F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

f4u7_corsair · by **f4u7_corsair** » 31 Jan 2019, 17:19

Snippet from the Eurofighter briefing on HX (Finland).

Do they realize how absurd this loadout is?
Also, do they realize it is a proof that the Typhoon is completely unsuitable to long-range & demanding air to ground tasks?

hythelday · by **hythelday** » 31 Jan 2019, 17:34

f4u7_corsair wrote:Snippet from the Eurofighter briefing on HX (Finland).

Do they realize how absurd this loadout is?

It does show all the pretty things one can put on the pylons though, including two/three-piece bomb racks. Personally I struggle to see under what circumstances would a fighter need to be carrying ALCMs, 1000 pound LGBs AND tank-busting PGMs at the same time; maybe the weapons are removable and they were playing around with different loadouts before the picture was taken? They certainly aren't fooling anyone in that room with that setup as "operationally relevant".

f4u7_corsair wrote:Also, do they realize it is a proof that the Typhoon is completely unsuitable to long-range & demanding air to ground tasks?

Typhoons weaker points in A2G (vs Rafale) are well known, but I think Eurofighter team will emphasize that Typhoon + Storm Shadow range is good enough without all the extra gas - (un)fortunately all the targets are right across the border. I don't think Hornet with 2x JASSM/ 2x EFT outranges Eurofighter with 2x Storm Shadow / 1x centerline EFT by a big margin, if at all.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 31 Jan 2019, 17:42

f4u7_corsair wrote:Do they realize how absurd this loadout is?
Also, do they realize it is a proof that the Typhoon is completely unsuitable to long-range & demanding air to ground tasks?

I see that the concept of survivability is totally and completely "alien" to you... :roll:

So, according to your own logic, a B-52 which can carry an even more "absurd loadout" compared to that Typhoon is more suitable "to long-range & demanding air to ground tasks" again compared to the Typhoon :doh:

And the same also applies to the already retired A-6 Intruder (and so on...):

And this not to mention that the F-35 can also carry more "absurd loadouts" compared to that Typhoon when using external stores but here I digress...

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 31 Jan 2019, 17:53

Rafale could not carry that payload along with 4 Meteors and 2 IR missiles.

hythelday · by **hythelday** » 31 Jan 2019, 18:12

marsavian wrote:Rafale could not carry that payload along with 4 Meteors and 2 IR missiles.

Yeah but how often would that have to be a requirement? F-15Es fly heavy load outs with 2x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9 on "EFT" stations.

Rafale can do 6x 500 pounders, 3x tanks (or 2x tanks and a Storm Shadow if you're into absurd load outs

) and 6x AAMs, (and a TGP). IMO a more useful setup.

f4u7_corsair · by **f4u7_corsair** » 31 Jan 2019, 18:17

Ricnunes, I'm starting to believe you have some kind of disorder that prevents you to sanely understanding what is written and what is implied.

It is an absurd loadout because:
(1) it is completely unrealistic, but that is obvious. Can you show one picture, one single picture, of an operational loadout (not PR) of a strike fighter (JSF and Raptor excluded) without one or two bags of fuel?
(2) it shows where the Typhoon lacks in A2G: heavy stores only on the wet points, and targeting pod only on the central wet point

Just crunch the numbers, and you'll find that taking into account internal and external capacity, and SFC, the Typhoon will trail quite far behind its counterparts (even legacy Hornets), severely impacting both range and/or loiter time.

marsavian wrote:Rafale could not carry that payload along with 4 Meteors and 2 IR missiles.

It could carry that with 2 METEOR & 4 MICA EM/IR (usually 2+2) however. hythelday's picture shows that, and shows how this Rafale loadout makes much more sense in an operational setup than the Typhoon's PR one.

lbk000 · by **lbk000** » 31 Jan 2019, 18:30

You're both so eager to favor the F-35 that you're at each others' throats about it

I think the model is purely promotional to show off as much of the EF's arsenal as possible. Not far removed from the classic armament pinup:

: f111_load.jpg (42.82 KiB) Viewed 29747 times

I don't think it should be taken out of context.
Now if you have a photo of the real EF flying with that loadout, then we have something to laugh at.
Mercifully, such an image does not exist.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 31 Jan 2019, 20:17

f4u7_corsair wrote:Ricnunes, I'm starting to believe you have some kind of disorder that prevents you to sanely understanding what is written and what is implied.

No, I don't have any sanity or comprehension problems.

First you said this:

f4u7_corsair wrote:Do they realize how absurd this loadout is?

and then just afterwards, this:

f4u7_corsair wrote:Also, do they realize it is a proof that the Typhoon is completely unsuitable to long-range & demanding air to ground tasks?

For me that's clearly sarcasm (albeit very poorly conceived) which seems to follows what was previously discussed (namely regarding the Typhoon/Rafale/etc... being obsolete).

Or who knows my supposed "misunderstanding" is the result of an ill translation from French to English?? :roll:

Or perhaps you should stick to actual arguments instead of ill conceived sarcasm...

n3sk · by **n3sk** » 31 Jan 2019, 23:00

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
n3sk wrote:f-35v E2000- 1v1- F -35 uses its superior everything to avoid the typhoon until it goes bingo fuel and lands... suddenly it begins to rain mini JDAMS

It’s a strike fighter, not a2a.

The F-35 would likely kill the EF without the EF ever realizing the F-35 was in the airspace. The features that make the F-35 deadly in the strike role are also the features that make it deadly in the A2A role, namely low observability and stealth. The radar equation doesn't change if the radar is on the ground or on a fighter.

Yeah but what fun would that be.

f4u7_corsair · by **f4u7_corsair** » 31 Jan 2019, 23:43

Ricnunes, my argument had no relation with that was previously discussed, and was explained in my following post. I'm sorry to hear you can't read, let alone understand.

madrat · by **madrat** » 01 Feb 2019, 02:25

How about get your point across the first time and then not be an asshat when someone pointed out the error.

optimist · by **optimist** » 01 Feb 2019, 03:01

hythelday wrote:
marsavian wrote:

Just looking at that picture tells me the rafale has a very low RCS, I've seen said 0.1.. Perhaps I've been mistaken and rafale really is the king of the air. :mrgreen:

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 01 Feb 2019, 05:20

Actiffe stelph, yo

gta4 · by **gta4** » 01 Feb 2019, 06:00

For those who forget about DAS:
This was my older post proving how a F-35 solo 2 Su-35s/Rafales: :mrgreen:

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52955

kimjongnumbaun · by **kimjongnumbaun** » 01 Feb 2019, 06:31

n3sk wrote:Yeah but what fun would that be.

Funny you say that. A guy in my unit transitioned to the F-22. The F-22 guys are leaving for the commercial sector because the missions are dull and they get paid better on the outside. F-22 pilots basically kill everything unopposed until their bingo fuel and repeat the next day.