F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

[spazsinbad]

'zero-one' said: "...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."

Hmmm I can see you need the last word - telling the good generale what he needs to say - sadly he is retired these days.

[element1loop]

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

I was referring to the 1989 incident.

I was writing from memory this morning. The first missile shot actually occurred at even higher BVR radius, it was at 14 nm (26 km) Fox-1, and not at 12 nm, and the 'tally-two' call is made just before a 5 nm call was made by the lead, on the audio file of the incident.

At almost 12:01 the lead Tomcat RIO said that "Bogeys have jinked back at me again for the fifth time. They're on my nose now, inside of 20 miles", followed shortly by "Master arm on" as he ordered arming of the weapons. At a range of 14 nmi (26 km) the RIO of the lead F-14A fired the first AIM-7M Sparrow; he surprised his pilot, who did not expect to see a missile accelerate away from his Tomcat. The RIO reported "Fox 1. Fox 1." The Sparrow failed to track because of a wrong switch-setting. At 10 nmi (19 km), he launched a second Sparrow missile, but it also failed to track its target.

The Floggers accelerated and continued to approach. At 6 nmi (11 km) range the Tomcats split and the Floggers followed the wingman while the lead Tomcat circled to get a tail angle on them. The wingman fired a third Sparrow from 5 nmi (9 km) and downed one of the Libyan aircraft. The lead Tomcat by now had gained the rear quadrant on the final Flogger. After closing to 1.5 nmi (2.8 km) the pilot fired a Sidewinder, which hit its target. The Tomcats proceeded north to return to the carrier group. The Libyan pilots were both seen to successfully eject and parachute into the sea, but the Libyan Air Force was unable to recover them.

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Gulf_of_ ... dent_(1989)

There’s an audio file of the whole engagement here, set to music:
https://download1586.mediafire.com/ai80 ... Sorrow.ogg

And why do you even need to be "corrected" by a reference from me, when your own reply shows clearly that you knew perfectly well that it wasn't WVR-only, all along? The 1981 incident was WVR, and you already knew I was not referring to that one, so why are you playing silly games and trying to muddy the waters?

Just admit it was a BVR engagement.

[gta4]

kinematic vs SA

I think you misunderstood something

1. In your scenario where F-15s are fleeing at mach 1.2+, they pose no threat to air dominance at all. You can cancel pursuing because air superiority is already yours.

2. You should not ignore the rear hemisphere targeting capability provided by DAS because making a 180 turn is a lot more time consuming than making the missile to do the turn. This is crucial when you are on an escort mission and you have to shoot down enemy as fast as you can because if they shoot down your HVT (E3, tanker, air force 1...) it is useless to shoot them down in return.

3. is two aim9xs enough? Yes, because US has a huge advantage in BVR, so the enemy is outnumbered in WVR. Each enemy aircraft could be covered by at least 2 aim9xs.

[zero-one]

Just admit it was a BVR engagement.

I was also writing from memory. And my point was simply that the shots that mattered the shots that actually hit were made in WVR ranges.

But the reason why I give this example is to emphasize the fact that lack of SA is not the reason why engagements reach WVR.
We often think that because the F-22 and F-35 will have so much SA from long ranges they will never reach WVR ranges.

But as we saw on both Gulf of Sidra Incidents lack of SA was not the reason for getting to the merge.
They did not require VID to confirm the identity.
On both occasions the bandits were detected, tracked, identified, and declared hostile from well outside of visual range.

and on both occasions the kills (not shots) were made WVR

[zero-one]

kinematic vs SA

I think you misunderstood something

1. In your scenario where F-15s are fleeing at mach 1.2+, they pose no threat to air dominance at all. You can cancel pursuing because air superiority is already yours.

Thats what I'm saying, making them go away to fight another day is nowhere near as devastating or as demoralizing to the enemy as actually killing them.

The F-22 forced 587 aircraft to Abort. But still Russia and Syria claims that they won that war. Imagine if those were actual kills.

2. You should not ignore the rear hemisphere targeting capability provided by DAS because making a 180 turn is a lot more time consuming than making the missile to do the turn.

Yes, but having a missile expend its energy doing an over the shoulder shot will lower the Pk, we don't want that. Like Dozer said, missiles are called missiles because they mis, so you'd like to give them as much as help as you can.

preferably bore-site, BVR, but not too far, Remember how both of Dozer's AMRAAMs missed from 15 miles, granted those were A models, but the targets were also Mig-29s with no ECMs to speak of.

[hornetfinn]

kinematic vs SA

I think you misunderstood something

1. In your scenario where F-15s are fleeing at mach 1.2+, they pose no threat to air dominance at all. You can cancel pursuing because air superiority is already yours.

2. You should not ignore the rear hemisphere targeting capability provided by DAS because making a 180 turn is a lot more time consuming than making the missile to do the turn. This is crucial when you are on an escort mission and you have to shoot down enemy as fast as you can because if they shoot down your HVT (E3, tanker, air force 1...) it is useless to shoot them down in return.

3. is two aim9xs enough? Yes, because US has a huge advantage in BVR, so the enemy is outnumbered in WVR. Each enemy aircraft could be covered by at least 2 aim9xs.

I would add to your points 2. and 3. that F-35 has also far superior off-board targeting capability to any other fighter with combination of sensors, sensor fusion and networking it has. It will be able to provide extremely accurate, reliable and up-to-date targeting data especially to other F-35s. Or to be more precise, all F-35s in vicinity will have that info available automatically. For behind the shoulder targeting it has EODAS, Barracuda and even EOTS (in some situations) available to provide information for other F-35s which fuze that data with their own sensors (especially APG-81).

With all other fighters (like EF Typhoon) it can be done but the capability is far lower in real life. They would be limited to providing data from RWR/ESM system in the rear quadrant. Then transmit that data with much slower and higher latency Link 16 to aircraft which then actually has to search and track the enemy aircraft by itself. That is much slower and error prone system in comparison. F-22 has the sensor fusion and also networking capability, but even it currently lacks the sensor systems of F-35.

[hornetfinn]

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.

That "balanced approach" has been used in many forms also by other 4th gen fighter manufacturers. I've also seen USN slides that have "balanced approach to survivability" for Super Hornet.

It's like saying that Toyota Corolla has balanced approach to performance and Lamborghini Aventador SVJ is a supercar when comparing performance...

[element1loop]

But the reason why I give this example is to emphasize the fact that lack of SA is not the reason why engagements reach WVR. We often think that because the F-22 and F-35 will have so much SA from long ranges they will never reach WVR ranges.

And I've pointed out to you a few times now that when the other guy does not know where you are there's no need to merge at all. You can run rings around the other fighter and fire several BVR missile shots with low stress and the best advantage, and highest survival potential.

But you keep reverting back to trying to eliminate one of the F-35s greatest tactical advantages, not being seen, via insisting it must then fight WVR!

The present is a totally different situation, and this constant assertion that BVR will end in WVR fighting, is a tactical bucket that holds no water for me. Especially when the F-35 can have 6 x BVR AAM, DAS and EOTS, and a datalink-guidance potential to perform passive BVR kills with barely a squeak. Plus EOTS can provide a PID via the F-35 itself at BVR ranges. Sidra in 1989 was worlds apart from that level of tactical BVR advantages, and also from the current potential level of automation of that process. Automation can ensure the missile is always cued in the right mode, with the right parameters, and the optimal angle, altitude and speed, and eliminating formerly complex to execute BVR engagement issues with AAMs.

The AIM-9X BKII has become a BVR missile because that's the preferred tactic. The USN was pursuing even more BVR range and energy for the BkIII. No merge necessary! If you use up all 6 BVR missiles, then target for someone else. Or just RTB. You don't have to fight an attrition battle at all. Most likely your opponent is either dead by that point or they ran. Either way, you don't have to merge at all.

You need to move on from a 4th-gen level of thinking about BVR tactics and options.

As the "downing of Speicher F/A-18" thread shows, if a DCA aircraft takes off and the F-35 is busy doing its thing, that DCA aircraft is going to have a very hard time finding a place to land, in the unlikely event it survives long enough to need to land. This is why I am not at all concerned by the BVR fight challenge, as the F-35 is going to smash the IADS to hell no matter what is flying DCA out there.

The F-35 can chose to ignore a BVR DCA flight and just cruise in and smoke its airbase then clean up the DCA jets on the way out again.

So why all the fuss over 4th-gen BVR fights and 'flying magazines' when in a 5th-gen F-35A era?

Let the F-35 system request a passive forward hidden patriot launcher put a missile in the air and auto hand it off to the F-35 to manage its navigation and fly out, using a passive EOTS weapon-grade track and datalink to kill the DCA jets, while you get busy crushing their airbase.

That's the F-35A 'BVR' fight, and that's the added 'missile magazine' that's (arguably) needed.

[zero-one]

And I've pointed out to you a few times now that when the other guy does not know where you are there's no need to merge at all. You can run rings around the other fighter and fire several BVR missile shots with low stress and the best advantage, and highest survival potential.

I'm not dismissing that,
I also want to point out that when I say Merge, I don't mean neutral merge.

Remember when the F-22 sneaked up on the F-4 without them ever knowing he was there?
Thats a merge.

And that gives you a huge tactical advantage, the target is already at your NEZ.
Dozer also said that when they kill F-15s whole sale the Eagles ask where they were, they would respond, "1 mile behind you".
They never saw a thing.
Thats a merge.

The F-22 and F-35 has the ability to Merge at their terms from a position of advantage punting the targets within their weapon's NEZ making the Pk tremendously high.

But in my opinion the F-22 can do this better due to it's inherent speed.
The reason why Hostage said you need 8 F-35s to do what 2 F-22s do is because Raptor is more capable in getting 1 mile behind its opponent, unseen and undetected. Shoot, kill and dash to the tail of the next group.

The F-35 will do the same, but instead of dashing to the next group they will rely on other F-35s to achieve the same effect.

[element1loop]

But in my opinion the F-22 can do this better due to it's inherent speed. The reason why Hostage said you need 8 F-35s to do what 2 F-22s do is because Raptor is more capable in getting 1 mile behind its opponent, unseen and undetected. Shoot, kill and dash to the tail of the next group. The F-35 will do the same, but instead of dashing to the next group they will rely on other F-35s to achieve the same effect.

No, if that were the case we could go to missiles with 5 nm range once again ... or better yet ... GUNZ!

No, the enema will adjust tactics and SOP in under 24 hours, and adapt their hardware and sensors to remove that option in an upgrade.

One other thing, F-22's greatest advantage is at high-altitude and BVR, where its engines will get the best fuel burn, best range and best loiter, not at 30 k ft or less in jetstream, chasing a$$, then doing Mach 2 to the next bit of a$$ in the same altitude range. The missiles do the ass-chasing.

[zero-one]

One other thing, F-22's greatest advantage is at high-altitude and BVR, where its engines will get the best fuel burn, best range and best loiter, not at 30 k ft or less in jetstream, chasing a$$, then doing Mach 2 to the next bit of a$$ in the same altitude range. The missiles do the ass-chasing.

Thats the the theory isn't it.
We love to use the trends in air to air combat leading to more BVR combat to push the narrative that dogfighting is behind us and I have no problem with that.

But those same trends have one thing in common, Missile shots miss A LOT. The longer range you fire, the more likely you are to miss.

Gulf of Sidra, anything beyond 5 nautical miles missed.
O but it will be different with the AMRAAM

Nope, 1999, multiple shots from Dozer at 15 nautical miles missed.
Then it happens again on a different sortie when both his shots from around the same distance.


But those were early model AMRAAMs with out the data linking capabilities of the F-35.

Those were also early model fulcrum targets without the ECM and ESM available today

I'm not saying kills from 50 to 60 miles are impossible, what I'm saying is if we are going to look at combat trends to push a narrative then we also need to look at the details within those trends.

BVR shots are possible, but combat trends point to medium range engagements where speed and agility has uses not ultra long range engagement, that why Dozer and other F-22 jocks still chase down bandits with Mach 1 closure speeds and still go 1 mile behind their victims, they don't sit there and lob AMRAAMs from 40 miles away.

[element1loop]

One other thing, F-22's greatest advantage is at high-altitude and BVR, where its engines will get the best fuel burn, best range and best loiter, not at 30 k ft or less in jetstream, chasing a$$, then doing Mach 2 to the next bit of a$$ in the same altitude range. The missiles do the ass-chasing.

Thats the the theory isn't it. ... Missile shots miss A LOT. The longer range you fire, the more likely you are to miss.

On the contrary, there's no reason why you can't lob slammers at an unalerted target, if you keep them non-alerted and coordinate a multi-axis ambush tactic with your best asset, the mutual shared SA advantages.

Better still, lob in the passive winders first on a closer tangential pass, at 20 nm (depending on OPFOR's EO quality and relative vectors), then a HOBS AMRAAM before the range opens up. What you don't kill wit that will be more than a bit disconcerted about hanging around, if their buddies got hit. With wide-open flights and overlapping sensors, every way an OPFOR turns, there will always be an alerted and cued F-35 pilot and a fusion-engine auto-prioritizing a kill, via an almost ideally launched advanced missile that's being well-supported. Fire-and-forget becomes a less desirable tactic if you have not been seen or targeted as you can stick around so that the Jet can fully support the missile to a higher pk kill.

As for missiles missing a lot, if a squadron fires 40 missiles per initial mission, and kills just 10 jets, and 20 5th-gen squadrons are doing that on Day-1, backed-up by another 20 squadrons of 4th gens at the periphery, lobbing in cruise weapons at the IADS, etc., that's going to do a job on the OPFOR's best capabilities (and morale) very quickly. Even that rather low-bar example is still 200 first-tier jets lost within the first waves of sorties.

How many air forces could absorb those losses of their best kit, for more than one day? Most would be done at 40 to 50 jets.

But in parallel, F-35s with LO missiles and bombs are pounding the snot out of the IADS and airbases so a very large number of jets and airbases are not going to be operating too well from there forwards. It gets worse fast and confidence will rise fast in the 5th gen force, even if 4 missiles miss for every BVR engagement kill. If you have enough F-22s and F-35s, you're going to kill a lot more than 200 jets, because another 200 (or more) will be hit or disabled on the ground, at the same time.

BVR shots are possible, but combat trends point to medium range engagements where speed and agility has uses not ultra long range engagement, that why Dozer and other F-22 jocks still chase down bandits with Mach 1 closure speeds and still go 1 mile behind their victims, they don't sit there and lob AMRAAMs from 40 miles away.

This is your opinion of why they did it. Frankly, I think they were doing it to show off the relative SA and lethality advantages within the context of exercise or DACT. But when your location, loiter and fuel level matters in a real fight, where lives depend on your being where you should be, you'll be flying to maintain fuel and hedge your capabilities best, and use your missiles rather than burning your fuel down foolishly, for no good reason.

I've never considered very long-range BVR engagement to be that desirable, there's far too much time and randomness involved. It's not the distance so much, it's the time taken. Closer BVR is obviously better for energy, speed, time and reducing random factors (course changes and altitude changes, WX changes, etc), and for better EA energy.

But not so close that they'll squeeze you and get a sensor spike to pursue.

IMO, 35 to 40 nm would be a very good range if the target does not know you're there, or where you are, after you fire.

Gums pointed-out a little while back that older missile warning systems readily detect launches. An attack with a small fast-burning and fast-flying IR missiles from closer-in is probably the best opening shot option. An AIM-9X Block II from 20 nm may be the closest that you want to get while using a low RCS aspect (closing) tangential pass, for that opening shot, giving time to increase the radius some to 30 nm, without exposing the engine's butt or using the burner. Followed-up by a slammer about 15 seconds later. Once at 35 nm radius maintain that radial distance and use up the SLAMMERs. The targets will go defensive if they detects them, so lob in another, and keep the target bleeding energy until you get a hit.

If it takes 4 missiles to kill a jet that's fine. I'd be quite OK with that, in the wider scheme of synergistic battle effect of not having that aircraft around any longer. Especially if stealth-oriented BVR tactics meant next to no friendly losses. If you have enough F-35s and enough missiles, plus off-board missile options like Patriot and LRPF ... game over.

I don't really see any tangible problem with regard to your stated BVR concerns.

[wrightwing]

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

The F-22 is another airplane, that the F-35 is stealthier than. How much clearer does it need to be? This is getting ridiculous, with the parsing of words.

[wrightwing]

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.

Can doesn't mean might or probably. General Bogdan didn't say can, but he DID say that the statement was about radar cross section. (and NO, the reverse is not true. You're either stealthier or you're not. It's not subjective)