F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

[steve2267]

Some interesting shapes at 1:48 and 3:02 of above video. Rather bland, and somewhat generic, but interesting nonetheless.

Interesting quote from the test facility manager "... and many designs that I can't talk about..."

[mas]

where are they on the Typhoon ? Are you sure that is the engine face you are looking at ?

Thanks. The top of the engines only look visible looking up into the intake rather than head on which was the duct design specification. Certainly it looks the best hidden of the 4th gen engines followed closely by the Rafale. In contrast you can see most of the fan on the Super Hornet and Su-57.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Actually on a Super you can only see most the blocker, and only from an off center view. From the front of the plane you don't see much.

[ricnunes]

The engine fans in the Super Hornet are just as visible as the in the Typhoon from a down to upward and side perspective.
This photo from charlielima is more than clear and I edited in red where the engine fan from the Typhoon's right engine could be seen (engine not installed in this case):


Here's again the Super Hornet where the fan can be clearly see (even because the engine is installed in this case):


The Super Hornet photo above also seems to have been taken from a down to upward and side perspective, similar to the first photo from the Typhoon.

One can argue that the Typhoon engine fan is a bit less exposed or even a bit more exposed compared to the Super Hornet but in the end this doesn't matter - They are exposed on both cases! Although it seems that the Super Hornet has a clear advantage on the air intake shape (look, SHAPE again) which is clearly built to reflect radar waves away and thus better optimised for lower RCS.
But again it doesn't matter much since the RCS of both Super Hornet and the Typhoon shouldn't be not much different although I strongly believe that the Super Hornet is still (a bit) lower.
Also trying to claim that the Typhoon as "stealthly" as a PAK T-50 is in a best case scenario, "comical". charlielima's latest post was very interesting in this regard and IMO, explained it very well.

In the end (and this is to mas) and again, it's so hard to say:
- "I was wrong" or "I stand corrected", isn't it??

Anyway and once again, I rest my case!

[spazsinbad]

Shornet Engine Intake Cropped: https://preview.ibb.co/fuDecm/SH_eng.jpg

[geforcerfx]

What was all this drama about anyway?.

I don't know, i check in every couple of days and usually find the forum members "debating" the rcs of 4th gen aircraft when it really doesn't matter much. Unless your overall RCS when combat loaded and carrying a decent amount of fuel for that load is like .005 then your screwed over the next 5-10 years. Stealth aircraft with RCS's lower than that are proliferating the major air froces of the world over the next decade, meaning the will to advance radar tech is already elevated, so what was amazing rc's reductions to keep you better hidden in 4th gens from 80's and 90's radars won't help much in 2025. Just look at all the Eurofighter partner nations(U.K., Italy, Spain, Germany), all of them are part of or very interested in the F-35. To me that right there should speak loads to the confidence they have in the EF's ability to strike targets day 1 against AIADS or take on stealth fighters, it's not useless but it is reaching the limitation of the air frame, even with avionic upgrades.

[nutshell]

Our Typhoons (Italy) are de facto unable to perform strike missions.

Well, frankly speaking, our Typhoons were never really used for anything. We're still all about Vipers and the occasional Tornado.

[mas]

Also trying to claim that the Typhoon as "stealthly" as a PAK T-50 is in a best case scenario, "comical". charlielima's latest post was very interesting in this regard and IMO, explained it very well.

In the end (and this is to mas) and again, it's so hard to say:
- "I was wrong" or "I stand corrected"

The only place I am wrong or being corrected is in your imagination so please drop the sanctimonious holier than thou BS as it is getting incredibly boring and tedious now.

The T-50 is a joke stealth wise which is why the Indians are looking to bail. Head on it's inferior to the Typhoon which is pathetic for supposedly a 5th gen aircraft designed decades later. Spot the more exposed fan blades ... Su-57, Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon.

[spazsinbad]

Two page PDF from Super Hornet NATOPS attached with a lot of text about RCS Reduction Techniques used including...

NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F/A-18E/F 165533 AND UP AIRCRAFT
15 Sep 2008 NavAir USN

“...The engine inlet ducts incorporate a device to minimize engine front face scattering....”

Source: https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf (19.3Mb)

[mas]

What was all this drama about anyway?.

I don't know, i check in every couple of days and usually find the forum members "debating" the rcs of 4th gen aircraft when it really doesn't matter much. Unless your overall RCS when combat loaded and carrying a decent amount of fuel for that load is like .005 then your screwed over the next 5-10 years. Stealth aircraft with RCS's lower than that are proliferating the major air froces of the world over the next decade, meaning the will to advance radar tech is already elevated, so what was amazing rc's reductions to keep you better hidden in 4th gens from 80's and 90's radars won't help much in 2025. Just look at all the Eurofighter partner nations(U.K., Italy, Spain, Germany), all of them are part of or very interested in the F-35. To me that right there should speak loads to the confidence they have in the EF's ability to strike targets day 1 against AIADS or take on stealth fighters, it's not useless but it is reaching the limitation of the air frame, even with avionic upgrades.

It matters because the aerial opposition western fighters will have to face is not stealthy and is not going to be Raptor/Lightning stealthy in the immediate future. So for those not allowed F-35, how stealthy Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Eagle, Falcon are is still going to matter as new builds of all these aircraft are still being exported to allies as well as the large installed base that currently exist. It's a question of degree as even a relatively clean F-16V with an RCS around 1 sq m is going to have a first look advantage over a Su-27/30 which weigh in around 20 sq m. The F-35 is not going to be everywhere so 4th gen comparisons are still tactically relevant. The F-16V AESA upgrade should not be underestimated for what it can bring to the large installed F-16 base in terms of current and future tactical relevance.

p.s. nice manual spazsinbad !

[geforcerfx]

I still don't think non-VLO aircraft's RCS will matter much in 10 years. In a effort to keep aircraft like the flanker relevant Russia and China are already moving to improve sensors on board, and the flanker can carry one hell of a radar if needed (yay big aircraft). They need that to try and counter stealth aircraft with RCS figures significantly lower than anything that is being talked about atm on this thread(which somehow became SH vs EF?). But more importantly these more advanced radars are already making there way into ground radars and AWAC's, early warning and fire control radars are being upgraded and deployed by both countries and both have designed and built/upgraded advanced AWAC aircraft in the last 4-5 years. Both have made major leaps in battle networking over the last 10 years. Then factor in improvements in both countries EW capabilities (especially China) and you have another major issue to overcome. The radar in the flanker might not catch the F-16 first, but that ground radar picked up the F-16 600nmi ago and is showing the flanker exactly where it is. The F-16 might have a lower RCS than the Flanker but the jamming aircraft supporting the flanker is making that irrelevant.

But I am not that worried for 2 reasons. One, any country that has the typhoon has or will have access to the F-35 or other stealth aircraft in the future. Two, with the proper avionics, system, & networking upgrades aircraft like the super hornet and typhoon can stay extremely relevant when paired (and this is important) with western 5th generation aircraft and there advance sensor and networking capabilities. Basically I don't care what the RCS of the Typhoon is and I don't want the consortium to spend another dime trying to improve it or advertise that it's gonna help, I want them to invest in getting MADl(or something similar that's compatible) integrated, I want Captor-E in the fleet in 3-4 years, those are far more important to this aircraft then it's RCS, because in that game it's so outclassed it's not really relevant anymore. This is what you see Russian and China (and USA with F-15C and E upgrades and Rhino Blk III) focusing on for there 4th gens, better networking and better avionics.

This is why I hate the VS. threads they try and break down combat into a 1 vs 1 no support(<important) from anything, guns only brawl in the sky, when no one fights that way.

[mas]

All your points are valid but ultimately the Flanker will still need to get a lock itself before it can fire its missiles. As has been said before you only have to break the kill chain in one place. A F-16V/Flanker stealth/radar detection comparison is vital to say someone like Taiwan.

[mk82]

I still don't think non-VLO aircraft's RCS will matter much in 10 years. In a effort to keep aircraft like the flanker relevant Russia and China are already moving to improve sensors on board, and the flanker can carry one hell of a radar if needed (yay big aircraft). They need that to try and counter stealth aircraft with RCS figures significantly lower than anything that is being talked about atm on this thread(which somehow became SH vs EF?). But more importantly these more advanced radars are already making there way into ground radars and AWAC's, early warning and fire control radars are being upgraded and deployed by both countries and both have designed and built/upgraded advanced AWAC aircraft in the last 4-5 years. Both have made major leaps in battle networking over the last 10 years. Then factor in improvements in both countries EW capabilities (especially China) and you have another major issue to overcome. The radar in the flanker might not catch the F-16 first, but that ground radar picked up the F-16 600nmi ago and is showing the flanker exactly where it is. The F-16 might have a lower RCS than the Flanker but the jamming aircraft supporting the flanker is making that irrelevant.

But I am not that worried for 2 reasons. One, any country that has the typhoon has or will have access to the F-35 or other stealth aircraft in the future. Two, with the proper avionics, system, & networking upgrades aircraft like the super hornet and typhoon can stay extremely relevant when paired (and this is important) with western 5th generation aircraft and there advance sensor and networking capabilities. Basically I don't care what the RCS of the Typhoon is and I don't want the consortium to spend another dime trying to improve it or advertise that it's gonna help, I want them to invest in getting MADl(or something similar that's compatible) integrated, I want Captor-E in the fleet in 3-4 years, those are far more important to this aircraft then it's RCS, because in that game it's so outclassed it's not really relevant anymore. This is what you see Russian and China (and USA with F-15C and E upgrades and Rhino Blk III) focusing on for there 4th gens, better networking and better avionics.

This is why I hate the VS. threads they try and break down combat into a 1 vs 1 no support(<important) from anything, guns only brawl in the sky, when no one fights that way.

This!

Frankly, this thread is over!

[sferrin]

Shornet Engine Intake Cropped: https://preview.ibb.co/fuDecm/SH_eng.jpg

That's the radar blocker, not the engine face. (BTW the bottom one is probably a Rafale, but you get the idea.)

block 2.jpg (39.59 KiB) Viewed 33214 times

[ricnunes]

I still don't think non-VLO aircraft's RCS will matter much in 10 years. In a effort to keep aircraft like the flanker relevant Russia and China are already moving to improve sensors on board, and the flanker can carry one hell of a radar if needed (yay big aircraft). They need that to try and counter stealth aircraft with RCS figures significantly lower than anything that is being talked about atm on this thread(which somehow became SH vs EF?). But more importantly these more advanced radars are already making there way into ground radars and AWAC's, early warning and fire control radars are being upgraded and deployed by both countries and both have designed and built/upgraded advanced AWAC aircraft in the last 4-5 years. Both have made major leaps in battle networking over the last 10 years. Then factor in improvements in both countries EW capabilities (especially China) and you have another major issue to overcome. The radar in the flanker might not catch the F-16 first, but that ground radar picked up the F-16 600nmi ago and is showing the flanker exactly where it is. The F-16 might have a lower RCS than the Flanker but the jamming aircraft supporting the flanker is making that irrelevant.

But I am not that worried for 2 reasons. One, any country that has the typhoon has or will have access to the F-35 or other stealth aircraft in the future. Two, with the proper avionics, system, & networking upgrades aircraft like the super hornet and typhoon can stay extremely relevant when paired (and this is important) with western 5th generation aircraft and there advance sensor and networking capabilities. Basically I don't care what the RCS of the Typhoon is and I don't want the consortium to spend another dime trying to improve it or advertise that it's gonna help, I want them to invest in getting MADl(or something similar that's compatible) integrated, I want Captor-E in the fleet in 3-4 years, those are far more important to this aircraft then it's RCS, because in that game it's so outclassed it's not really relevant anymore. This is what you see Russian and China (and USA with F-15C and E upgrades and Rhino Blk III) focusing on for there 4th gens, better networking and better avionics.

This is why I hate the VS. threads they try and break down combat into a 1 vs 1 no support(<important) from anything, guns only brawl in the sky, when no one fights that way.

Precisely and I fully agree!
I guess that I may have or share some of the responsibility for the supposed "EF versus SH debate/discussion" to having come up.
Anyway, my point here was not to compared the Super Hornet with the Typhoon but instead to show the guy above "who've never wrong" that first, he was likely wrong when he said that the Typhoon has the lowest RCS of all 4th gen fighter aircraft by pointing out that the Super Hornet most likely has a lower RCS than the Typhoon (hence why the "EF versus SH" debate came up).
Secondly, I told the same "Mr. Always Right" that the differences in RCS between both aircraft (or even other 4th gen fighter aircraft as you pointed out) won't make much of a difference in an actual battlefield. But then again, "Mr. Always Right" claimed here that based on some odd article that the Typhoon in an exercise apparently wasn't detected by AWACS and as such it would be the only 4th aircraft to achieve such a feat in such circumstances. And he seems to hint that for example a Super Hornet (or other 4th gen fighter aircraft) would be detected right away in those same/similar circumstances which is of course would be false.
But then again "Mr. Always Right" can never be wrong...

And what I said or part of what I said in my previous post and quoted below goes along with what you said:

But again it doesn't matter much since the RCS of both Super Hornet and the Typhoon shouldn't be not much different although I strongly believe that the Super Hornet is still (a bit) lower.