radar?
In an internal simulation series, Eurofighter found that four Typhoons supported by an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) defeated 85% of attacks by eight F-35s carrying an internal load of two joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and two air-to-air missiles, Penrice says.

According to Laurie Hilditch, Eurofighter's head of the future requirements capture, the F-35's frontal-aspect stealth can be defeated by stationing interceptors and AWACS at a 25º to 30º angle to the F-35's most likely approach path to a target.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 35-345265/
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Oct 2016, 18:44

bigjku wrote:There is a huge difference between the maximum range one can theoretically see a target at with IR sensors and the ability to conduct a volume search at that range. IRST is particularly effective when cued by AWACS or a planes radar. Less so to a pretty good degree when operating on its own.



Correct. You have to know where to START looking. It's a huge sky.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Oct 2016, 18:55

franciwzm wrote:
optimist wrote:
franciwzm wrote:
are you retarded ? tin the avianist report, amraam no escape zone was confronted with irst tracking: no question at yphoon can track a supercruising f22 at 50km by irst, but thati s not max range: typical range for an medium thermal source like f16 is 90km: now you should bring proove that thermal signature of 22 is 4 times smaller thena anf 16..It could be rpughly the same , ...While is well known that f35 thermal signature is quite large,at least with current engine...Nowere is written that max range with irst is 50km for typhoon...What we know i sthat su35 irst has half range and sensitivity then typhoon one...considering f22 is bigger bird a"Indeed, Typhoon pilots at Farnborough said that, when flying without their external fuel tanks, in the WVR (Within Visual Range) arena, the Eurofighter not only held its own, but proved to be better than the Raptor.

Indeed, it looks like the F-22 tends to lose too much energy when using thrust vectoring (TV): TV can be useful to enable a rapid direction change without losing sight of the adversary but, unless the Raptor can manage to immediately get in the proper position to score a kill, the energy it loses makes the then slow moving stealth combat plane quite vulnerable.

This would be coherent by analysis made in the past according to which the TV it’s not worth the energy cost unless the fighter is in the post stall regime, especially in the era of High Off Bore Sight and Helmet Mounted Display (features that the F-22 lacks).

Obviously, U.S. fighter pilots could argue that, flying a stealthy plane they will never need to engage an enemy in WVR dogfight, proving that, as already explained several times, kills and HUD captures scored during air combat training are not particularly interesting unless the actual Rules Of Engagement (ROE) and the training scenario are known.

However, not all the modern and future scenarios envisage BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements and the risk of coming to close range 1 vs 1 (or 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3 etc) is still high, especially considered that the F-22 currently uses AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, whose maximum range is around 100 km (below the Meteor missile used by the Typhoon).

Moreover, at a distance of about 50 km the Typhoon IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is capable to find even a stealthy plane “especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22” a Eurofighter pilot said."

"

Normally I don't mind abusive posters talking dribble. You may recall me asking you to post pictures too. You didn't include a picture in your post for me to look at, because reading all of what you write is too tedious.. I have no other option than to report your post.


http://eucitizens.eu/Forum/index.php?topic=166.0

Are you neither able neither to see picture trough link I had to post on request as you are very short memory and dont remeber thousands of comments about this not official encounter in 2006 ?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/53994120@ ... ed-public/

Here is picture I have extracted from it before some autorithies try to cancel the page...
You should report yourself not beeing able to open links...



Thank you for posting that link, but I still feel it is ... "rather editorialized" to put it mildly.
Choose Crews
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2012
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post04 Oct 2016, 20:37

XanderCrews wrote:
Thank you for posting that link, but I still feel it is ... "rather editorialized" to put it mildly.



:lmao:
As much fun as it is to read a thread from ten years back that features none other than Picard and quite a few of the standard anti F-22/35 articles - and of course nothing to back up anything claimed thus far.


sferrin did you ever find the article?

I have that issue. As it is currently buried in a box in my shed somewhere I can't tell you what it says word for word. If it's the article I'm thinking of it was written by John Lake. As I recall (it's been years so take it for what it's worth), there were no direct quotes, no "we interviewed Cmdr. So-And-So and he said". It was more along the lines of "internet rumors say. . .". It came up for discussion on Key Publishing. He ended up sending me a copy of the full article (more than they had space allotted for in the magazine). It was pretty interesting. Will see if I can dig it up over the weekend, but I'm thinking it's gone.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=27650
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3112
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post05 Oct 2016, 11:31

There are several things that make the franciwzm's claims pretty meaningless even if they were totally accurate.

For WVR fight a lightly loaded Typhoon is definitely a dangerous beast. It has great T/W ratio, about equal to F-22 and aerodynamics is also very good. F-22 definitely has superior nose-pointing ability due to TVC and twin tails. Typhoon definitely has the advantage of HMD and very good HOBS IR missiles which F-22 lacks (but is getting in near future). I think for WVR the two are so close that it comes down to piloting skills and who has the better day. In the future the situation might well stay the same if F-22 gets HMD and AIM-9X and Typhoon gets aerodynamics modification kit fitted for even better maneuverability. F-35 also has extremely good WVR maneuverability according to experienced pilots and has the advantage of EODAS to detect and track threats.

However the problem is how the Typhoon could force such a fight. Even if Typhoon could detect F-22/-35 at some relatively meaningful distance, the problem is that surveillance and search radars can't. At the same time Typhoons would be tracked at very long distances with modern radars. Also the radars and other sensors in F-22/35 would detect and track Typhoons at much longer ranges than vice versa. So long before meeting each others F-22/35 pilots would know exactly where the Typhoons were and what they were doing. Typhoon pilots would have zero knowledge about where the F-22/35s were and what they were doing. So F-22/35s would maneuver to advantageous positions and likely use separation of tens of nautical miles between aircraft which is said to be normal for them. This would create horrible situation for Typhoon or any other 4th gen fighters as they would be at serious disadvantage when the fight starts. The jets would definitely not be flying towards each other like two horsemen in medieval jousting. That'd be just plain dumb for F-22/35s to do. Typhoons would be flying towards ambush where F-22/35s would attack them with pincher type movement or some other similar way which takes away the 4th gen jet capability to detect and engage. Most likely the first sign of such attack would be AMRAAMs or Meteors (European F-35s) going active or weak .

Even if Pirate could detect F-22/35 at 90 km away, it would not really know the distance to it and would not even know what the detection is. Only at distances where range and target speed could be determined (either with Captor or passive ranging both of which are possible only at significantly shorter ranges) would the Typhoon pilot have some idea that it is enemy fighter. This range is still so short even according to franciwzm's claims that there would be no problems for F-22/35s to just maneuver to totally avoid detection. Wide separation of 5th gen fighters also means that detecting one of them or even tracking it would be of limited value as there would be no way of knowing where his friend are or how many of them there are.
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post06 Oct 2016, 00:08

The funnies thing about this thread is that the typhoon isn't even the best of the euro-canards. The rafale is probably more equipped to execute missions in a high threat environment.
Offline

flighthawk128

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2011, 23:25

Unread post06 Oct 2016, 03:03

les_paul59 wrote:The funnies thing about this thread is that the typhoon isn't even the best of the euro-canards. The rafale is probably more equipped to execute missions in a high threat environment.


Care to elaborate? I'm not challenging the view, just that I'm not all that up to speed on the Euro-canards (who cares about the second best right?) I know traditionally the Typhoon was used by critics to challenge the F-22, but it's much rarer hearing about the Rafale challenging anybody.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1840
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post06 Oct 2016, 04:44

flighthawk128 wrote:
Care to elaborate? I'm not challenging the view, just that I'm not all that up to speed on the Euro-canards (who cares about the second best right?) I know traditionally the Typhoon was used by critics to challenge the F-22, but it's much rarer hearing about the Rafale challenging anybody.

According to Swiss evaluation , Rafale was a better ac than Typhoon
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3112
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Oct 2016, 07:16

eloise wrote:
flighthawk128 wrote:
Care to elaborate? I'm not challenging the view, just that I'm not all that up to speed on the Euro-canards (who cares about the second best right?) I know traditionally the Typhoon was used by critics to challenge the F-22, but it's much rarer hearing about the Rafale challenging anybody.

According to Swiss evaluation , Rafale was a better ac than Typhoon


Exactly. That evaluation is by far the best and most official comparison of current Eurocanards, their evolved versions (Gripen NG, Rafale F3+, Typhoon Tranche 3 P1E) and latest F/A-18C. Swiss Air Force flew test flights with all competitors and compared them fo F/A-18C in all mission types. Evolved versions were evaluated with data provided by manufacturers. I trust their evaluation far more than some random bloggers and forum opinions.

Basically Rafale and Eurofighter were somewhat close in air-to-air missions (Air policing, Defensive Counter-Air, Offensive Counter-Air). Rafale was however considered more capable of the two and in DCA missions pretty significantly so. Eurofighter had deficiensies in EW, Detection and Identification capabilities. Rafale was considered much better than other Eurocanards when it came to Recce and A/G Strike missions. Sadly there was no comparison with F/A-18C in these categories as Swiss Hornets were not been tasked nor equipped for these mission types. Typhoon was considered to have significantly better performance than others (even Rafale), but avionics systems were clearly inferior to Rafale. These might well change with AESA and DASS upgrades, but these have to be implemented first.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 614
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post06 Oct 2016, 07:26

flighthawk128 wrote: Typhoon was used by critics to challenge the F-22, but it's much rarer hearing about the Rafale challenging anybody.


Probably because more Typhoons flew against Raptors than Rafales. Then again there's that famous video of F-22 in Rafale's crosshairs which was was used for chest-thumping quite a lot.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests