F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

[mas]

They might have plenty of idea but I am just assuming what they used without them telling us. The important thing is whatever they used they implied Typhoon RCS was only 17 times worse than that figure. Even if they only thought F-35 RCS was 0.01 sq m that would still imply a Typhoon RCS of 0.17 sq m. So even by varying F-35 RCS and Typhoon detection distance from the F-35 you still get a Typhoon RCS well under 1 sq m.

[kimjongnumbaun]

They might have plenty of idea but I am just assuming

Your supposition.

what they used without them telling us. The important thing is whatever they used they implied Typhoon RCS was only 17 times worse than that figure.

"Implied" being the key word, and that's based on a number pulled from thin air.

Even if they only thought F-35 RCS was 0.01 sq m that would still imply a Typhoon RCS of 0.17 sq m. So even by varying F-35 RCS and Typhoon detection distance from the F-35 you still get a Typhoon RCS well under 1 sq m.

LOL, The F-35 likely has an RCS that is 100 to 1000x smaller than the Typhoon. That doesn't even get to the point that the Typhon would be shot at first, so any hope of trying to find the F-35 is out the window. Only an idiot would try to find an F-35 if they knew a missile was heading at them instead of trying to break lock.

It's also hilarious that you say it's "only" 17 times worse, at best. Which means the F-35 can shoot with impunity at twice the range.

[mas]

I don't really disagree with any of what you said because if F-35 is more pebble sized than golf ball sized Typhoon's Pirate IRST will probably be of more value in detecting F-35 than its upcoming Captor-E AESA radar. This whole conversation started because I had the temerity to suggest the Typhoon had low RCS which would aid it in overcoming other 4th gen+ fighters like Su-57 and as part of the reason, along with its kinematics, that it did well on exercises. I think I have produced enough evidence to support that claim.

[mk82]

They might have plenty of idea but I am just assuming what they used without them telling us. The important thing is whatever they used they implied Typhoon RCS was only 17 times worse than that figure. Even if they only thought F-35 RCS was 0.01 sq m that would still imply a Typhoon RCS of 0.17 sq m. So even by varying F-35 RCS and Typhoon detection distance from the F-35 you still get a Typhoon RCS well under 1 sq m.

Aren’t the arguments about the Typhoon’s clean RCS rather pointless? Once you add on external payload (like missiles, bombs, external fuel tanks, targeting pods etc. And the Typhoon does not have internal carriage capability).......you can literally forget about low RCS anything! Being armed only with a loaded 27mm cannon is not going to do jackcr*p in almost all real life scenarios/missions.

[mas]

Not completely pointless as it would still have a good RCS (sub 1 sq m) with four semi-recessed aamrams/meteors but generally you are right.

[kimjongnumbaun]

They might have plenty of idea but I am just assuming what they used without them telling us. The important thing is whatever they used they implied Typhoon RCS was only 17 times worse than that figure. Even if they only thought F-35 RCS was 0.01 sq m that would still imply a Typhoon RCS of 0.17 sq m. So even by varying F-35 RCS and Typhoon detection distance from the F-35 you still get a Typhoon RCS well under 1 sq m.

Aren’t the arguments about the Typhoon’s clean RCS rather pointless? Once you add on external payload (like missiles, bombs, external fuel tanks, targeting pods etc. And the Typhoon does not have internal carriage capability).......you can literally forget about low RCS anything! Being armed only with a loaded 27mm cannon is not going to do jackcr*p in almost all real life scenarios/missions.

What he said. The fanboys love to claim “slick” values when they mean nothing. Let me know when a typhoon flies into combat slick.

[hornetfinn]

They might have plenty of idea but I am just assuming what they used without them telling us. The important thing is whatever they used they implied Typhoon RCS was only 17 times worse than that figure. Even if they only thought F-35 RCS was 0.01 sq m that would still imply a Typhoon RCS of 0.17 sq m. So even by varying F-35 RCS and Typhoon detection distance from the F-35 you still get a Typhoon RCS well under 1 sq m.

Aren’t the arguments about the Typhoon’s clean RCS rather pointless? Once you add on external payload (like missiles, bombs, external fuel tanks, targeting pods etc. And the Typhoon does not have internal carriage capability).......you can literally forget about low RCS anything! Being armed only with a loaded 27mm cannon is not going to do jackcr*p in almost all real life scenarios/missions.

I think it's not pointless, otherwise there would be no point at all in reduced signature aircraft like EF Typhoon, Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale or JAS Gripen E. Signature reduction increases costs and no airforce would buy them if they didn't give any real advantage. Also most latest weapons seem to have been designed with signature reduction in mind. This is evident when looking at AIM-120, AIM-9X, ASRAAM, MICA, SDB, JDAM, JSOW etc. I'd say modern EFTs have reasonably low RCS. Of course carrying weapons and other stuff externally is going to increase RCS no matter what, but it's probably still useful. We are likely comparing detection range of 80-85 km instead of 100 km or something similar, but it still takes away some time for enemy to react. I think we are getting to a point where it's not enough, but it's still better than nothing.

Typhoon (or any other 4th gen fighter) RCS in comparison to F-35 is pretty much pointless as it's definitely orders of magnitude higher and thus the difference is huge anyway.

[wrightwing]

They might have plenty of idea but I am just assuming what they used without them telling us. The important thing is whatever they used they implied Typhoon RCS was only 17 times worse than that figure. Even if they only thought F-35 RCS was 0.01 sq m that would still imply a Typhoon RCS of 0.17 sq m. So even by varying F-35 RCS and Typhoon detection distance from the F-35 you still get a Typhoon RCS well under 1 sq m.

Assuming that they're going with the .17m^2 figure, that represents a completely clean Typhoon. Not one carrying any external weapons/fuel tanks. As soon as a Typhoon is in combat configuration, its RCS will easily be 3 to 5m^2. As for assuming that both radars are equal, that's marketing nonsense (which is why everyone that is able to buy F-35s, has chosen them over Typhoons.) So.....to sum things up, an F-35 should detect a combat loaded Typhoon at >200km. A Typhoon likely won't detect an F-35 at much more than 25 to 30km (using radar.) No radar on the Typhoon comes close to the power of S400 radars.

[ricnunes]

They might have plenty of idea but I am just assuming what they used without them telling us. The important thing is whatever they used they implied Typhoon RCS was only 17 times worse than that figure. Even if they only thought F-35 RCS was 0.01 sq m that would still imply a Typhoon RCS of 0.17 sq m. So even by varying F-35 RCS and Typhoon detection distance from the F-35 you still get a Typhoon RCS well under 1 sq m.

Assuming that they're going with the .17m^2 figure, that represents a completely clean Typhoon. Not one carrying any external weapons/fuel tanks. As soon as a Typhoon is in combat configuration, its RCS will easily be 3 to 5m^2. As for assuming that both radars are equal, that's marketing nonsense (which is why everyone that is able to buy F-35s, has chosen them over Typhoons.) So.....to sum things up, an F-35 should detect a combat loaded Typhoon at >200km. A Typhoon likely won't detect an F-35 at much more than 25 to 30km (using radar.) No radar on the Typhoon comes close to the power of S400 radars.

Precisely!

For example the most advanced and among the most powerful ground radar that the Russians have is the Nebo-M AESA VHF radar, a EW radar often used together with the S-400 and which is capable of detecting with a Sector Scan (a more powerful scan) a target with a 1 square meter at a range of 510 Km (see the official Nebo-M brochure below).
This means that if we assume that the F-35 is 0.001 square meters than this Nebo-M radar (again an AESA VHF radar) which is far more powerful than a Captor-E radar will be able to detect the F-35 at a distance of around 90 km. So basically there's a snowball chance in hell chance that the Captor-E radar will be able to detect a F-35 at a distance of 59 km.
So and like you said that Captor-E detecting the F-35 at a distance of 59Km or higher is pure marketing BS!

And now, the Nebo-M brochure:

[mas]

Hornetfinn, you have essentially grasped my general argument. The kind of stealth the Euro-canards and Super Hornet, even Falcon, bring to the table of RCS at or below (to varying degrees) 1 sq m will not be of much value against a proper stealth fighter with RCS of golf ball size and smaller or powerful SAMs. It will however be of tactical value when facing any Flanker before the Su-35, including the latest Su-30MK, with their RCS around 20 sq m. You only have to out-detect the majority of the big bad Bears in this case, even heavily laden, to be of value to your air force.

[ricnunes]

Aren’t the arguments about the Typhoon’s clean RCS rather pointless? Once you add on external payload (like missiles, bombs, external fuel tanks, targeting pods etc. And the Typhoon does not have internal carriage capability).......you can literally forget about low RCS anything! Being armed only with a loaded 27mm cannon is not going to do jackcr*p in almost all real life scenarios/missions.

I think it's not pointless, otherwise there would be no point at all in reduced signature aircraft like EF Typhoon, Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale or JAS Gripen E. Signature reduction increases costs and no airforce would buy them if they didn't give any real advantage. Also most latest weapons seem to have been designed with signature reduction in mind. This is evident when looking at AIM-120, AIM-9X, ASRAAM, MICA, SDB, JDAM, JSOW etc. I'd say modern EFTs have reasonably low RCS. Of course carrying weapons and other stuff externally is going to increase RCS no matter what, but it's probably still useful. We are likely comparing detection range of 80-85 km instead of 100 km or something similar, but it still takes away some time for enemy to react. I think we are getting to a point where it's not enough, but it's still better than nothing.

Typhoon (or any other 4th gen fighter) RCS in comparison to F-35 is pretty much pointless as it's definitely orders of magnitude higher and thus the difference is huge anyway.

I fully agree with you hornetfinn. But I think the point here - well, I can only speak for myself but I believe that other's oppinions follows more or less the following line of reasoning - is not the tactical usefulness of reducing the RCS as seen in the Super Hornet, Typhoon or Rafale but instead:
1- The "guy above" (Mas) is trying to convince everyone here that the Typhoon has a much lower RCS compared to other 4.5th generation fighter aircraft, namely the Super Hornet and/or the Rafale. This is obviously not the case - for example I'm more than convinced (as most here are, it seems) that that the Super Hornet RCS is actually a bit lower than the Typhoon, which goes against what the "guy above" (Mas) is posting.
2- And following the line of reasoning in point 1-, even if the Typhoon has a lower RCS than the Super Hornet - note, I'm not conceding that it has but assuming that it has - the differences are so minimal in order to make a tactical difference. And the by the way, the same works the opposite way, if the Super Hornet has a lower RCS than the Typhoon - which I clearly believe and I would bet some serious money on it - the difference between both would still be minimal to have a significant tactical impact.

So I think the point here shared my some/many here is that the "tactically pointless" RCS reduction in 4.5th gen fighter aircraft is not against older 4th gen fighter aircraft threats or air defence systems, namely older ones but instead against each one - for example if a Typhoon and Super Hornet faced each other their respective RCS values would be more or less "pointless" since both have similar RCS values and they are definitely not lower than 0.1 square meters (as Mas is trying to point out) - Heck I doubt that they are lower than 0.5 square meters even clean.

[mas]

They might have plenty of idea but I am just assuming what they used without them telling us. The important thing is whatever they used they implied Typhoon RCS was only 17 times worse than that figure. Even if they only thought F-35 RCS was 0.01 sq m that would still imply a Typhoon RCS of 0.17 sq m. So even by varying F-35 RCS and Typhoon detection distance from the F-35 you still get a Typhoon RCS well under 1 sq m.

Assuming that they're going with the .17m^2 figure, that represents a completely clean Typhoon. Not one carrying any external weapons/fuel tanks. As soon as a Typhoon is in combat configuration, its RCS will easily be 3 to 5m^2. As for assuming that both radars are equal, that's marketing nonsense (which is why everyone that is able to buy F-35s, has chosen them over Typhoons.) So.....to sum things up, an F-35 should detect a combat loaded Typhoon at >200km. A Typhoon likely won't detect an F-35 at much more than 25 to 30km (using radar.) No radar on the Typhoon comes close to the power of S400 radars.

Precisely!

For example the most advanced and among the most powerful ground radar that the Russians have is the Nebo-M AESA VHF radar, a EW radar often used together with the S-400 and which is capable of detecting with a Sector Scan (a more powerful scan) a target with a 1 square meter at a range of 510 Km (see the official Nebo-M brochure below).
This means that if we assume that the F-35 is 0.001 square meters than this Nebo-M radar (again an AESA VHF radar) which is far more powerful than a Captor-E radar will be able to detect the F-35 at a distance of around 90 km. So basically there's a snowball chance in hell chance that the Captor-E radar will be able to detect a F-35 at a distance of 59 km.
So and like you said that Captor-E detecting the F-35 at a distance of 59Km or higher is pure marketing BS!

And now, the Nebo-M brochure:

Russian air radars from the Su-30, Su-35, Su-57 (proposed) can detect a 1 sq m target at between 100 to 200 nm which is 185 to 370 km which is not a million miles away from your 510 km. In fact the upper end of that radar range gives a 0.001 sq m RCS detection range of 65 km which is not a million miles away from what EADS are claiming for Captor-E, 59 km, assuming that is the exact RCS they are quoting for.

[wrightwing]

The F-35's RCS isn't .001m^2 squared, though. It's closer to .0001m^2, which is why the detection range of the Typhoon's radar, will be closer to 25km (or less.)

[mas]

For those who opinion that whether a 4th gen RCS is 1 or 0.1 or 0.01 makes no tactical difference the chart of Russian radar detection range I just put up says different.
From Su-30 to Su-57 1 sq m detection range ranges from 100 to 200 nm, for 0.1 sq m it ranges from 60 to 110 nm, for 0.01 sq m it ranges from 35 to 65 nm. A fighter whose RCS is 0.02 sq m would be detected in 37% of a distance of a fighter of 1 sq m ( Typhoon vs F-16/Mig-35/Su-35 ?) or 67% of a fighter of 0.1 sq m (Typhoon vs F-18E/Su-57/Rafale ?) giving it first look first shoot capability assuming equal radars.

[neurotech]

The F-35's RCS isn't .001m^2 squared, though. It's closer to .0001m^2, which is why the detection range of the Typhoon's radar, will be closer to 25km (or less.)

When you get to 25m (~14nm), an IRST system, including those fitted to the Typhoon (or other 4th gen fighter) can track a stealth target, but only if the pilot knows where to look. The F-35 is the only fighter currently in service that has spherical EODAS. This means that the Typhoon would have to know which patch of sky to scan in order to locate a low RCS adversary with IRST while the F-35 can find the Typhoon using EODAS easily.