F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

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

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 08:12

Ricnunes: I already know BAE's opinion on the matter and it is far from the 2 sq m figure you have extrapolated from anonymous estimates of Tornado RCS, more on that later. Firstly you really are not getting the analytical point about the EADS detection comparison. Sure they don't know the performance of the APG-81 but they started from the assumption that it was exactly the same as CAPTOR-E which they obviously do know well and assuming golf ball RCS of F-35 (0.001 sq m) you can then derive the low RCS of Typhoon, about 0.02 sq m, from the difference in distances the two detect each other using the Radar Equation.

In 1999 BAE published a technical paper on aerodynamic optimization for military aircraft design in which they gave some RCS shape numbers for the Typhoon precursor plane, EAP. Against 3 GHz ground radar (UHF/S/SHF) the design had about -1.5 dBsm RCS (figure 31, p12)* which is under 1 sq m. This figure would be lower against the standard X-band radar which aircraft RCS are usually quoted on. So on shape alone the EAP has better starting RCS than any teen or 4th gen fighter. So from that starting base you add a serpentine intake duct which covers virtually all the engine fan from a direct head on position. You then make the aircraft 85% of composites and plastics and then you add RAM in crucial places. It is not remotely difficult to then believe that the production frontal RCS of a clean Typhoon is under 0.1 sq m in X-band especially when that was the original RAF specification in AST414. RCS considerations were part of Eurofighter design development from day 1, they were just not the major consideration like in F-22/F-35.

* http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p010508.pdf
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 08:59

I personally find it hard to believe that a loaded Eurofigter has RCS = 0.02 m2
Scattering chart of small missiles yell an average of -15dBsm or 0.05 m2, so with four missiles we have around 0.2 m2, not accounted for interference with the airframe
Image
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 09:07

Four of the aamrams/meteors can be carried under the body semi-recessed so you could still be around 0.1 sq m in that configuration but granted 0.02 sq m would only be the starting clean RCS which would naturally degrade once you started adding wing pylons/weapons/tanks.
Online

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 10:18

well I'm done with this thread, I'll leave banging your head against a wall to others. :bang:
Just remember, what ever pixie dust number you come up with. The super hornet is smaller and it's a lot bigger than the f-35.
so a typhoon at 0.2 Then that has to make the sh 0.09 and the f-35 0.000000001 :mrgreen:

EDIT
ps, you do realise that they were 0.2 is on generic edge shapes and using a generic formula on scatter in the 3GHz.band? There wasn't any RAM used. It was testing different radii values on a section of leading edge, not a whole plane.
Last edited by optimist on 26 Nov 2017, 22:09, edited 3 times in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 10:48

The only pixie dust is coming from you, I am giving you exact figures from the RAF, EADS and BAE. The people who actually specified and built the plane not anonymous source numbers plucked from the internet.

Edit: the RCS was of the whole aircraft and the fact there was no RAM proves my point about the basic good shape.

The RCS problem posed is that of an aircraft, flying at low altitude, approaching a ground based radar operating at 3GHz. Thus incident elevation angles are small (0.50 to 1.5). The RCS is averaged over this incidence range.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 383
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 13:21

mas wrote:
Edit: the RCS was of the whole aircraft and the fact there was no RAM proves my point about the basic good shape.


Basic knowledge of how radar works would suggest otherwise.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1290
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 16:29

optimist wrote:well I'm done with this thread, I'll leave banging your head against a wall to others. :bang:


LOL the conversation is a bit silly. Here is the final word.

1. You could not get one British pilot to fly alone in his Typhoon "clean" near a hostile S-400/Patriot class AD without serious support (ECM and lotsa other systems) Not one would climb into the cockpit.

2. Every single British pilot would line up for the chance to fly an F-35B on an ISR only sortie right into those sites, carrying 2 1000 lb bombs just for fun, to fill in the bay, and not to be used for that sortie, but hey might as well... in case the sites actually light up ... and really have a suicide complex.

That's likely a fact, and says all that needs to be said about Typhoon "RCS." Crayon math on a Denny's place mat to the contrary.

MHO,
BP

PS same applies for SH except the model assumes the Growler as a part of the design, and US Navy and Aussie pilots, might be crazy enough to try it in a Growler flight of two... but .. I wouldn't.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3563
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 17:48

Pro tip: a clean Super Hornet has a lower RCS than a clean Typhoon. Load either with weapons, and the RCS will likely be between 3m^2 to >5m^2. Neither have an RCS lower than .1m^2 in any configuration. To suggest such a preposterous notion, denotes a severe deficit in critical thinking skills.
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 22:37

Blindpilot: Typhoons were not unsuccessful in air to ground operations in Red Flag and they had to go through SAMs.

https://world.eurofighter.com/articles/ ... the-target

In pure number terms the Spanish Unit’s efforts were impressive — it dropped the most live ordance of any of the participants of this particular Red Flag and did so under real pressure. Maj Barranco says: “We dropped a total of 48 GBU​-16s, which was a decent number for two weeks of flying. In fact, we were the only unit dropping live weapons (others were using inert weapons).

“It was a very congested environment where we were constantly facing a lot of air-to-air and surface-to-air threats. In the sorties you were in a sort of ‘funnel’ and by the time you dropped your bomb there were aggressor aircraft coming toward you. But, despite that, most of the sorties we flew were right over the bullseye.”


Captain (OF-2) Joaquín Ducay, who helped plan the Unit’s tactical approach to Red Flag, says: “The overall picture was impressive. Our standard was a little bit higher than conventional aircraft, we survived through most of the bombing sorties and we had a high air-to-air kill ratio. I can’t say the exact numbers but, for example, I know that on one of my missions there were a total of 32 kills and my wingman and I had 12 of them between us.

But the main objective was not about scoring a high kill ratio — it was to carry out multi-role missions. Of course, we were involved in air-to-air activity too — but that’s what we do, day in, day out.

“It was good to see that on missions when we were flying with bombs we were still capable of reacting to air-to-ground threats, and make air-to-air kills at the same time. That’s not something everyone is able to do. But that’s really thanks to our training and the aircraft. The Eurofighter allows you to multi-task like crazy.”

Maj Barranco says the Unit achieved everything they’d set out to during the US Air Force-hosted event: “In every single respect it was a very successful deployment because we were able to accomplish nearly all the scheduled tactical sorties (119) as well as 26 FAM flights. In terms of reliability the Typhoon’s rate of operation was very high, just like it was during our Baltic Air Policing mission in 2015, and that’s thanks to the efforts made by the Maintenance team during the exercise and in the preparation of the fleet pre-deployment.”
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 00:35

mas wrote:.... you can then derive the low RCS of Typhoon, about 0.02 sq m...


So now it's 0.02?? LOL, I was so right in my latest post - By the end of the month we'll see a similar to F-35 0.001 square meter RCS claim coming from you :doh:

Let me see, if my memory isn't failing me you seemed to start with a value around of 0.1 (unless I'm thinking in the wrong person), then your value dropped to 0.05, then to 0.03 and now 0.02, LOL again!! :roll:

Anyway, your arguments have been more than dismissed here by basically everyone else. So basically you're this guy:

"A driver is driving his car on a highway XYZ (which has two or more lanes on each side) and then suddenly the driver hears on the Radio the following emergency broadcast:
- Attention to all drivers on highway XYZ, there's a driver on the wrong side of the highway!
And the driver tells to himself:
- There's only one driving on the wrong side?? All of them are driving on the wrong side!!"

Yes, Mas you are that driver or more precisely that's your line of argumentation here.
Anyway and I'll echo optimist, I'm done with you! You can even claim that the Typhoon is faster than a Space Rocket for all I care...
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1290
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 02:54

mas wrote:Blindpilot: Typhoons were not unsuccessful in air to ground operations in Red Flag and they had to go through SAMs.

blindpilot wrote:...
.. You could not get one British pilot to fly alone in his Typhoon ... without serious support (ECM and lotsa other systems) Not one would climb into the cockpit.
BP

We have no clue as to blue overall tactics, (how much ECM support, lane clearing by F-22/35s, stand off attacks etc.) nor rules of engagement. I stand by my statement. You will not find one British pilot ready to take his single Typhoon into the target ... they will all be in the line to fly the "Bee".

but that's just MHO,
BP
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 09:53

Ricnunes: more emotional arm waving and pointless diversionary strawman arguments from you. My value of Typhoon RCS is derived from the only exact quote we were given, the EADS one which I have linked to twice now but I will do so again where they said that F-35 could detect Typhoon at 120km and the Typhoon could detect F-35 at 59km assuming both their AESA radars had identical performance. As detection distance is proportional to the 4th root of RCS what they are basically claiming is that Typhoon only has an RCS 17 times greater than F-35. Now the variability comes in as to what they used as the RCS of F-35 as understood when the claim was made, in 2011 I believe. Was it 0.001 sq m, was it standard golf ball sized which is 0.00143 sq m. Using these ranges you derive an RCS of Typhoon between 0.017 and 0.024 sq m.

However the RCS of F-35 is now claimed to be pebble sized and its APG-81 has more TR modules but that doesn't change the value of Typhoon RCS which they implied. Also you and others have brought up the statement 'or farther' so let's plug more numbers like say 150/180/200/250km for the detection distance of Typhoon from F-35. The equivalent Typhoon RCS at detection distances 150/180/200/250 km are
0.042-0.060 / 0.087-0.124 / 0.132-0.189 / 0.322-0.461 sq m. One thing we can say with certainty here is that Typhoon RCS is under 0.5 sq m, the only real question is how much.

http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/vi ... sidx=97236

According to a calculation by a senior EADS radar expert, the Captor-E, which will use 1,426 T/R modules and is scheduled to be integrated onto the Eurofighter Typhoon in 2015, is capable of recognizing the F-35 at around 59 kilometers away.

He acknowledged that the chance is high for the F-35 to detect and fire missiles first against fourth-generation jets, such as the Eurofighter or Boeing’s F-15, but claimed that the latter are capable of dodging missiles and successfully counterattacking at such a long range.

His calculation shows that the F-35’s APG-81, which allegedly has 1,400 T/R modules, will be able to recognize the Eurofighter or semi-stealth fighter at 120 kilometers or farther based on the assumption both radars have the same capability.
Last edited by mas on 27 Nov 2017, 11:31, edited 4 times in total.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 383
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 10:23

mas wrote:Ricnunes: more emotional arm waving and pointless diversionary strawman arguments from you. My value of Typhoon RCS is derived from the only exact quote we were given, the EADS one which I have linked to twice now but I will do so again where they said that F-35 could detect Typhoon at 120km and the Typhoon could detect F-35 at 59km assuming both their AESA radars had identical performance. As detection distance is proportional to the 4th root of RCS what they are basically claiming is that Typhoon only has an RCS 17 times greater than F-35. Now the variability comes in as to what they used as the RCS of F-35 as understood when the claim was made, in 2011 I believe. Was it 0.001 sq m, was it standard golf ball sized which is 0.00143 sq m. Using these ranges you derive an RCS of Typhoon between 0.017 and 0.024 sq m. However the RCS of F-35 is now claimed to be pebble sized and its APG-81 has more TR modules but that doesn't change the value of Typhoon RCS which they implied.

http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/vi ... sidx=97236

According to a calculation by a senior EADS radar expert, the Captor-E, which will use 1,426 T/R modules and is scheduled to be integrated onto the Eurofighter Typhoon in 2015, is capable of recognizing the F-35 at around 59 kilometers away.

He acknowledged that the chance is high for the F-35 to detect and fire missiles first against fourth-generation jets, such as the Eurofighter or Boeing’s F-15, but claimed that the latter are capable of dodging missiles and successfully counterattacking at such a long range.

His calculation shows that the F-35’s APG-81, which allegedly has 1,400 T/R modules, will be able to recognize the Eurofighter or semi-stealth fighter at 120 kilometers or farther based on the assumption both radars have the same capability.



How would an EADS expert know what the RCS of the F-35 is to even make that calculation?
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 10:36

From the -30 dBsm / golf ball quote of 2005.

download/file.php?id=25943
download/file.php?id=25942

However some like https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm have assumed the latter to be 0.005 sq m in which case multiply by 5 the lower figure I have given in the ranges above.
Last edited by mas on 27 Nov 2017, 11:14, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 383
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 11:12

mas wrote:From the -30 dBsm / golf ball quote of 2005. However some like https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm have assumed the latter to be 0.005 sq m in which case multiply by 5 the lower figure I have given in the ranges above.



So, in other words, they have no idea and pulled that figure from their a**.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests