F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

[mas]

Do you have a link to the original PDF or site?

viewtopic.php?p=337929#p337929

Translation:
viewtopic.php?p=337946#p337946

[SpudmanWP]

Thanks Mas..

Here is the original Danish PDF and a translation that has the bar graphs (not the maps).

typevalg-af-danmarks-kommende-kampfly-reduceret-vers-20160509.pdf

Original Danish PDF

(3.79 MiB) Downloaded 1027 times

typevalg-af-danmarks-kommende-kampfly-reduceret-vers-20160509-english-translation.pdf

English translation of Danish PDF

(5.42 MiB) Downloaded 635 times

[spazsinbad]

To all the peoples involved - thanks - below ENGLISH translation with the portion of this thread with the MAPS/comments.

[swiss]

According to Denmark MoD internal audit:
Mission effectiveness

F-35_effectiveness.jpg

Survivability

F-35_survivability_2.png

Very intersting. So there should be no doubt, the f-35 is superior to every 4 gen fighter. End its even cheaper then the Eurofighter and SH.

The hard truth is, the EF is not even the best Eurocanard. When we look at the evaluvation from the Swiss AF.

[mas]

It needs the AESA Captor-E asap and Kuwait is first in line to get it in Q4 2019 with its first Typhoons. The Captor-E is more powerful than the Rafales AESA, more TR modules and wider field of view, 210 Deg with rotation. Typhoon has always suffered with the partners dragging their feet on updates installs. The French seem to take their security more seriously than say the Germans which makes a complete change from the last century. The British were the only ones bothered in developing Typhoon for air to ground and have led the changes in the aircraft for that. The Typhoon has more potential than Rafale, the partners are just not bothering to develop it quick enough. There's the AMK maneuverability kit that no-one has bothered to install, a working TVC nozzle that no-one is interested in, engine power upgrades no-one is interested in and an AESA about 5 years too late.

[monkeypilot]

It also need an intra patrol data link (data dissemination).
PS. THe shown diagrams are from the second round of evals, the "2015 proposed configuration" (aka P3, F3R and E versions)

[optimist]

I really haven't followed the evals of the various countries and the 'us vs them threads'. In fact I didn't even know the Danes eval'ed the super hornet
So after the several pages of nonsense I engaged with here. The super hornet scored better than the typhoon.
Who would of seen that coming, with both a big step behind the f-35
viewtopic.php?p=337946#p337946

higher is better

[citanon]

Is it just me or are those charts raising their middle fingers to the 4th gen?

[hornetfinn]

I really haven't followed the evals of the various countries and the 'us vs them threads'. In fact I didn't even know the Danes eval'ed the super hornet
So after the several pages of nonsense I engaged with here. The super hornet scored better than the typhoon.
Who would of seen that coming, with both a big step behind the f-35

IMO, Super Hornet and Classic Hornet are both very underrated fighters. I think it's because they have somewhat lower pure flight performance than best competitors (acceleration, top speed and STR). Of course both have top notch ITR and low speed and high AoA capabilities. Both have very fine avionics systems for their time and that IMO makes bigger difference than turn rates or acceleration. SH has had AESA radar for over 10 years while Typhoon does not yet. Otherwise both have good avionics systems and a lot depends on their implementation.

One important thing about SH and EF Typhoon RCS comparison is that fixed and tilted AESA radar (like AN/APG-79) has a lot smaller RCS than planar array MSA radar like Captor-C/D. Captor-C/D alone has RCS of something like 0.5 square meters or more in frequencies that FSS nosecone is transparent. Besides, wideband FSS has fairly limited performance in absorbing enemy radar signals. We are usually talking about 3-10 dB reduction with them (depending on many factors), which would mean 0.5 square meters radar would look like 0.25 to 0.05 square meters object to enemy radar.

[ricnunes]

I really haven't followed the evals of the various countries and the 'us vs them threads'. In fact I didn't even know the Danes eval'ed the super hornet
So after the several pages of nonsense I engaged with here. The super hornet scored better than the typhoon.
Who would of seen that coming, with both a big step behind the f-35

IMO, Super Hornet and Classic Hornet are both very underrated fighters. I think it's because they have somewhat lower pure flight performance than best competitors (acceleration, top speed and STR). Of course both have top notch ITR and low speed and high AoA capabilities. Both have very fine avionics systems for their time and that IMO makes bigger difference than turn rates or acceleration. SH has had AESA radar for over 10 years while Typhoon does not yet. Otherwise both have good avionics systems and a lot depends on their implementation.

I agree with your general assessment however I would like to comment the part that I put on bold:-
- The (legacy) Hornet and Super Hornet both have quite better ITR, low speed and high AoA performance compared to the Typhoon (or any other Eurocannard for that matter). I would say that the difference/advantage that the Typhoon has over the Hornet/Super Hornet in terms of acceleration, top speed and STR is similar to the difference/advantage that the Hornet/Super Hornet has over the Typhoon in terms of ITR, low speed and high AoA capabilities.

One important thing about SH and EF Typhoon RCS comparison is that fixed and tilted AESA radar (like AN/APG-79) has a lot smaller RCS than planar array MSA radar like Captor-C/D. Captor-C/D alone has RCS of something like 0.5 square meters or more in frequencies that FSS nosecone is transparent. Besides, wideband FSS has fairly limited performance in absorbing enemy radar signals. We are usually talking about 3-10 dB reduction with them (depending on many factors), which would mean 0.5 square meters radar would look like 0.25 to 0.05 square meters object to enemy radar.

I believe that it's more clear that a Typhoon having a RCS of 0.05 and this not to mention even more absurd values such as 0.03 or 0.02 is definitely NOT realistic and accurate (resuming, they are absurd values).
I would even say that a 0.01 class RCS value such as 0.02, 0.03 or 0.05 is already in the VLO realm and the Typhoon is not a VLO aircraft, period!

[mixelflick]

Surprised to see the Rafale rated so highly in most categories vs. Typhoon. But in terms of radar/systems, it makes total sense. It seems as if Typhoon's early emphasis on air to air, failure to play the swing role as well as Rafale did over Libya has really hurt it.

Still, a robust force of euro-canards is going to be very useful checking Russian aggression. Their force structure is very Flanker heavy, and now that the SU-57 has been put on hold a decade even more so. One wonders why the SU-35 is sticking with its PESA, given how much lack of an AESA has hurt Typhoon. I'd imagine export potential will now be limited, although for the $ the SU-35 might be seen as a "best buy" by certain foreign operators...

[mas]

Typhoon has an automatic emissions control system, EMCON, controlled by its AIS (Attack and Identification System). It has stealthy electronic modes for its radar. A MSA (like Captor-M) in stowed position is not that different RCS wise from the APG-79 AESA in SH and of course the EADS detection/RCS comparison was done with the AESA Captor-E not the MSA Captor-M.

https://web.archive.org/web/20141127103 ... nsors.html

[hornetfinn]

Typhoon has an automatic emissions control system, EMCON, controlled by its AIS (Attack and Identification System). It has stealthy electronic modes for its radar. A MSA (like Captor-M) in stowed position is not that different RCS wise from the APG-79 AESA in SH and of course the EADS detection/RCS comparison was done with the AESA Captor-E not the MSA Captor-M.

MSA stowed means that the radar is not doing anything, which means it's just dead weight. That's not possible especially in air-to-air scenario and rather unlikely even in most air-to-ground scenarios. AESA can do scanning or SAR mapping and it will not affect RCS one bit as it has fixed antenna (even swashplate antennas are likely mostly used as fixed). Of course Captor-E is vastly better than MSA Captor but that was not compared in Danish or Swiss evaluations as it's years away from operational use. I just pointed out that Super Hornet has had tilted AESA for 10 years while EF Typhoon is still using MSA Captor radar and will do so for some years. This gives current operational Super Hornets quite important advantages in radar performance and RCS levels to operational Typhoons.

[mas]

The scenario I was thinking how it could be of use is if the MSA Captor picked up the target at long range, cued up the Pirate IRST to take over the target approach and then got stowed at an upward angle to limit potential radar reflections off it. The Typhoon could then either prosecute the attack from the front using IRST or come round the side/back and switch the radar back on for targeting once an advantageous shooting position had been achieved. The Typhoon has its own sensor fusion capability like F-35.

[hornetfinn]

The scenario I was thinking how it could be of use is if the MSA Captor picked up the target at long range, cued up the Pirate IRST to take over the target approach and then got stowed at an upward angle to limit potential radar reflections off it. The Typhoon could then either prosecute the attack from the front using IRST or come round the side/back and switch the radar back on for targeting once an advantageous shooting position had been achieved. The Typhoon has its own sensor fusion capability like F-35.

Sure that could work in some air-to-ground scenarios against individual SAM systems but would make Typhoon vulnerable to any enemy fighters and would preclude use of things like terrain avoidance, GMTI or air-to-surface ranging. AFAIK, Pirate does not have laser range finder for that job. Of course that would not work in air-to-air scenario at all.

Typhoon has sensor correlation system (tracks from individual sensors are correlated and pilot tasks ad operates the sensors), which is vastly different sensor fusion capability than used in F-35 (sensor data is fuzed and sensors are tasked and mostly operated by the fusion engine).