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 post01 Aug 2006, 23:51

LordOfBunnies, While having a combination is good and all, I'm talking about a small(er) nation needing a single type. Maybe numbering around 50 or 60.

Also, on the Typhoon, the Russians are only a few years off before exporting weapons and aircraft that will easily put them on an even footing with the Typhoon.
Offline

hansundfranz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2004, 10:47

Unread post02 Aug 2006, 17:12

One thing you always forget.

Stealth is quite useful right now but nobody knows how much progress will be made with signal processing, passive detectin methods and different improved radar technology in the next 15 to 20 years. And lets not kid ourself the F22 and F35 will stay for 30-40 years at minimum.
Where is that switch in the cockpit? If that is not OPSEC of course
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post02 Aug 2006, 17:53

Stealth would still help. Even with the best signal processing and power output, having a "stealth" design does yield major advantages when compared to non-stealthy aircraft.

The leader in radar technology is the USA. While most nations are still puttering around making AESAs that work, and making them cheaper, the US is already moving onto the "next best thing".

They are the only ones with the innovation and funding to continue to produce and improve these technologies...

As of right now, stealth only lowers detection range significantly. And will do so, even with newer radars.
Offline

JCSVT

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 02:31

skrip00 wrote:Sad really.

Looks like someone just doesnt know the advantages of stealth in BVR, or the advantages of DAS, HMS, and HOBS missiles in WVR...


Nope I fully understand. I fully understand that the Typhoon was designed to be an air superiority fighter from the outset unlike the F-35.

Yes, stealth is great. But for the air superority role, the F-35 isn't the best choice, at least not as good as the Typhoon. I can see the F-35 providing escort, SEAD, and precision strike because of it's stealth qualities but in wartime the Tyhpoon, F-22, and F-15 would perform the same roles.
Last edited by JCSVT on 03 Aug 2006, 02:35, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

RonO

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: 09 May 2006, 23:59

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 02:33

As long as radar remains the primary long range detection, stealth will be invaluable. That's why 100% of aircraft manufacturers in the world are spending fortunes developing LO technology and why supporters of aircraft that are rather difficient in that regard, spend so much energy rubbishing stealth. You watch the dassault, saab & bae salesmen turn 180 degrees as soon as they have a LO design to sell. It's just like when the car makers that didnt have air bags/cruise control/ABS at first said they were crap then spoke out of the other sides of their mouths when their next model appeared.
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 03:07

The only drawback to the F-35's air superiority role is a lack of internal AAM capacity... but if what we discussed in the other thread pans out, we can see up to 6 internal AAMs. But currently, the F-35 can only mount 4.

But then again, even with missiles on the external wing pylons, the F-35 is still far stealthier than the Typhoon. Also, some nations can mount the Meteor on their F-35s, really packing a punch there.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 03:36

skrip00 wrote:But then again, even with missiles on the external wing pylons, the F-35 is still far stealthier than the Typhoon. Also, some nations can mount the Meteor on their F-35s, really packing a punch there.


A:
This statement needs to be proved. No matter whether the modification that you mentioned above will be done finally, up to now, F-35 can just carry two missiles (AIM-120 or ASRAAM) internally.

In the standard configuration of air-defense (4~6 BVRAAM + 2 WVRAAM), for the F-35 now, 4 to 6 missiles have to be carried below its main wings (For F-35B and C, even 25 mm cannon has to be carried outsides). As for EF-2000, four BVRAAMs will be semi-buried in its abdomen, and only 2 WVRAAM +/- 2 BVRAAM will be carried below its main wings.

In this kind of condition, which one will have the lower drag?? and how different of frontal RCS between them will be??? Personally, I think both of these need real measurement and evidence to prove.
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 04:18

Evidence and measurement you wont ever see toan.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 04:46

To make my previous post more clear, let me make a very rough and inaccurate assumption:

1. The frontal RCS of F-35 is around 0.001~0.0015 m2, and the frontal RCS of EF-2000 is around 0.1 m2, so according to the formula, for the same radar, the detection / tracking range for F-35 shall be roughly 1/3 of the the detection / tracking range for EF-2000 theoretically.

2. I've no idea for the RCS influence of AIM-120 / AIM-9 under an external pylon, but its increase of frontal RCS must be big enough so that it deserves many costs (more weight, more cost, less fuel.......) for F-22A in order to put eight missiles internally. Suppose that one AIM-120 or AIM-9 with its pylon will increase 0.1m2 of RCS, and the missile which is semi-buried below the fighter's abdomen will increase 0.05m2 of RCS, then:

The frontal RCS of EF-2000 with 4 missiles semi-buried, and 2~4 missile under its main wings shall be: 0.1 m2 (fighter) + 0.05 m2*4 + 0.1 m2*2~4 = 0.5 ~ 0.7 m2.

The frontal RCS of F-35 with 2 internal missiles, 4~6 missile under its main wings shall be: 0.001~0.0015 m2 (fighter) + 0.1 m2*4~6 = 0.4 ~ 0.6 m2.

The frontal RCS of F-35 with 4 internal missiles, 2~4 missile under its main wings shall be: 0.001~0.0015 m2 (fighter) + 0.1 m2*2~4 = 0.2 ~ 0.4 m2.


As I mentioned above, I've no idea about the "real" RCS influence of AIM-120 / AIM-9 under an external pylon and the BVRAAM semi-buried below the fighter's bottom. But I think once both EF-2000 and F-35 carry AAMs externally, the difference between their frontal RCS may be decreased significantly, and it needs the real measurement and evidence to prove that if F-35 can still has a much smaller RCS than EF-2000 in this condition.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 05:00

skrip00 wrote:Evidence and measurement you wont ever see toan.


A:
Then the previous statement "Even with missiles on the external wing pylons, the F-35 is still far stealthier than the Typhoon" of yours should be your personal anticipation or belief, not necessarily the truth.

Of course, the real evidence and measurement may never be seen by us. However, when RAF and RN begin the DACT between EF-2000 and F-35 around 2020, some parts of the truth might be revealed.
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 05:41

Think about it. Pylons dont have to be made of metal. Carbon composites or even fiberglass ones are transparent to radar. The only metal in them would be the release system and the wiring. Not big enough in terms of reflectivity.

Then you have a missile. Whose frontal RCS may actually diminish and be stealthy in itself. Why? I'd imagine the radar seeker in the missile can be angled, or is angled and rotates. Its usually something like this: ======[][]-/

= is the motor/engine, [][] is the guidance/warhead, and / is the radar seeker.

Anyways. Its a matter of RCS distribution. Even if you increase the RCS in some areas of the aircraft, your not increasing the overall return. Radars dont see a circle that represents RCS, they see what gets reflected back.

Another question: Can a Typhoon's radar track an incoming AAM like the Meteor or AIM-120D?
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 05:48

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eu ... s.html#maw

Missile Approach Warner (MAW)

Although the goal of any fighter pilot is to remove an enemy before they have fired there will of course be occasions when this is not the case. To enable tracking of such missile launches the DASS incorporates three Missile Approach Warners (MAW), one each in the port and starboard wing roots (near the cockpit) and one in the rear fuselage (near the tail). The units are derived from the Plessey PVS2000 MAW which utilises an active, pulse-doppler radar for detection. Since the units are active they are able to detect not only radar guided ordnance but also passive weapons such as infra red guided short range missiles. To increase the effectiveness of the system the MAW is also directly linked to the flare launchers allowing an instantaneous response to a local launch.
Last edited by toan on 03 Aug 2006, 16:50, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 16:16

Again, can its radar track a missile coming at it. Just using its plain ol radar system. Not ECM.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 16:47

Its MAW system is basically a small pulse-doppler radar with 360 degrees coverage, and I think its power, output, and effective range shall be far less than the main radar of CAPTOR.

If a small active, pulse-doppler radar can detect and track the coming of AAMs, why CAPTOR can't have such a capability at the longer range??? (Of course, the scanning coverage of Captor is much smaller than the coverage of PVS2000, therefore, in the most conditions of missile approaching, the Captor may not be able to see the coming missile(s) since it / they is / are at the location(s) out of Captor's scanning coverage...............)
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 16:56

Exactly. Its one thing to detect a missile coming in terminally at 5nm out.

Basically, I'm trying to see what the possible RCS effect of a missile is. Because hanging on wing pylons, it does add up. But I'm thinking it wont mean too much in terms of RCS penalty.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests