F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2149
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 00:26

zero-one wrote:Thats the thing, I have never heard of F-15s or F/A-18s being on PAR with Typhoons and Rafales. I did hear of a Rafale pilot saying his plane was better than F/A-18s.


Of course that you heard a Rafale pilot saying his plane was better than F/A-18s. I've also "heard" Flanker pilots saying that the Su-35 is better than any western aircraft including the F-35 but we know that's bullshit, right?
I would say that US pilots don't have the need to praise their aircraft because actual combat records (and even export successes) speak in favor of the US aircraft.

Besides, the South Koreans clearly disagree with you (the F-15 not being "on par" with the Typhoon) when they chose the F-15K over the Typhoon - This IMO speaks more than and odd pilot comment but again this is IMO.

And then we have the fact that pilots will trend to be biased towards their aircraft when they are "allowed" (note the quotes) to speak.

Moreover, the Hornet that I mentioned above was the Super Hornet and not the legacy one.


zero-one wrote:Thinking to myself, well the Rafale is essentially France's attempt to build a 5th gen fighter. (same time line, same perceived threat and almost the same budget as the ATF program), if they somehow ended up with something just on par with the F/A-18E then thats a disappointment.


No it is not.
So, you would also say that the Typhoon was the UK/Germany/Italy/Spain attempt to build a 5th gen fighter?? With all due respect, it doesn't make sense.
Just because the Rafale is more or less contemporary to the ATF program (which ended up developing the F-22) it doesn't mean that what was intended with the Rafale was a 5th gen - very far from it.
The Rafale and Typhoon program were basically the European response to the US teen series - namely F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 which were (like it or not) generally superior to existing European fighter aircraft at the time, such as the Mirage 2000 or the Tornado.
For example in-built Stealth was not an intended for the Rafale and Typhoon (although some RCS reduction measures were implemented later on) as opposed to the ATF/F-22.
All of this just proves what I've been saying: The European fighter/combat aircraft industry lags well behind its US counterpart.


zero-one wrote:
ricnunes wrote:The F-22 being better than the F-35 in A-A is very debatable.


Thats the thing, to me its not. Allow me to quote our admin here
Scorpion1alpha wrote:I can think of at least 3 other Lightning pilots who have publicly stated in the past that the F-35’s maneuverability is only on par with the best 4th Gen fighters and that it’ll NEVER equal the F-22’s level of maneuverability, despite what some F-35 fans that wants to put it in the Raptor’s level.

Lightning fans immediately ignore it and / or quickly point out some other feature about it (downplaying the maneuverability part as not important) and go from there.

Maj. Searcy is just the latest Lightning pilot that I’ve heard to have publicly stated what some in the Lightning fanbase has to understand: the jet is built from day one to fulfill a role and has a certain responsibility. In the US at least, it is to compliment the F-22. It is the low end of a Hi-Lo mix. It was made primarily for air-to-ground, but with some overlapping and credible air-to-air capability as is the inverse with the F-22: primarily air-to-air with credible air-to-ground capability. One cannot totally replace the other in their primary roles.



Please re-read what I previously posted! I admitted that the F-22 has better performance than the F-35 and better agility as well.
However in modern days those "some other features" (which the poster you quoted mentioned as a "pro-F35" argument) are the ones that often make the real diference in combat, including Air-to-Air combat. Those features help level things in favor of the F-35 against the performance/agility advantage that the F-22 has. But this I believe, I explained quite well before, so I won't repeat it.


zero-one wrote:
ricnunes wrote:The F-22 seems to be slightly better than the F-35 is in the agility department (energy and turning)

In parts of the envelope maybe. High subsonic with light fuel and ordnance loads maybe but if we're talking about supersonic maneuverability and post stall maneuverability then I don't think the F-35 is close at all.

performance is very important in A-A, even in BVR. Dozer recounted a story of killing F-15s, the survivors of the encounter quickly dove and made a dash for safety, they were supersonic. he was chasing them from behind in the Raptor and his closure rate to them was Mach 1. Thats something that would be impossible in an F-35, those F-15s would of gotten away.


I'm not disputing that and of course I agree with what you said above.
However what I was referencing above what a tentative head-to-head engagement between the F-22 and F-35 and here I wouldn't bet in which one would win in this case for the reasons that are mentioned below in the next comment.


zero-one wrote:
ricnunes wrote:- Being potentially Stealthier (lower RCS), namely in the frontal aspect.

All documentations we have point to them being similarly Stealthy in RCS and IR spectrum. I would agree that the F-35 has more passive sensors making it more stealthy when gathering SA


Well, you have the following comment from Gen Hostage:
The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”


I personally think that in overall aspects that the RCS between the F-22 and F-35 shouldn't differ much indeed so I believe that there's a chance that what Gen Hostage is referring could be the aircraft's frontal RCS.

More and like you said, the F-35 has more and better passive sensors which means that with both aircraft having a similar RCS then the F-35 could have a considerable if not big advantage here (over the F-22).



zero-one wrote:
ricnunes wrote:- DAS (see the advantages that for example it brings in an A-A WVR/Dogfight combat in the previous posts of this thread)

I have reservations here. Not that its not gona work but listening to an Interview from Dozer about his kills in Serbia, he talked about the many parameters he needed to meet to get into proper launch parameters.


Well, actually that's the reason why it (DAS together with sensor fusion) will work! The F-35 sensor fusion feed by sensors such as DAS will automatically do all the hard work for the pilot in order to meet the proper launch parameters.

Resuming, with the F-35 the pilot will get much, much quicker to the "proper launch parameters" compared to any other aircraft. This is like comparing a task (such as typing a text or report) done manually versus when done via computer.


zero-one wrote:We often think of missiles as magical wonder weapons that kill as soon as you're in range and have a lock. But it wasn't, even with the AMRAAM he needed to launch multiple rounds and repeatedly maneuver to increase his missile's Pk. He was also firing at a Mig-29 without the advanced ECMs. But after all that his missiles, 4 of them I think, missed.

Interview is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pivtRMOf8s


Well for sure as hell that no other weapon will be as close to "being a magical wonder weapon" than a missile, that's for sure! For sure as hell that the gun won't be such weapon :wink:
Basically the missile will continue to be the main weapon - and I would even say the only weapon in usual/most situations - for fighter aircraft even because now and in the future when a fighter aircraft runs out of missiles, it will simply run away from combat and it definitely won't press on using other weapons i.e. the gun.

Moreover, if I'm not mistaken most of the AMRAAM's used over Kosovo/Serbia were the older AIM-120A variant which had some reliability/teething problems and of course shorter range than the AIM-120C and so on for all later variants.
In anyway those AMRAAMs used during Operation Allied Force are certainly less capable than the current and modern AIM-120C (namely the C7) or the AIM-120D.

zero-one wrote:So I don't envision the F-35 simply locking on over the shoulder, Fox 2, Splash, I'm not saying thats impossible but if forced into WVR, you'd still want to get your target at bore-site before firing, remember you only have 2 Aim-9Xs.


Well you should envision that because that's the future! Well, it's already the present BTW.
The F-35 "simply locking" on over the shoulder, Fox 2 will unfold in one of the two situations below:
1- The target/enemy aircraft won't be able to avoid the incoming Aim-9X (Fox2) and yes, SPLASH!
2- or, the target/enemy aircraft manages to spoof/avoid the incoming AIM-9X but this will only put the target/enemy aircraft in an disadvantageous position (it loses energy and/or has to face away from the F-35) in a situation where it won't be able to avoid a second missile launched against it or in a best case scenario for the target/enemy aircraft the F-35 will simply be able to get away from the combat unscathed.

Sorry for the long post...
Last edited by ricnunes on 03 Feb 2019, 01:05, edited 5 times in total.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2149
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 00:36

white_lightning35 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
No, it won't.
The F-22 being better than the F-35 in A-A is very debatable. The F-22 seems to be slightly better than the F-35 is in the agility department (energy and turning) and is definitely better in the performance department (speed, acceleration and ceiling) which many people usually and immediately "translate" to being better in A-A (perhaps a "Top Gun"/"Hollywood" effect?). But the fact is that the F-35 has it's advantages (compared to the F-22) even in the A-A arena, such as:
- Being potentially Stealthier (lower RCS), namely in the frontal aspect.
- DAS (see the advantages that for example it brings in an A-A WVR/Dogfight combat in the previous posts of this thread)
- EOTS
- Potentially better EW suite.

So I would say that the outcome of an Air-to-Air combat between the F-22 and F-35 is extremely hard to predict because both aircraft have a very good level of parity (albeit in part due to different reasons).


Stop spreading lies and BS.


Hey, calm down dude!
Where does the F-35 being potentially Stealthier (lower RCS) than the F-22 is a lie?? Unless of course, you want to call Gen. Hostage a liar?
Where does the F-35 having DAS while the F-22 not being BS or a lie??
Where does the F-35 having EOTS while the F-22 not being BS or a lie??
Where does the F-35 having a potentially better EW suite while the F-22 not being BS or a lie??

And since when having the above doesn't give any advantage or edge during an air-to-air combat?? Is this a lie too?? :doh:

You may disagree with my points and feel free to argue/debate them but won't don't call me a liar, OK! Anyway, this is a talk we should have over PM, I guess. :roll:


white_lightning35 wrote:As many others have mentioned in the past, the f-22 has been unequivocally stated to be superior to the f-35 in A2A. Zero-one summed it up nicely in his post. Many pilots, including f-35 pilots, have already told members of this forum that the f-22 is superior in A2A. I don't know how many times statements of pilots and other in the know have to be brought up before some people start accepting reality.

This constant ignoring of reality by some members of this forum consistently drags down the quality of the discourse. Some f-35 fanboys here are exhibiting the same qualities that the basement-dwellers we like to mock do.


What others have "unequivocally stated" in terms of the F-22 being superior to the F-35 was in terms of performance and agility ALONE. I even admitted that the F-22 was better in these metrics than the F-35! Perhaps you should CAREFULLY read my posts first before calling me a liar - something that I never called you, did I? :roll:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 02:57

You're mixing stuff up Ricnunes.
The 2000 is the answer to the Teen series, with the 4000 being supposed as a heavier complement but later dropped. The Rafale (and the Typhoon) is clearly a notch further. You can't twist facts like that.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 824
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 07:19

F-22 is far more agile and faster than F-35.
But F-35 will always have first look first shot due to EOTS. So before getting in visual range F-22 must dodge 4-6 missiles.
Then at visual range, F-35 has DIRCM to defeat IIR missiles while F-22 doesn't
To be fair, i doubt that a squadron of F-22 will best a squadron of F-35.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1258
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 08:20

The Rafale (and the Typhoon) is clearly a notch further.


At the time of introduction, maybe but with F-16V, F-18E, F-15SA/X the deficiencies have been addressed and they all have comparable abilities now. IRST/AESA/EW, all the sensors are more or less equivalent with the latest factory models and only F-15 has the really big RCS but then again it has the biggest radar to compensate. Now it's a matter of preference, price and national availability which evolved 4th generation fighter you buy.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 09:04

ricnunes wrote:Just because the Rafale is more or less contemporary to the ATF program (which ended up developing the F-22) it doesn't mean that what was intended with the Rafale was a 5th gen - very far from it.


Look at the narrative that they were pushing back in the 2000s and you tell me. They really wanted to make it look like the EF Typhoon was every bit the equal of the F-22.
Attachments
Capture4.PNG
Capture3.PNG
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23275
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 09:32

:devil: Me LIKEE :doh:
Attachments
TyphoonRaptorSURVIVABITYcomparision.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1258
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 09:36

Indeed, in fact all the Euro-Canards downplay VLO and consider "5th gen" as LMT PR-speak although mock air fights tend to bear out the generational gap distinction.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 09:55

ricnunes wrote:However in modern days those "some other features" (which the poster you quoted mentioned as a "pro-F35" argument) are the ones that often make the real diference in combat, including Air-to-Air combat. Those features help level things in favor of the F-35 against the performance/agility advantage that the F-22 has. But this I believe, I explained quite well before, so I won't repeat it.


He's not just some poster by the way, he's the admin of the site which I would put in the same level of respect as Gums, Tailgate, Johnwill etc.

Anyway, I think we can agree that there are 3 components that set apart great air superiority platforms. Stealth , S.A. and Kinematics.

STEALTH, we can probably agree that the F-22 and F-35 are equal. Gen. Hostage did say that the F-35 "can" beat the F-22 in Stealth. Operating word is can. This could simply mean that with more passive detection methods the F-35 doesn't need to rely as much on active radar.

I would also say that the word works both ways. If something simply can beat you then it is not to be confused that it will beat you. Likewise I think the F-22 "can" beat the F-35 in stealth. For example the F-22 does not need to rely on AB as much as the F-35 in moments where speed and acceleration are critical to mission success. This gives the F-22 a lower IR signature in those moments.


S.A. and Kinematics This is where our differences collide. Those who say that the F-35 is better in A-A seem to think that it has more than enough kinematic performance to perform the air dominance mission while having far more S.A. than the F-22. this in turn makes it more effective, the whole "Information is life" is the new "speed is life".

The Reverse is true for me. I happen to think that the F-22 already has more than enough SA to perform air dominance and the added kinematics just make it more deadly.

I'll refer to Dozer's example again. his targets were 2 F-15s that were making a run for it. They were at supersonic, Mach 1.2+ IIRC, yet despite that he closed in on them from behind at a rate of Mach 1. He was going Mach 2+ in combat configuration. What would an F-35 do in a similar situation?

See that got me thinking, why did he need to chase them down? doesn't the AMRAAM have a range of 100 Km+ and speeds of Mach 4, he could of just shot them from behind. Then it hit me, Launch parameters.

Having extreme long range missiles with 100Km range isn't new,
but in practice the longest range A-A kill is what? 20 miles, Dozer even launched his at 15 miles away. Is it from a lack of SA. Nope, even in the Gulf of Sidra incidents, the Mig-23s were detected, identified, considered hostile and cleared for engagement from a hundred miles away. But shots were only fired WVR. They weren't forced into a dogfight because of the lack of SA. They had more than enough SA to kill the bandits 100 miles out.

So this tells us that realistically, BVR combat is not lobbing AMRAAMs from 50 to 100 miles away, but more like within 20 mile encounters. Not because you lack SA but because thats the limitation of weapons technology. Fighters are probably the most difficult manned battlefield asset to hit due to the sheer nature of their kinematics. So even in 1999 with the game changing Aim-120 (A or B doesn't matter) AMRAAMs fired from 5 miles still miss, would you really want to fire it from 70 miles away even if it is the C7 or D variant.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 824
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 10:24

zero-one wrote:likewise I think the F-22 "can" beat the F-35 in stealth. For example the F-22 does not need to rely on AB as much as the F-35 in moments where speed and acceleration are critical to mission success. This gives the F-22 a lower IR signature in those moments.
t.

Isn't that a bit of a moot point since F-22 doesn't have IRST atm?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23275
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 11:02

I'm looking for original quote and so far found only 'defaero' quote because I take issue with the 'zero-one' "CAN" above:
"...STEALTH, we can probably agree that the F-22 and F-35 are equal. Gen. Hostage did say that the F-35 "can" beat the F-22 in Stealth. Operating word is can…."

"...Radar cross-section http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -f_35.html
[Hostage] The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s..." [presume accurate but will look for original quote]

General Hostage USAF original quote under the graphic here: https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen ... -starts/3/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1258
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 11:13

The F-35 would need to be stealthier to make up for its about 20% less TR modules. Also modeling has suggested that F-22 has better all aspect stealth. I suspect though that mutual radar detection is a wash between the two and it probably will come down to the F-35 IR sensors to break the tie in most cases. What's the betting then that PCA will have the best most powerful IRST ever built ? ;).
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 11:59

garrya wrote:
zero-one wrote:likewise I think the F-22 "can" beat the F-35 in stealth. For example the F-22 does not need to rely on AB as much as the F-35 in moments where speed and acceleration are critical to mission success. This gives the F-22 a lower IR signature in those moments.
t.

Isn't that a bit of a moot point since F-22 doesn't have IRST atm?


O what I meant was, against an adversary. Lets say they are equally stealthy in the RF spectrum, but the F-22 could be more stealthy in the IR spectrum.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 551
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 14:44

Eurofighter's "balanced" approach to survivability includes radio-based MAW that is as good as fire control self-illumination against F-22, F-35 and probably Rafale for that matter. :D
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post03 Feb 2019, 15:02

hythelday wrote:Eurofighter's "balanced" approach to survivability includes radio-based MAW that is as good as fire control self-illumination against F-22, F-35 and probably Rafale for that matter. :D


Like pointing a flashlight at something thats looking for a flashlight :lmao:
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests