F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

[hornetfinn]

"I agree fully that EODAS is likely very underrated system for air-to-air combat. Especially in situations where there are multiple aircraft in the air. No pilot can track several aircraft at once all the time and have full understanding who is who and where. EODAS does exactly that. F-35 pilot does not need to worry about misidentification or losing sight of enemy aircraft or if there is an enemy aircraft somewhere he can't see."

A little refinement here -- EODAS does not do any tracking; it is a sensor, an input to the fusion engine. Fusion does the tracking.

Thank you, that was a good refinement for my slightly sloppy wording. That's a good thing to remember when talking about F-35 sensor system.

[hornetfinn]

A little refinement here -- EODAS does not do any tracking; it is a sensor, an input to the fusion engine. Fusion does the tracking.

Yes indeed.
However the sensor fusion can only track a target (or track accurately) if it receives (accurate) input. If the target cannot be detected by the Radar (target outside the sensor detection area), IRST (target outside the sensor detection area), EW (the target is not emitting) this by either the own aircraft or by any other friendly aircraft/asset available (or not) then the sensor fusion will rely (solely) on EODAS.
This is something that no other aircraft has, or resuming in the case above the target cannot be tracked unless it is from a F-35 because of (again) EODAS.

True, but then the sensor fusion engine will task the other sensors to find out more about the contact it just found from EODAS data. Because it does not receive any information about RF signals from target, it will know it doesn't transmit using radar or possibly even data links or radio. Even absence of information is information in itself in this case. Being outside of EOTS or AN/APG-81 detection volumes is very quickly remedied by the pilot doing some maneuvering to find out more about the contact. I'm sure the sensor fusion engine will tell the pilot there is something that needs further examination and I'm sure the pilot would oblige rather quickly.

Of course the sensor fusion in F-35 extends over at least a flight of F-35s along with additional information coming from external sensors like AWACS, Aegis and ground radars and other systems. It would be pretty remarkable achievement to be able to jump on F-35 like that. I think it might be possible for a real 5th gen fighter as capable as F-35 or F-22, but very difficult for others.

[zero-one]

This A2A was indisputably a BVR engagement that then went to WVR shots well inside 5 nm radius.

Please stop claiming it was just a WVR missile fight.

If you can post a source for that then I will stand corrected. But so far here is what I have
Just to be clear, this is the 1989 incident which is more recent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_S ... dent_(1981)

First Shot BVR (failed)
12:01:20 and a range of 12 nautical miles (22 km)Enwright fired an AIM-7; he surprised Connelly, who did not expect to see a missile accelerate away from his aircraft. The missile failed to track toward its target.

2nd Shot BVR (failed)
At about 10 nautical miles (19 kilometres), Enwright launched a second AIM-7, but it also failed to hit its target.

3rd Shot edge of WVR (success)
Lieutenant Commander Steven Collins, the RIO in Gypsy 202, fired a third AIM-7 from roughly five miles (8.0 km) away and downed one of the Libyan aircraft.

4th Shot WVR (success)
After executing a sharp right turn, Gypsy 207 gained a position in the rear quadrant of the final MiG-23.[2] As the Libyan fighter was turning left and at distance of one and a half miles (2.4 km), Connelly fired an AIM-9 missile which downed its target.

Just for kicks heres the 1981 incident

Only a few seconds before the crossing, at an estimated distance of 300 m, one of the Libyans fired an AA-2 "Atoll" at one of the F-14s, which missed.[22][25] Then the two Sukhois split as they flew past the Americans; the leader turning to the northwest and the wingman turning southeast in the direction of the Libyan coast.[21][22][26] The Tomcats evaded the missile and were cleared to return fire by their rules of engagement, which mandated self-defense on the initiation of hostile action.[22][27] The Tomcats turned hard port and came behind the Libyan jets.[22] The Americans fired AIM-9L Sidewinders; the first kill is credited to Fast Eagle 102, the second to Fast Eagle 107.[22][28] Both Libyan pilots ejected.

[zero-one]

“Redundant and confusing” —01

Only to you zero.

You guys are the ones still trying to push the narrative that the F-35 is somehow better than the F-22 in AA despite strong indications from EVERYONE in the know that this is not the case.

We're reading too much into what Hostage meant by "cross section". Cross section means size it shouldn't be confused with Radar cross section. But lets say Hostage did in fact refer to RCS. Surely someone else would have said the same thing that the F-35 had better RCS than the F-22.

Do we have any documentation about that.
In fact there are documentations that say the F-35's RCS is not as good as the F-22
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm

F-35 / JSF 0.005 -30
F-117 0.003
insect 0.001 -30
F-22 0.0001 -40

I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just saying there are documentations like this.

Hey Spaz, everyone knows where to find the link for that, I myself have posted it many times. its over here:
https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen ... ar-starts/

[spazsinbad]

It is only words I guess but Gen. Hostage said them: [whilst seven PDF pages give context to that sentence with 'can']

"...“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.”..."

[zero-one]

"...“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.”..."

That could mean a lot of things,
The F-35 has more passive detection methods so there can be instances where in order to get the same quality of SA the F-22 will have to use of active radar while the F-35 can maintain stealth by using passive sensors.

[spazsinbad]

Your imagination gets in the way of facts methinks. One cannot argue with your imagination and I'm not trying to do so. However I'm willing to quote what is available so that people can see what has been said - rather than your imaginings.

[wrightwing]

When you say "cross section" and "stealth" in the same statement, the meaning is not ambiguous. RCS is what's being spoken about. General Hostage isn't the only one that's made the claim, either. General Bogdan verified the claim, as well as specifying that RCS was indeed the context. The F-35's RCS is lower than -40dbsm.

[spazsinbad]

The F-35 on Final Approach
Dec 2014 John Tirpak

“...Stealthier than a Raptor...
...[Gen.] Hostage caused a stir in late spring when, in press interviews, he said the F-35 would be stealthier than the F-22, its larger USAF stablemate. Conventional wisdom had pegged the F-22, with its angled, vectored-thrust engines, as a stealthier machine than the F-35. Hostage also said the F-35 would be unbeatable when employed in numbers, which is why the full buy of aircraft is "so critical."

"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.

The comment about the effectiveness of F-35s together "has less to do with stealthiness and more to do with overall survivability," he said. "We are going to ask the F-35 to do things that no other airplane—fourth gen or otherwise—is going to be able to do in the future," he stated. For some of those missions, "it would be much better to do it with more than one F-35."

Besides their stealthiness, the F-35s share information and can perform electronic warfare, electronic attack, and cyber missions. "When you put two F-35s in the battlespace, … they become even more survivable when they do it together," Bogdan asserted. With two or more, "the sum of the parts is greater than the whole," especially when the aircraft are teaming up "from different parts of the airspace, on the same targets. It becomes quite effective.”..."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... roach.aspx

[zero-one]

The F-35 on Final Approach
Dec 2014 John Tirpak


"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability,[/b] he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.

Why yes, I fully agree that the F-35 is Stealthier than Other airplanes

[spazsinbad]

And yet the context implies that the F-22 is included. You should be in a SPIN business. Anyway people can read and make up their minds without your interpretation. Words are words if quoted accurately & in regard to the F-22 also one hopes.

“...Stealthier than a Raptor...
...[Gen.] Hostage caused a stir in late spring when, in press interviews, he said the F-35 would be stealthier than the F-22, its larger USAF stablemate. Conventional wisdom had pegged the F-22, with its angled, vectored-thrust engines, as a stealthier machine than the F-35...."

[zero-one]

However I'm willing to quote what is available so that people can see what has been said - rather than your imaginings.

So why would Bodgan bother with using the word can instead of will? It implies that the advantage of the F-35 in Stealth is dependent on some factors And that the reverse is also true, the F-22 CAN beat the F-35 in Stealth as well because if it couldn't then why bother using "Can". Just say the F-35 beats it in Stealth.

[hornetfinn]

“Redundant and confusing” —01

Only to you zero.

You guys are the ones still trying to push the narrative that the F-35 is somehow better than the F-22 in AA despite strong indications from EVERYONE in the know that this is not the case.

We're reading too much into what Hostage meant by "cross section". Cross section means size it shouldn't be confused with Radar cross section. But lets say Hostage did in fact refer to RCS. Surely someone else would have said the same thing that the F-35 had better RCS than the F-22.

Do we have any documentation about that.
In fact there are documentations that say the F-35's RCS is not as good as the F-22
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm

F-35 / JSF 0.005 -30
F-117 0.003
insect 0.001 -30
F-22 0.0001 -40

I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just saying there are documentations like this.

That list is just a list in a web page, it's not really a documentation. That info is based on this news piece from 2005:
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htair ... 51125.aspx

That in turn was probably based on this info from 2000 :
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a391729.pdf

The advanced technologies, qualities, and capabilities that the F-22 Raptor and JSF will offer are unique and well advanced over today’s front-line fighters and hence affect an export decision. JSF development is in something of an amorphous state with the primary contractor selection not scheduled until fall of 2001. A decision that will define
its specific export configuration is also not expected for another three years. Therefore, the attention of this discussion will focus on the F-22, which is currently in the early production and testing phase. In addition, the F-22 is the more capable of the two fighters—with a unique speed, maneuverability, and stealth advantage. The JSF will not
be as effective at defeating enemy air defenses on its own. In relative terms, where the F22 would have the radar cross-section (RCS) of a marble—or bumble bee—the JSF would represent that of a golf ball. This does not necessarily imply that JSF’s technology is any less advanced, but it does imply that the export of F-22s will pose even more difficult decisions for policy makers.

That info was published almost 20 years ago, before F-22 IOC and even first flight of X-35 or X-32. It seems to me that the cost was driving F-35 development more and requirements were less strict for stealth because of that. Nobody could have predicted then what the RCS of F-35 would be, because such a thing didn't even exist and it wasn't even selected then. Somebody seems to have realized that they could build great VLO stealth without increasing costs too much and F-35 RCS is much better than foreseen 20 years ago.

My point being that this old information is pretty much useless in comparisons. F-22 RCS was probably pretty well known by then, but F-35 RCS existed only as requirements. Later info seems to be that F-35 is much better in stealth than what the requirments were. Some statements seem to indicate that it's at least on par with F-22 on stealth.

[spazsinbad]

I guess that is why Bogdan is a General in the USAF and you are not. He gets a question which he answers. You want to interpret an re-interpret the answer ad nauseam. Perhaps you need to tell us what you need to hear about anything to be convinced: speaker, context, date; remembering there are security concerns which have been tightened by all US forces.

This answer is meant for 'zero-one' - 'hornetfinn' post intervened whilst typing my reply - which is a good one by the way.

[zero-one]

You should be in a SPIN business.

I know it was meant against me, but I genuinely found that funny.


But Hey I'm not the one trying to associate Cross section with radar cross section here. If he did in fact mean RCS then don't bother with saying "CAN". Just say it does.

I guess that is why Bogdan is a General in the USAF and you are not. He gets a question which he answers. You want to interpret an re-interpret the answer ad nauseam.

I'm not reinterpreting anything.
I'm just taking Gen. Bodgan's statements at face value. For example I'm not associating Cross section with Radar cross section.

I am aware of why he used the word "Can" instead of "will"

By the way, you do realize that when Scorpion1Alpha wrote his post about F-35 fanboys trying to push a narrative that the F-35 was somehow better than the F-22 in A-A he was partially referring to you right?