F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 06 Jul 2006, 20:41

RonO wrote:Why attack SA with a carrier? seems an odd thing to do with so many nearby land bases. Send in the USAF day 1 package and the rather pathetic SA air force wouldn't be there on day 2.

There's no such thing as 'official" T3 features there's just a list of wet dream items carried by phoon fans. Finless is ridiculous.

It isnt. I just chose to focus on a scenario where the F-35C or A would be forced to attack Tiffys on their way to the target, and how it would play out.

A Carrier will probably be used nontheless.

Safetystick · by **Safetystick** » 06 Jul 2006, 22:15

skrip00 wrote:Even with the newest radars, ala, CAESAR, the F-35 can close within AIM-9X firing range!

There's no internal carriage of AIM-9X on JSF. As such your going to lose quite a bit of RCS performance (it's surprising how much external stores 'bloom'. It's mostly the pylon and rail that does it), probably enough to prevent a JSF getting in close enough for a short range missile.
Just sneak into AMRAAM range. That'll be good enough for 90+% of the targets a JSF is ever going to engage (and that's probably the justification they used for not putting AIM-9X internally!).

Also, regarding radars, why would any currently under development radar NOT be better than the current ones in use by the US? They're hardly going to intentionally develop something that is worse or they'd just buy a US set*! As with all aspect of avation the first to market enjoys a brief time of guaranteed technical lead but every other bugger is going to be keen to minimise it! Expecting Europe to be behind is something that the US can't be complacent about (less France sell a potential world beater to China!)

Stick
*The JSF ITAR woes have also soured US content in European systems (to what extent is going to something that emerges over time). It's just become such a pain it makes as much sense to spend the R&D money to develop an organic capabilty. This is another reason why a Typhoon may be attractive. JSF has had very few non-US weapons on it's to-do list, The one's that are on it have had to be thought tooth and nail by the UK and even then are limited (no external ASRAAM to compete with AIM-9Xfor exampe). The aussies had a similar problem when they wanted ASRAAM for their Hornets.

RonO · by **RonO** » 06 Jul 2006, 22:36

That's rubbish. The only thing limiting UK weapons is the willingness of the UK to pay for the integration. External ASRAAM & external brimstone were on the list but were deleted by the UK to save a few pennies. ITAR has not soured anybody off anything. The US has restricted exporting sensitive stuff since WW2.

The whole Saudi Arabia scenario is nonsense. We are supposed to believe that the Typhoons can't detect the F-35's. Well if that's the case, why bother shooting the phoons down as they're basically useless to the Saudi's. Just send a stream of undetectable F-35's to bomb the shyt out of the SA command & control centers & airfields.

boff180 · by **boff180** » 06 Jul 2006, 22:38

Look at you're own numbers: F-35A RCS = .001m2 class.
CAESAR radar range for .001m2 class target = 32~38km

Quote correctly please... 32~38km+

Which shows the figure is UNCERTAIN in the real classified world... as I said "getting very close to CAESARs detection capability of it. If not already in it... " when you said a distance of 50km.

Also, I'd love to see how the hell the CAESAR radar magically outperforms the APG-77, APG-81 and so on! Geez, the still-in-development Euro-Radar magically trumps what the US has been working on for the past decade! I'm sorry, but last I read, the CAESAR is just a new front end for the CAPTOR. Just like the V(3) radar for the F-15Cs is. Its nowhere near the capability of the US radars in service, or entering service now.

Yes its a sensor upgrade... Captor was designed FROM THE OUTSET to be upgraded with AESA... the software was designed to accept it with the change of just the antenna and 2 boxes.

It is the figures officially stated... CAESAR has the same detective capability of the APG-77 that is all we have to go on. The APG-81 DOES NOT have the detective capability of the APG-77 in air-air.

1. You have no intel on the performance figures of any of these radars.
2. You have no idea what the RCS is of the F-22A or F-35.

TOAN used official figures quoted by manufacturers to develop these figures... he used mathematical equations you will find in all the text books on this subject. So going on quoted figures those are the extrapolated performance figures.

No company is EVER going to give out the true classified data... infact for misinformation these quoted ranges are probably lower than in real life.

These are the OFFICIAL QUOTED figures for RCS from the companies.... NOT what someone subjectively thinks.

They will never release the classified figure... and unless you know them then you can't moan... its worked on the most reliable information available which is the companies published data.

And also going by what those figures show... (Toan any chance of some figures on the SH's set please if you read this, thanks). There is No Way a SH can detect a Typhoon at 200km using radar.

Another issue: The Typhoons RCS should be much higher, being a bit less than the F-16s. It still has a mechanically steered array.

RADAR is just ONE factor in RCS... intake, materials.etc are much more imporant factors... there are Radome coatings in existence (I know this as ive read a journal article on it) that will only let certain frequencies pass through them... i.e. the frequencies of the radar and no others.... greatly reducing the signature of a antenna array!

Again, these are the OFFICIAL QUOTED figures for RCS from the companies.... NOT what someone subjectively thinks.

Inconsistencies: How come the Su-35 and Su-27 differ soo much in RCS?

The Su-35 if you read up on it, incorporates a number of RCS reducing techniques and RAM coatings, where as the bog standard "vanilla" Su-27 does not.

But in any operation against the USA, you'll have to face the F-22As. Even knowing you're going to be attacked really doesnt help in preparing for it.

And here you show why all these "v" comparisons are in the end... pointless. Except in a very few small posibilities... (ie. Greece v Turkey) these aircraft will probably never face off against each other in real combat... they will work along side each other!

Oh and the minimum calculated "maximum detectable range" for an F-35 is 32km... tell me how in a head on engagement with the data currently known an F-35 can get within 26km without being detected, the range of an Aim-9X? Factoring also the IRST being extremely sensitive. Oh and as Safetystick stated... Aim-9x will not be cleared for internal carriage, external only... oh wait there goes your stealth!

Andy

p.s. RonO you do realise EADs have done flight testing using the X-31 in order to explore finless flight.... with the specific mind to apply it to existing aswell as future aircraft..? Typhoon was product stated.

snypa777 · by **snypa777** » 07 Jul 2006, 02:43

Whilst reading this topic, I wondered about RCS/stealth etc... I have heard military people talk about search radar getting radar "flashes" from stealthy aircraft. Depending on what aspect the aircraft is showing the radar, there could be more or less chance of getting some kind of return...Radar flashes are not going to get you a "lock" but you could blind fire SAMs and use electro-optical guidance....At least until you get waxed by a Tomahawk!

The F-35 is said to be stealthier than the F-22 in frontal aspect but less stealthy all round. I guess it would just be too expensive to get the F-35 to that standard, not to mention the F-35 will be exported. The US doesn`t want other nations to have ALL of it`s stealth tech`. The F-117 flies a very strict mission profile presenting itself to threat radars at certain angles, that minimise the chance of any returns. the F-35 may have to use those tactics also, but with a larger "window" if it more stealthy than the F-117, which many believe.

I doubt if it is possible to make an aircraft "impossible" to see on a radar screen considering all the different frequencies and radar types out there. Especially from ALL aircraft angles and planes.

My point I suppose is that nobody should assume that every enemy is stupid and has not considered how to defeat stealth. The F-35 ain`t gonna be invisible!

I can`t see the UK funding a tailess Typhoon. The TVC system already in development by ICS? looks very innovative, can`t see us funding that either. Why, there is news that there will be £1Bn in defence cuts for the UK next fiscal, more bad news! Apparently to fund some kind of internal armed security force, as if we need another! A kind of UK "Homeland Security Force".

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 07 Jul 2006, 02:55

boff180 wrote:The APG-81 DOES NOT have the detective capability of the APG-77 in air-air.

Says who? You?

The whole statement doesnt make sense. Its an AESA radar that can do both air and ground tracking. Also, there is no information on the CAESAR about its range or other features. Its a new front end, and this means it wont have the same functionality as an AESA radar which was made from the ground up.

boff180 wrote:TOAN used official figures quoted by manufacturers to develop these figures... he used mathematical equations you will find in all the text books on this subject. So going on quoted figures those are the extrapolated performance figures.

No company is EVER going to give out the true classified data... infact for misinformation these quoted ranges are probably lower than in real life.

These are the OFFICIAL QUOTED figures for RCS from the companies.... NOT what someone subjectively thinks.

Quoted by who? Aside from some discrepencies... like the CAESAR being magically more powerful than US AESAs, it seems pretty solid. The whole thing should be taken with a grain of salt.

Again, these are the OFFICIAL QUOTED figures for RCS from the companies.... NOT what someone subjectively thinks

Ok dude. Put your money where you're mouth is and show me these official quotes. Start with the Typhoon's RCS.

boff180 wrote:Oh and the minimum calculated "maximum detectable range" for an F-35 is 32km... tell me how in a head on engagement with the data currently known an F-35 can get within 26km without being detected, the range of an Aim-9X? Factoring also the IRST being extremely sensitive. Oh and as Safetystick stated... Aim-9x will not be cleared for internal carriage, external only... oh wait there goes your stealth!

Simple, it uses AIM-120Ds.

Interesting tidbit on the AIM-9X:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro ... eb+6,+2006

he missile successfully locked on after launch and hit its target
in a test of its potential launch from a submarine.

AIM-9X has LOAL. Hence clearing it for internal carriage is still doable.

One more thing
An F-35 with AIM-9X on wing pylons is still more stealthy than a Tiffy. :p

boff180 · by **boff180** » 07 Jul 2006, 06:52

ill get you all the sources after work... but on aim-9x internal carriage... yes doable but actually read about it... it isn't being cleared for internal carriage, full stop. Only WVR being cleared internal is ASRAAM.

But to think other people can't develop decent AESA's is very arrogant on your part.

LordOfBunnies · by **LordOfBunnies** » 07 Jul 2006, 08:24

Ya know, I think the people who have clearance to know all the information we're squabbling over are laughing their a$$es off right now. If you don't believe me, go back to the TC/ACSheva arguments. You've got the people in the know arguing against someone who knows nothing. In truth, none of us can know a damn thing because most of us aren't cleared for... and if some of us are... they can't friggin' tell. Oy, this question will probably never be answered.

Lasse · by **Lasse** » 07 Jul 2006, 16:38

boff180 wrote:ill get you all the sources after work... but on aim-9x internal carriage... yes doable but actually read about it... it isn't being cleared for internal carriage, full stop. Only WVR being cleared internal is ASRAAM.

What about the IRIS-T?

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 07 Jul 2006, 17:23

boff180 wrote:But to think other people can't develop decent AESA's is very arrogant on your part.

Its very arrogant of you to make bogus claims about a system which has only entered testing. Then saying this system will be better than current and future US radars.

Seeing as it took the forever to design the CAPTOR itself doesnt seem too promising. CAESAR will probably be in developmental cycles for about 4 years before maturing.

The other thing is that CAESAR only began actual testing in MAY. Not even on the Typhoon yet.

So its got a long ways to go before anyone can make bogus claims of it being superior to US systems flying already.

Proof the APG-81 is also very effective at AirCombat
http://www.defensedaily.com/cgi/av/show ... grated.htm

For air-to-air operations, the APG-81 will support such features as passive search and multitarget, and beyond-visual-range tracking and targeting. It also will support a cued search feature, in which the radar is cued toward another sensor's line of sight. That other sensor can be onboard, offboard or pilot-directed. Because the radar beam can move from point to point in millionths of a second, the F-35 pilot can view a single target as many as 15 times a second.

Additionally, it has more power and T/R modules. Advances from the APG-81 will be seen on the APG-77 in the next block of upgrades for the F-22A.

drummertr · by **drummertr** » 07 Jul 2006, 23:52

I've been reading up on the avionics / radar of the F-35 and truthfully, there WILL be nothing that comes close other than the F-22 to any of the F-35's capabilities. It is possible the Typhoon will be more maneuverable and more light weight because there are no LO concerns, but what use is maneuverability when your being shot at from beyond visual range? F-35 is going to have senors in all angles of the fighter so the pilot can literally (no joke) see through the floor and behind him for miles.

toan · by **toan** » 08 Jul 2006, 05:25

1. As for the number of RCS of F-22A and F-35, according to some articles of AW&ST and declarations of USAF and LM since the end of 1990s, the frontal RCS of F-22A is roughly equal to a marble size, while the frontal RCS of F-35 is roughly equal to a golf ball or a ping-pong ball.

Try google to find out the cross section areas of marble, golf ball, and ping-pong ball, and that is where that my personal estimation of the frontal RCS of F-22A and F-35 comes from.

2. As for the estimation of tracking range for RCS = 1m2 target of American NG fighter's AESA radars, you can find it in AW&ST 2000/02/07:
# F-22A with APG-77: 200 km+
# F-35A with APG-81: 160 km
# F-15C with APG-63V2: 144 km (which may be increased to 185 km according to other later information)
# F-18E with APG-79: 128 km
# F-16E with APG-80: 112 km

3. According to the AFM (2004, May), Magazine of RAF (2004, June) and the data from Mr. Billsweetman, the test pilot of RAF and the engineer of EADS declared that Captor had sucessfully tracked the target of Mig-29G (RCS = 5m2) at the range of "significantly longer than 100 miles", or around 185 km, during the test in 2002.

If the RAF test pilot didn't tell the lie, then according to the basic formula of radar and RCS, the Captor shall be able to track the target of RCS = 1m2 at the range of around 124 km theoretically.

And according to the IDR (1999, March), the test pilot of Norway declared that the detective range of ECR-90 had been three times of the APG-68 used by Norwagian F-16C BLOCK 50N.

4. As for the CAESAR, it seems that BAES has hoped that with the help of new AESA array with around 1,500 T/R modules (+/-5%), the detection and tracking range of EF-2000's radar will be able to be increased 50~75% al least after 2012 (http://www.iee.org/oncomms/pn/radar/Roulston.pdf).

Of course, I have no idea if European will be able to accomplish this finally right now, but I think for UK, even if the CAESAR plan becomes a failure finally (Developing failure, or the result is significantly inferior than APG-81........), it may still have another choice: Just try to put APG-81 AESA radar into its own EF-2000................

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 08 Jul 2006, 06:44

The only thing is that there really isnt much of a set rule in terms of RCS and range. Things like intakes, radar dish, cockpit, etc. But then again, I agreed with most of your numbers.

And according to the IDR (1999, March), the test pilot of Norway declared that the detective range of ECR-90 had been three times of the APG-68 used by Norwagian F-16C BLOCK 50N.

Take this statement with a grain of salt. No RCS values, no actual range. Hell, is the range of the APG-68 published yet?

My only problem was with the CAESAR's extrapolated range. There isnt much data to support it.

The F-22As APG-77 also 1500 T/R modules. The F-35 only 1200. The F/A-18F, 1100. But remember this: the ammount of modules isnt the big characteristic for range and detection. Signal processing and power output is.

While I feel the Europeans are competent in fielding a radar, two major hurdles come to mind:
1. Initial research has just begun. Hence an overall lack of experience with the technology.
2. Manufacturing of GaAs modules is very complicated. Just the fact the French had to import T/R modules from the US only recently shows a long road ahead for European production. Hell, even the Ruskies don't have the capacity to manufacture such modules yet.

I generally think the Typhoon is a great aircraft... For the mid-1990s. Now the name of the game is stealth and being able to carry strike packages. Something the US is pursuing with the Superhornet, Raptor, and Lightning.

toan · by **toan** » 08 Jul 2006, 07:16

Take this statement with a grain of salt. No RCS values, no actual range. Hell, is the range of the APG-68 published yet?

A:
Then you should take the detective / tracking range performances of APG-63v2, APG-79 and APG-80 with a grain of salt, too. All of their detective / tracking range performances that had been declared by American pilots or manufacturer were also "2 times of previous APG-63", "3 times of APG-73", "2~3 times of previous APG-68".

While I feel the Europeans are competent in fielding a radar, two major hurdles come to mind:
1. Initial research has just begun. Hence an overall lack of experience with the technology.
2. Manufacturing of GaAs modules is very complicated. Just the fact the French had to import T/R modules from the US only recently shows a long road ahead for European production. Hell, even the Ruskies don't have the capacity to manufacture such modules yet.

A:
Several European countries has the experience for design, build, and use GaAs modules and AESA radars in their Navy and Army for several years, just check Cobra anti-artillery radar, SAMPSON MFR, APAR / SEAPAR MFR, CEA MFR in google. As for the fighter's AESA radar techonology, UK, France, and German has begun the study and project since 1995. I don't think it can be mentioned as "Just begun".

http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/s ... screen.pdf
(see page 9)

As for the CAESAR prototype and Captor-E project:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... topic=19.0

1. The standardised modular T/R modules (known as SMTRMs, size 64.4x13.5x4.5 mm) for CAESAR were completed by EADS Defence Electronics in April 2004, after which integration of the AESA array plus ground and environmental tests started in Ulm in July 2004.

2. CAESAR array was not fully populated with T/R modules, but approximately 75 per cent." The flight tests on the BAC One-Eleven involved the radar operating at "limited range but still representative of the full-up system".

3. The CAPTOR-E will have a slightly bigger antenna than the CAPTOR-M today (which has been 70 cm in diameter), and shall be able to incorporate around 1,500 T/R modules (-/+ 5%).

4. In the fully developed version, a future Captor-E radar features multichannel signal processing and space-time adaptive processing, allowing the radar to distinguish between a moving target on the
ground and the ground clutter (ground moving target indication -- GMTI). The radar is also capable of adaptive beamforming, which includes the generation of multiple independent beams by dividing up the AESA array into sub-arrays. This is useful for jammer suppression.

According to Compans, Captor-E will be able to simultaneously perform search, track, datalink, synthetic aperture radar imaging and other functions.

Russian has made its own AESA modules now ~ although the first customer might be Indian AF if it chooses MIG-35 as the solution of its MRCA plan.

http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski- ... 06/mig.asp
(You can also find the relative article in IDR 2006 Jan)

The main problem for European countries (including Russia) today is that the AESA techonology today is still too expensive for them to use in hundreds of fighters, while it is not the problem for USA since the yearly defensive budget of American is more than 2 times of the yearly defensive budget of the whole EU. According to the estimation of BAES and Thales, the cost of AESA radar techonology won't be low enough for European AFs to use until post-2012.

toan · by **toan** » 08 Jul 2006, 08:09

I generally think the Typhoon is a great aircraft... For the mid-1990s. Now the name of the game is stealth and being able to carry strike packages. Something the US is pursuing with the Superhornet, Raptor, and Lightning.

I think no one here can deny the air supermacy and air dominant capability of F-22A and USAF, who have the top stealthy performance, the best deta-fusion / net-centric / integrated EW capability, and the most formidable precise fire power on earth in the foreseeable future.

As for F-35, I think the fighters that are used by USAF and USN themselves shall have very good stealthy performance and the best electronic capability. But I still wonder if the F-35 for exporting to other countries will have the same kind of stealthy performance and electronic capability. I think this question will be solved after 2012~2015, at the time that DACT between RAF EF-2000 T3 and RN F-35B begins.