F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

[swiss]

According to latest official brochure of Typhoon, its empty weight has increased to 12000 kg.
So its T/W is ordinary now.

The attachment typhoon empty weight.jpg is no longer available

I don't think this magazine is a reliable source. In the official Brochure from Airbus (2017) the empty weight is still 11 Tons.

[mas]

It has been demonstrated millions of times that F-22 is invisible to EF2K's radar.

Has EF2K done the same to F-22's radar, even once?

So stop the freaking VLO or LO claim about EF2K.

Slick German Typhoons were said to have sometimes got to 20 miles of F-22s in exercises before being targeted, other sources mentioned with jamming. The F-22 can be picked up by the Pirate IRST at that range which the Germans don't have.

[mas]

Arian: the Typhoon has a lot more wing area for that weight compared to Hornet, 551 vs 410 sq ft not including the canard.

Wrong.

SH's exposed wing is a a lot bigger than EF2K's. Almost twice as big.

You need to learn what reference area is, and what exposed area is.

Wings will bigger sweep could achieve higher reference area with small exposed area, so reference area could be deceptive. It does not generate that much lift.

And, if you want to include the carnard, then SH could include the tail plane. Aerodynamics 101: if an aircraft is unstable, its tail plane generates positive lift.

I was specifically referring to Hornet as that particular comparison was about similar weight aircraft with different composite percentages. Regardless you will have to prove your claims about the difference in areas between Typhoon and Super Hornet as I am unconvinced the latter has twice the exposed area. Also what you think the relevance of the exposed/reference area difference is would not go amiss especially when the fuselages generate so much lift these days.

[F-16ADF]

The original JSF had a canard so does the X-36, but they are in line with the main wing. They are not above it like Rafale, Gripen, or EF.

[F-16ADF]

Dassault puts the standard Rafale empty weight at a little over 22,000lbs.
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... ance-data/

The EF is rather larger than Rafale so it's probably 24,000lbs or slightly above or below-

I do not have a stake in this discussion, but the EF also has its fuselage strakes and canard that are not in line with the main wing. Conversely SH tail is slightly below main wing plane. But the SH is much larger, and has dogtooth notch on main wing. Both of these jets go into combat festooned with external weapons and pylons which will maximize their RCS.

Also, F-22's body is nearly clean and very smooth. Totally unlike the EF, Rafale, or SH. In fact, so clean, it is just very hard to believe that empty it is 43K. Up close, it seems smaller than any F-14 or F-15. I think LM put the YF-22 empty at 33k, seems hard to believe the F-22 added 10k in weight to a slightly smaller airframe.

[ricnunes]

The IRST ball is round at the end of an angular protuberance not square and the F-35 seems to manage alright with its EOTS pouch nevermind its gun and chute pods which are physically bigger than the Pirate device. How much of a radar return is going to return face on with an embedded sphere ?

Typhoon has a bleed system (porous wall) incorporated on the intake ramp for the supersonic regime so it's not really a moving inlet apart from the lower lip which operates at high AOA but then you are not really talking about a horizontal frontal RCS then

Except that EOTS is inside an angular housing, not spherical, so that would directly contradict your assertion that 'F-35 has a FLIR and it's fine so Tiffy can too'.

The lower lip of the Typhoons inlet moves.

And moreover, this guy (mas) doesn't even know what SYMMETRY is all about!

Here:


And compared to the F-35's EOTS, here:



And of course there's also what you say, the F-35 EOTS is located inside an angular housing, clearly designed for radar scattering.

[ricnunes]

Ricnunes: Waving your arms about again with generalities you know very little about again.

Sorry but the guy who thinks that more angled wings and pointy nose make for a more stealthy aircraft shouldn't be talking here.

Absolutely!
This guy mas makes such clueless and idiotic comments, that yes - I believe that he shouldn't be here!
Again and I repeat, the problem is not making wrong assessment. The problem here is that he doesn't and is not able to recognize when he's WRONG! As such I have the opinion that this guy shouldn't be here.

Anyway, about "angled wings and stealth":







Yes, Tacit Blue which was a very stealthy aircraft (prototype) and as such had a very low RCS. Its wings are not "very angled" and neither is its nose "pointy", is it??

Oh well, here goes mas theory about angled wings and pointy noses related to low RCS flushed down the toilet

[mas]

I could have sworn you were all about pointy noses and wing sweep a while ago

I haven't looked for a while, is the super hornet still beating the typhoon in the danish comp

The pointy nose/swept wing works but it is not the only thing that works as the more smoother F-22/F-35 show and I described why. As for Hornet vs Typhoon comparisons which you seem hung up on why don't we let a pilot who flew both describe the difference.

https://docslide.com.br/documents/comba ... -2014.html

The US Marine Corps and Britain’s Royal Air Force have exchanged pilots for decades, with the aim of gaining valuable insight into how each other operates in the tactical environment. Maj D. R. ‘Ged’ Miller sampled the pride of the RAF when he swapped the cockpit of his F/A-18C Hornet for the Typhoon.Though similar in size and weight, the Hornet and Typhoon are at opposite ends of the performance spectrum in almost every regard. The differences are analogous to a pair of gladiators each poised for battle, where one fights with a net and trident and the other a shield and scabbard. Both are effective yet employed very differently. Ultimately, the fighter with superior skills and motivation will win the day. Transitioning from the F/A-18C to the Typhoon reinforced this axiom of aerial combat for me. Both aircraft have eye-watering performance, capable of creating a ‘thunderclap of surprise’ among unassuming adversaries, as well as subtle vulnerabilities that, if not well guarded, can be disadvantageous when exploited by an opponent.

The hallmark of the F/A-18C is its unmatched ability to fight and maneuver at speeds slower than evening traffic on the motorway (freeway). The maturity and reliability of its flight control software and aerodynamically designed leading-edge extensions (LEX) provide the Hornet pilot with the ability to virtually stop in mid-air just long enough to force an opponent in front. The Hornet basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) experience is often a series of violent yet co-ordinated throws of the control stick, throttles and rudder pedals. At precisely the right moment, the Hornet pilot will pivot and orient his nose and weapon engagement zone (WEZ) in any conceivable aspect, bringing missiles or guns to bear on the enemy in mere seconds. In the Hornet, I want my opponent to go fast and arc around the sky, highlighting his feats of strength. This makes him much more predictable as the high airspeed and turn rate make it nearly impossible for him to markedly alter his flight path. The experienced Hornet pilot need only visualize where to put his nose and the aircraft will follow. Every fighter pilot in the world respects the nose authority of the F/A-18. If you mess with a Hornet, you are going to get stung.

The Typhoon pilot’s mindset is in stark contrast to that relating to the Hornet. Where the Hornet pilot relies on minimizing elapsed time in the fight in order to achieve a quick kill, the Typhoon pilot relies upon raw performance and stamina to evade and eventually ‘bleed’ the energy of his opponent. The Typhoon BFM experience is speed, g, patience and turn rate. In the Typhoon, I want my opponent to slow down and forfeit airspeed as time is now on my side. The brute strength of the Typhoon places it in a league of its own, just as the adverts proclaim. Though potent in the right hands, F-16s and F-15s are not comparable and most often find themselves executing defensive break turns and guns jinks when pitted against a savvy Typhoon pilot. For them, they know that allowing the fight to progress beyond the second or third merge is a waste of fuel.

Moreover, pylon configuration and external fuel stores are of no consequence in the BFM arena for the Typhoon; you don’t even notice it. Selecting maximum afterburner in the Typhoon is rather disturbing for the first time. It is the Gene Simmons of high-turn-rate fighters. For example, when reheat is selected above 440kt, even with full aft stick control input at 9g, the aircraft will begin rapidly to accelerate, causing its turn circle steadily to increase. The only way to slow down is to throttle back. In fact, one of the most emphasized skill sets Typhoon Operational Conversion Unit instructors instill in the students is managing the awesomeness. Even taxiing, the aircraft uses only idle power, as the speed can increase rapidly if not continually monitored. This ample power excess arms the Typhoon pilot with the ability to match an aggressive slow-speed fighter like the Hornet, if he plays his cards right. The Typhoon’s ability to regain airspeed, and thus energy, is nearly instant, placing even the most well-seasoned dissimilar opponent squarely inside the horns of a dilemma. If a fighter pilot wants to gain tally of a Typhoon post-merge, my recommendation is to first dispense flares, then look behind the wing on the inside of your turn. He’ll be nestled there — fact!

And the winner is… No BFM sortie is ever conducted in a vacuum and no two pilots are the same. In nearly every scenario, victory will be achieved by the aircraft with the most experienced pilot at the controls. It would be a ‘one-off’ event were a junior Hornet pilot to saddle in the control zone of a senior Typhoon pilot, and vice versa. There are assumptions that can be made by superimposing graphs of performance data but this still does not necessarily paint an accurate picture. It all boils down to the pilot. This being said, I have had the privilege of fighting in both the Typhoon and the Hornet in the BFM arena as an instructor. The Typhoon is pure thrust and turn rate. The Hornet is pure agility and turn radius. Merging with either in combat is a death wish. In the event a Typhoon and Hornet had pilots whose experiences were evenly matched and ‘had a go’ at lower altitudes, I am of the opinion that the Hornet pilot would be able to generate the first, yet fleeting, window of opportunity to shoot. When that window of opportunity slams shut, it’s ‘tea and crumpets’. Assuming the same caveats at higher altitudes, I do believe it would be rather enjoyable for the Typhoon pilot.

[optimist]

Nice copy paste of erroneous material. You seem to think it's making some kind of point about a legacy hornet, I guess? You might as well have posted a picture of a cat. BTW, Aussies have a f-22 exchange pilot, does that mean we win?

It has been demonstrated millions of times that F-22 is invisible to EF2K's radar.

Has EF2K done the same to F-22's radar, even once?

So stop the freaking VLO or LO claim about EF2K.

Slick German Typhoons were said to have sometimes got to 20 miles of F-22s in exercises before being targeted, other sources mentioned with jamming. The F-22 can be picked up by the Pirate IRST at that range which the Germans don't have.

Hang on sunshine, all air forces on joint exercises, use training modes on their electronics. I wouldn't get too excited about any data from anyone. On the exercise, the typhoon couldn't get within 20 miles of the f22, would be a true story. The stories from an exercise isn't an always thing, from either side.

[mas]

Ricnunes: Waving your arms about again with generalities you know very little about again.

Sorry but the guy who thinks that more angled wings and pointy nose make for a more stealthy aircraft shouldn't be talking here.

Absolutely!
This guy mas makes such clueless and idiotic comments, that yes - I believe that he shouldn't be here!
Again and I repeat, the problem is not making wrong assessment. The problem here is that he doesn't and is not able to recognize when he's WRONG! As such I have the opinion that this guy shouldn't be here.

Anyway, about "angled wings and stealth":







Yes, Tacit Blue which was a very stealthy aircraft (prototype) and as such had a very low RCS. Its wings are not "very angled" and neither is its nose "pointy", is it??

Oh well, here goes mas theory about angled wings and pointy noses related to low RCS flushed down the toilet

Again only in your imagination. Tacit Blue had the RCS of a Bat * which was fine for the 1980s but it would not be classed as VLO today, just LO, maybe with swept wings it could have done much better, nice try though . There's also this comment about the published photos.

* https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lue-17057/

Despite the relative age of the programme, the USAF remains sensitive about various aspects of the Tacit Blue. The released images have been heavily doctored to remove some features and alter others, including the rear-fuselage section and wing leading edge.

p.s. I don't ever recall making a comment about the stealthiness of a pointy nose originally but there you go lol. The wings do count though.

[SpudmanWP]

That comment is over 20 years old. Since the Tacit Blue is on public display, the days of "doctored photos" is over as far as it's concerned.

As far as a swept wing being needed for "true" VLO, the RQ-3 DarkStar, Predator-C, etc would like a word.

[ricnunes]

That comment is over 20 years old. Since the Tacit Blue is on public display, the days of "doctored photos" is over as far as it's concerned.

As far as a swept wing being needed for "true" VLO, the RQ-3 DarkStar, Predator-C, etc would like a word.

From what I gather from your post, I imagine that mas is saying that Tacit Blue isn't Stealth (but at the same time keeps claiming ridiculous low RCS values for the Typhoon)

Anyway, here are RCS values for Tacit Blue (Northrop) compared to Have Blue (Lockheed):



If the values above for the Tacit Blue (Northrop) doesn't put it in the Stealth realm, I wonder what it would take to put it in that same realm??

Anyway and if I'm not mistaken, one of the objectives of Tacit Blue was precisely to prove that that rounded and/or non angled edges can be used to build Stealth aircraft. This objective was clearly achieved (by looking at the values above).

Speaking of the value above, I believe that the last RCS value for Lockheed (Have Blue) for the 175 Mhz radar (1 square meter) seems to be a typo but I could be wrong...

[zerion]

That comment is over 20 years old. Since the Tacit Blue is on public display, the days of "doctored photos" is over as far as it's concerned.

As far as a swept wing being needed for "true" VLO, the RQ-3 DarkStar, Predator-C, etc would like a word.

B-2

[wrightwing]

It has been demonstrated millions of times that F-22 is invisible to EF2K's radar.

Has EF2K done the same to F-22's radar, even once?

So stop the freaking VLO or LO claim about EF2K.

Slick German Typhoons were said to have sometimes got to 20 miles of F-22s in exercises before being targeted, other sources mentioned with jamming. The F-22 can be picked up by the Pirate IRST at that range which the Germans don't have.

That's not what was said about engagements with Typhoons. The correct statement was that Typhoons never got within 20nm, without being killed.

[SpudmanWP]

B-2

To be fair the B-2's sweep is much more than the Tacit Blue.