F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

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

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post08 Jul 2006, 18:04

toan wrote:The main problem for European countries (including Russia) today is that the AESA techonology today is still too expensive for them to use in hundreds of fighters, while it is not the problem for USA since the yearly defensive budget of American is more than 2 times of the yearly defensive budget of the whole EU. According to the estimation of BAES and Thales, the cost of AESA radar techonology won't be low enough for European AFs to use until post-2012.

Another good point. The US has the money to fully research and keep on researching these technologies as to maintain an advantage over future foes. But then again, the repercussions of such technology does have an affect on civilian markets. Next gen AESAs will not use GaAs. They will most likely use GaN and SiC substrates... Imagine, after the costly development, we have SiC substrates available for personal computing and such? So as the first Euro and Russian AESAs begin to roll out, the US will already be knee deep in researching the "next best thing".

But you're right on European AESA production. I forgot they built them for their ships and such. But I agree with your 2012 assesment. My only problem was the extrapolated range of a radar system which has just begun testing. I doubt the CAESAR will be more powerful than current radars that are available. Maybe itll offer similar performance.

toan wrote:But I still wonder if the F-35 for exporting to other countries will have the same kind of stealthy performance and electronic capability.

I read an article on this recently. Apparantly, someone started a rumour that non-US F-35s will have dis-advantages in stealth. Later on, this rumour was found to be untrue. Remember, the F-35 and F-22A barely use any RAM these days. Only on the most reflective portions of the airframe.
Offline

Brad

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 19:42

Unread post08 Jul 2006, 18:24

I have to say that for most counter-air work I would probably prefer the Typhoon to the F-35 but I have some skepticism regarding the CAPTOR-E and the claims that it’s in the APG-77 class of performance. I think most ‘web pundits’ are shoehorning public factoids and are trying to connect the dots that may or may not be accurate. Intuitively it doesn’t really make sense that one could get roughly 50% more performance over the near contemporary APG-79 which has a similar radome bulkhead diameter and hence most likely has similar T/R count, avionic volume and cooling capability. The latter being very important, as RUMIT has suggested that is why the T/R count came down on the APG-77 as the cooling requirements prevented from going as high as they would have liked.

I might be inclined to believe similar to APG-81 performance but I think that even that is a bit of a stretch as the F-35 has a larger nose, though AvLeak and other secondary sources suggest a module count only around 100 or so more than the APG-79. This says nothing of the near 1m diameter of the APG-77 and I have to admit I’m curious if the APG-77v1 has an increase in performance/module count as it uses the APG-81’s ‘tile’ modules, which should theoretically give a larger module density.

Brad
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post08 Jul 2006, 18:47

The only reason I'd use the Typhoon for AtA is the most logical one: It can carry more AtA missiles!

One complaint I've heard from F-15 drivers on various sites is that, even for that very capable platform, the limiting factor in Air-toair (for them) is a lack of missiles. They run out too fast! So the same can be said for the Tiffy.

An F-35 can only carry 2 AAMs and maintain its most desireable feature, stealth. So this means, the attacking F-35 force has to outnumber and defending Tiffy force to get the usual 2~3 missiles per aircraft.

Brad wrote:I might be inclined to believe similar to APG-81 performance but I think that even that is a bit of a stretch as the F-35 has a larger nose, though AvLeak and other secondary sources suggest a module count only around 100 or so more than the APG-79. This says nothing of the near 1m diameter of the APG-77 and I have to admit I’m curious if the APG-77v1 has an increase in performance/module count as it uses the APG-81’s ‘tile’ modules, which should theoretically give a larger module density.

Another good point. Its also important to consider, that the F-35's radar is more advanced than the APG-77. And that the APG-77's next upgrades will use alot learned from the APG-81. It's a leap-frog upgrade system. Technology from the F-22A was incorporated in the F-35. Technology from the F-35 will be applied to the F-22A. And so on...
Offline

LordOfBunnies

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 05:28
  • Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Unread post08 Jul 2006, 20:50

One thing I've got to point out, it's all about the equipment carried. A gun can be really useful for hitting someone over the head if you're out of bullets, but you're not using it right then. The Europeans will have the Meteor, the Russians have some sort of really long range A2A missile, they're useful, but you have to detect the aircraft they're shooting at first. Now, the US has done away with the AIM-54 for lots of reasons and we've got the AMRAAM. It's range is enough that we can shoot anything (in the case of the F-35 and F-22) before it sees us. Now this is like sniper rifle versus assault rifle. The F-35 has the initial advantage of first shoot. Now if we're assuming these things are backed by their respective forces (F-35 for the US and Tiffy for the Brits) the F-35 has a distinctive advantage because of how the US prefers to run things (Net centric warfare means the F-35 is using somebody else's radar). A straight this versus that, not that great. Now if we're assuming they're both going in with their radars on, I'd give it to the Tiffy because of the longer missile ranges.
Peace through superior firepower.
Back as a Student, it's a long story.
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post08 Jul 2006, 21:49

Of course. Its neve X vs Y. Its usually a couple of Xs backed up by a D and a B, versus a few Ys and a couple of Zs.

The AIM-120D will be a truely amazing AAM when it enters production within the next two years. I've seen pictures of the new form factor of its guidance package, and it can carry considerably more fuel for increased range. In addition to this, it will make use of GPS and have a 2-way data-link for an vastly increased probability of success.

This will help give the USN the bite it always wanted.

The F-35's advantage will always lie with its stealth. Even future projected radar advances will still allow the F-35 to close in well within the AIM-120D's tange. But in US service, this is moot. The F-22A will sweep the skies clear in a way no one can be prepared for.

Also, for me, I see a more important need to move towards warfare we will be fighting. For many nations flying the F-35 or Typhoon, the Air war will be won in a matter of days. If not hours. Then the whole focus moves to ground pounding.

Hence my love for the F/A-18E and F. It can win the air war, and still be very useful afterwards. :)
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6634
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Jul 2006, 00:36

Regardless, what's been printed I don't see the F-35 carrying only 4 AA Missiles Internally. The first examples will be used mainly in the Strike Role. Yet, shortly after it enters service. Many will want to use the Lightning in a Air Defense Role. Much like the many current F-16's and F (A)-18's. Remember the Viper had very limited Air to Air Capabilities whe it was first introduced with only two Sidewinders. Later it was equipped with Sparrows then finally AMRAAMS.
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post09 Jul 2006, 00:44

Well, in an ADF role, you can still mount AIM-120s and AIM-9Xs on the wing pylons and even wing tips.
Offline

LordOfBunnies

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 05:28
  • Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Unread post09 Jul 2006, 02:41

Another thing to remember, the F-35 was built for the US with other people being able to buy it. It's never going to be up there alone when in US service. It was built with the though that Raptors, Vipers, Eagles, AWACS, KC-XXX, QR-XX (recon UAVs), etc will all be in the air with it. It was designed as a first 3 day stealth platform. Comparing the Tiffy to the F-35 is like comparing apples to JDAMs... yes huh? You can't look at a plane versus plane match up because it would NEVER happen. Something else would be almost always be in the air with them and plane on plane action is never quite the way it seems to work out. Different countries have different strategies about how to deal with everything so the discussion is almost silly. A discussion of capabilites is far more appropriate. Anyway, now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Peace through superior firepower.
Back as a Student, it's a long story.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5563
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post09 Jul 2006, 03:58

skrip00 wrote:Of course. Its neve X vs Y. Its usually a couple of Xs backed up by a D and a B, versus a few Ys and a couple of Zs.

The AIM-120D will be a truely amazing AAM when it enters production within the next two years. I've seen pictures of the new form factor of its guidance package, and it can carry considerably more fuel for increased range. In addition to this, it will make use of GPS and have a 2-way data-link for an vastly increased probability of success.


Do you know anything about NCADE? NCADE (Network Centric Airborne Defense Element) is suppose to be a TWO-stage AIM-120.

"The system would use an AMRAAM first stage, a new second stage developed by Aerojet and a modified AIM-9X seeker to engage missiles in their boost phase. But program officials say it could be emplyed in cruise missile defense scenarios."

Sounds like it could be LOAL and there doesn't seem to be any reason it couldn't be used against an aircraft.
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post09 Jul 2006, 05:47

All I know is things about the AIM-120D. Smaller guidance package, GPS, 2-way datalink, x-band terminal guidance. Smaller package means less fuel. Revised control surfaces and improved avionics usually means better kinematics.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6634
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post29 Jul 2006, 22:41

Much like Air Defense versions of the F/A-18 for Finland and Swiitzerland. You will see F-35's optimised for the Air Superiority Role. While, not at the same league as the F-22 Raptor. They will be a serious opponents nonetheless and one to be respected........ :twisted:
Offline

JCSVT

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2006, 21:39

Unread post30 Jul 2006, 05:28

For the the A2A role I'd have to pick the Typhoon. I'm not the biggest fan of the F-35 although it will probably end up being a great fighter. The Typhoon will more than hold its own in both WVR and BVR combat. I think people don't it the credit it deserves sometimes.
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post30 Jul 2006, 06:15

Why should they? Unlike the F-35, its development was marred by several problems overall.

The F-35, out the gate will be more advanced and more capable than the Typhoon will be in the same timeframe. Not to mention the F-35 is a stealth fighter. The Typhoon is not. Thats an advantage in its own right.

I think people don't it the credit it deserves sometimes.

I think it gets more credit than it really deserves. The Typhoon isnt that great of an aircraft. It still has a hard time competing in export markets with the latest F-16s and F-15s available.
Offline

boff180

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 10:58

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 18:48

skrip00 wrote:I think it gets more credit than it really deserves. The Typhoon isnt that great of an aircraft. It still has a hard time competing in export markets with the latest F-16s and F-15s available.


Lol under that logic your precious Super Hornet is a rubbish aircraft aswell! :lol: :lol:

There is FAR MORE to export sales than just how good an aircraft is. Greater factors are: Time-frame, Politics and Costs.

The final two being the most important in a foreign military export sale.

Aircraft capability has a minor part to play, there is usually a minimum requirement, and if the aircraft meets it, then its all fair.

Especially when sides play "dirty" both Europe and the US are guilty of that. Recently the US threatened trade embargo's with one nation unless they chose their aircraft!

Other times, its simplicity....

Eg: Singapore.
The reason officially why Typhoon wasn't chosen was that they couldn't provide the capability within the timeframe they wanted (12 months later iirc).
Now think of the politics. The two finalists were both French and US; all Singapore combat training happens in the US (F-16) and in France (A-4) which to me is no conincidence the two aircraft selected were from these nations.
Now the aircraft being replaced is the A-4 so it would make much greater COST and political sense to close training in France, and go solely to America... whats the easiest to do this with?
Answer: The F-15SG.
It is of note that the Typhoon was the ONLY aircraft of the competitors to complete ALL of its evaluation successfully. It was the only one to emerge the victor in the 3v1 simultaneous (both bvr and wvr) scenario's against F-16's. It was the only aircraft also capable of going supersonic within singapore airspace!

As has been said over and over and over.

The best combo for any future nation (that can't get hold of F-22) is going to be the Typhoon and the F-35 operating side-by-side.

It is highly UNLIKELY they will ever face each other in real combat, what they should be compared to is the latest technology coming out of Russia. The Mig 1.42.etc... something I strongly believe BOTH aircraft will have no problem defeating; especially in BVR.

Andy
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 19:59

Again Boff, my point is: The F-35 offers many of the similar capabilities to the Typhoon, and then offers capabilities that leaves the Typhoon in the dust.

Future warfare will probably break down into: 10% Air-war, 90% ground-war.

You need an aircraft which can win the air war quickly and effectively, then simultaneously also handling the ground-pounding campaign, then the F-35 is the only logical choice.

Thats why I love the F/A-18E/F as well. It can easily defeat many of the world's top fighters in air-to-air combat. Yet it does the AtG mission even better.

This is also why I dislike the Typhoon. Initially, it had no real AtG capacity. Now it has some. But in the long run, it wont have the advantages of the F-35 in terms of stealth and technological growth.

The same can be said when comparing the Typhoon to the SuperHornet. The SuperHornet was designed to be a strike aircraft, first and foremost. Being highly capable in the AtA arena was just a side effect.

End result: The F-35 can do everything the Typhoon can, even better, and then some.

Want to do standoff attacks? F-35 can do it.
Clear enemy airspace? Send in F-35s with AMRAAMs or, for our European brethren, use Meteor.
SEAD? F-35.

The Typhoon's only saving grace is that it has a 2-seater variant.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron