F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 14:00
by FANTASMA
Hi there,

I would like to here options about the ability of F-35 in case of EF Typhoon tries to intercept or engage to air combat with it to survive? Does the Typhoon has any chances or the JSF will prevail?

Cheers

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 14:13
by Driver
For bombing a city, choose the F-35 JSF.

For bombing a city, defending your airspace, escort transport planes etc., choose the EFA.

Really the EFA is better on all fronts except range which can be dealt with. The JSF does have stealth though but very little and there are nations that are well on their way to make stealth useless.

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 14:34
by FANTASMA
I think when EFA develops the ability to launch Meteor and Iris-T JSF will be troubled..Maybe silly but jsf has stelth technology the EFA how capable is to detect with its radar the JSF..The crucial in future air combats is who detects first the enemy, the range of the "goodies", supercruise ability etc etc..i would like to listen comparison between the two aircrafts..

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 15:57
by sferrin
Driver wrote:For bombing a city, choose the F-35 JSF.

For bombing a city, defending your airspace, escort transport planes etc., choose the EFA.

Really the EFA is better on all fronts except range which can be dealt with. The JSF does have stealth though but very little and there are nations that are well on their way to make stealth useless.


JSF has very little stealth? :roll:

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 16:05
by Driver
Compared to what's out there... Yes.

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 19:18
by RonO
One of the most important things about JSF is that it's being built down to a price so if you are an air force looking for your next fast jet, the comparison should be one EF vs two JSF.

If stealth is so useless, why is every single future design from all aircraft designers so stealthy? Dassault & Bae stutter on how stealth doesn't matter yet you go look at what's on their design boards and what they're flying as demonstrators & prototypes. Major case of watch what I do and don't listen to what I say.

BTW, JSF can go to sea & fly from small airstrips, EF cannot do either.

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 21:34
by boff180
EF can fly from small strips, STOL was a design requirement... very very short take-off run and uses a drag chute to shorten its landing distance when required.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 23:20
by RonO
Wrong. STOL was dropped from the Typhoon requirements to save money.

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 23:21
by boff180
Well it still can take off and land in quite short distances... especially take off ;) witnessed with my own eyes :)

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 00:52
by Whiteman_B2
Driver wrote:For bombing a city, choose the F-35 JSF.

For bombing a city, defending your airspace, escort transport planes etc., choose the EFA.

Really the EFA is better on all fronts except range which can be dealt with. The JSF does have stealth though but very little and there are nations that are well on their way to make stealth useless.

Interesting point of view. I'll put my money on Typhoon getting foxtrot uniform before it knows what hit it.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 00:55
by RonO
With zero or little load any modern fast jet can take off in a short distance. Doesn't mean it can effectively operate from short strips. With no load an F-15 can take off in a few hundred feet and go vertical. I've seen them do it many times at air displays. I also see them every day thru my window take off on combat exercises. They then need & take thousands of feet of concrete and bootfulls of a/b to get airborne and when they come back, they need thousands of feet more.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 01:00
by boff180
Actually whiteman, thats what the Norwegian F-35 representative said in an interview recently.

Or to put it exactly.

If you want to bomb baghdad with cheap cheap weapons: F-35
If you want air dominance, airspace defence and the ability to bomb bahdad using expensive stand-off weapons: Typhoon.

Except for stealth, the F-35 doesn't really have any advantages over Typhoon... they both are pretty much equal on the Situational Awareness front.

And if they expect an F-35 to merge and it isn't an RAF or Australian one... well stealth will mean sweet FA if its carrying Aim-9X on external pylons! It also remains to be seen if Meteor will be able to be carried internally at all (definately not on the F-35B)!

Also as AESA radar tachnology advances the detection range of something with the RCS of F-35 is getting longer and longer. CAESAR in its base configuration is in the same class as the F-22's AESA, just think what further enhances in the next 20 years will bring.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 01:10
by idesof
Driver wrote:For bombing a city, choose the F-35 JSF.

For bombing a city, defending your airspace, escort transport planes etc., choose the EFA.

Really the EFA is better on all fronts except range which can be dealt with. The JSF does have stealth though but very little and there are nations that are well on their way to make stealth useless.


I realize this is a discussion board and therefore, obviously, topics are up for debate and as such, different views may be proffered. However, I have been reading the posts on this board for the past several weeks with a great deal of interest regarding the views expressed herein and few posts have struck me as completely off the mark as the one quoted above. Firstly, the claim that the F-35 (JSF) possesses "very little" in the way of stealth is an outlandish claim without any sort of evidence to back it up. Indeed, while it has been argued the F-35 will not achieve the same degree of all-angle stealth as the F-22, not even the F-35's most vehement detractors claim it is in possession of "very little" stealth. While the stealth properties of the F-22 and F-35 are distinguishable by a matter of degree, the qualitative difference between the F-35's stealth capabilities and those of the Typhoon is separated by several orders of magnitude. Secondly, Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The assertion made above, that "nations" are "well on their way" to making stealth "useless" is an extraordinary claim for which evidence is neither offered by the writer nor proven by another known, reliable source, let alone sources. All else is conjecture until proven otherwise.

Therefore, on the merits of its advantage conferred by stealth alone, in air combat the F-35 will see an enemy, and shoot that enemy, much earlier than will the Typhoon, even after the latter is given an updated AESA radar later in the century. In a hypothetical and unlikely head-to-head match-up, all else being equal (support elements, pilot skill, etc.), the Typhoon will be terminated more than likely before its pilot is even aware he or she is under attack. It is important to note that at this stage of its development, when the USAF is trying to secure funding for additional F-22s, the F-35's air-to-air capabilities, which are not significantly lesser than its larger cousin's, are being purposely down-played so as not to alert Congress that the F-35 will be significantly cheaper, but not significantly less capable, than the F-22. Indeed, it is very much like the F-15 vs. F-16 debate the USAF was engaged in during the 1970s and 80s. As has been widely acknowledged, the F-15 is not an inherently superior air-superiority fighter vis-a-vis the F-16. Had the USAF optimized the F-16 from early on for the air-superiority role, the USAF would have never needed to buy the F-15, period. See Pierre Sprey and John Boyd. An F-35, optimized for the air-to-air role, would not be inferior to the F-22. However, even when its air-to-air performance is compromised by its need to be a bomb truck, when the F-35 enters service it will be second only to the F-22 in the air-dominance mission. The evidence of this are all the countries--which must use the F-35 in both air-to-ground and air dominance roles--that are opting to wait several years for the arrival of the F-35 instead of procuring the Typhoon, despite the makers of the latter practically paying other nations to purchase their already obsolete design. Indeed, the capability gap between the F-35 and the Typhoon at all levels in favor of the former is greater yet than that between a late-model F-16 and an early-model Mig-23 (again, of course, in favor of the former).

Sadly for the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia and whoever else has made the disastrous mistake to purchase this relic of a by-gone era, the Typhoon will soon be almost, but not quite, as irrelevant as the so-called Super Hornet. The F-35 will exceed the Typhoon at all levels, including maneuverability. Despite the latter's canards, I am astounded by how very little people on this board understand the very peculiar yet very unbeatable aerodynamic configuration common to both the F-22 and F-35. The enormous control surfaces, set far behind the axis of gravity in both as well as far behind the engine, provide a degree of maneuverability unmatched by any comers. Again, the USAF is being coy about the F-35 in this regard, but this aircraft will not be beaten by any aircraft now flying except for the F-22. Were the F-35 to be fitted with thrust-vectoring, however, it would be more maneuverable yet than the F-22.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 01:24
by Whiteman_B2
Well, my take is that LM is claiming that F-35 will be at least as effective in A2A as the Viper, and the Viper is pretty effective. Now combine LO tech with that and you have pretty decent LWF, as well as a mud mover.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 01:35
by boff180
Therefore, on the merits of its advantage conferred by stealth alone, in air combat the F-35 will see an enemy, and shoot that enemy, much earlier than will the Typhoon, even after the latter is given an updated AESA radar later in the century.


Incorrect, the CAESAR has a larger detection range than the APG-81, and is said to be in the same class as the APG-77.

Current figures suggest...
Captor v F-35 = 23~32 km
Caesar v F-35 = 85~100km
APG-81 v Ef = 87 km

The assertion made above, that "nations" are "well on their way" to making stealth


There have been no "white" flying projects that have been pilotted vehicles.

Try looking up BAE's "Replica"; which is not known if it flew or not.
On the stealth UAV front, look at BAE's Corax... and on the stealth UCAV front, the EADS Barracuda.

UK in particular has concentrated more on active cancellation technologies more than aircraft design solutions. We are also looking at skipping the pilotted stealth stage and going direct to stealth UCAVs.

Sadly for the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia and whoever else has made the disastrous mistake to purchase this relic of a by-gone era, the Typhoon will soon be almost, but not quite, as irrelevant as the so-called Super Hornet. The F-35 will exceed the Typhoon at all levels, including maneuverability. Despite the latter's canards, I am astounded by how very little people on this board understand the very peculiar yet very unbeatable aerodynamic configuration common to both the F-22 and F-35. The enormous control surfaces, set far behind the axis of gravity in both as well as far behind the engine, provide a degree of maneuverability unmatched by any comers. Again, the USAF is being coy about the F-35 in this regard, but this aircraft will not be beaten by any aircraft now flying except for the F-22. Were the F-35 to be fitted with thrust-vectoring, however, it would be more maneuverable yet than the F-22.


As europeans will say, we not for once say the typhoon is better than the F-22, quite the opposite.... in the UK, the government is still trying to "sell" the F-35 to the public and so I am very well aware of its capabilities and potential. However on the otherhand, I have first hand experience of the Typhoon and I know its achievments. Calling it irrelevant is actually quite offencive.

There seems to be a big lack of understanding of Typhoon capabilities in the US; not counting stealth (which in a partial way is looking to be added in tranche 3 through active cancellation technology), the F-35 especially in the A2A does lack... in payload especially in stealthy configuration... AMRAAM only for most nations, no WVR internally. They seem to see the "oh it hasn't got stealth...." and thats it!

Also, in the modern environment, the ability to turn up the other aircrafts **** is becoming less and less pertiant. A decent HMS+sensor system and a good HOBs pretty much destroy this advantage straight away... close in, if the pilot can see you (and in the case of asraam, if he cant) they he can fire on you, regardless of where you are!

If you haven't noticed, I have not mentioned the Rafale, thats because its A2A capability, especially in the BVR arena, is very questionable due to a very poor PESA radar that has a lower detection range than the F-15C's range. It may have a good (on the surface) A2G capability but I wouldn't want one in an air dominance role.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 19:04
by RonO
Andy, your F-35 quote from Norway was from the Typhoon salesman and not the F-35 guy and as such should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Be like taking the word of a Chevy salesman talking about a BMW.

I fear you miss the point on stealth. In one breath you say it's not very valuable and say technologies will soon be here to make it redundant and in the next breath boast of the stealth features of Typhoon Tranche 3 and various Bae programs (Replica, by the way, didn't fly - it didn't have any systems or engines). You can't have it both ways. Either stealth is a very valuable asset and all the world's manufacturers are justified in spending large fortunes developing it or it's a POS. Make up your mind.

What F-35 RCS do your radar ranges assume?

cheers

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 19:06
by RonO
For the record, I think Typhoon is an excellent aircraft with a different and somewhat overlapping set of capabilities than the F-35. The RAF should get both.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 19:28
by boff180
RonO wrote:Andy, your F-35 quote from Norway was from the Typhoon salesman and not the F-35 guy and as such should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Be like taking the word of a Chevy salesman talking about a BMW.

I fear you miss the point on stealth. In one breath you say it's not very valuable and say technologies will soon be here to make it redundant and in the next breath boast of the stealth features of Typhoon Tranche 3 and various Bae programs (Replica, by the way, didn't fly - it didn't have any systems or engines). You can't have it both ways. Either stealth is a very valuable asset and all the world's manufacturers are justified in spending large fortunes developing it or it's a POS. Make up your mind.

What F-35 RCS do your radar ranges assume?

cheers


I don't claim it will be redundant and I do think it is a valuable piece of kit... I just don't think it is the be all and end all of air combat. Technology always moves on. So stealth also needs to move on.

Replica - BAE say it never flew however there were reports in the UK of an unknown craft flying out of Warton at night around the time its said the project was active. I was using it as an example anyway as the person above me claimed there was no evidence that any other nation apart from the US was doing significant stealth research.

There is more than one way to skin a cat... active cancellation (not plasma stealth before thats brought up) isn't anywhere as near as effective as true Stealth as it would be very quickley overloaded. However if you forgive the phrase it could be extremely effective at making the aircraft stealthy against missiles. Active radar missiles such as AMRAAM and Meteor, once active, seek the target out pretty much themselves using their own radar.... using active cancellation selectively on the missiles radar emissions.... it could in theory make the aircraft invisible to BVR missiles. Just not the launch platform ;). Rafale is supposed to be fitted with a basic form of the technology... although I'm skeptical as its a British design....

I have noticed I quoted the wrong figure for the F-35 detection ranges of the CAESAR in my previous post.... they match pretty much exactly the range where an F-35 will become F-22 food aswell. F-35 RCS is using a number of quoted sources... as derived by Toan...0.001m2... Typhoon is around 0.1m2 according to most sources (although one recently claimed 0.5m2). The figures below were mathematically calculated by Toan using the most common publically legitimately stated figures.

CAPTOR(EF-2000 Tranch 1 and 2):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 12 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 22 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 70 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 124 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 185 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 220 km+

APG-77 AESA(F-22A):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 20 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 35 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 112 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 200 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 300 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 355 km+

CAESAR AESA(EF-2000 Tranch3, post-2015 with 1,500 T/Rs):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 18~21 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 32~38 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 104~122 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 185~216 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 278~324 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 330~385 km+

APG-81 AESA(F-35A/B/C):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 28 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 160 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 240 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 285 km+

and for comparison:
APG-80 AESA(F-16E):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 11 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 20 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 62 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 110 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 165 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 195 km+

RBE-2 PESA(Rafale F1/F2/F3):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 7~9 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 13~15 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 41~49 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 73~87 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 110~130 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 130~154 km+

APG-68 V9(F-16 C/D/I)and RDY-2(M2000-5MK2 and -9):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 4~5 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 8~9 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 25~30 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 46~54 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 66~80 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 78~95 km+

Remind me never to try and write technical posts like that other one at 0200 after a night on the town....
Andy :lol:

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 19:36
by boff180
There are a number of airforces that may end up operating both, not just the RAF.

The Italians have Typhoon, but will also operate a mixed fleet of F-35A/B's.

The most important potential place for duel operation is Turkey. It is increasingly likely Turkey are going to put a big Typhoon order in, news reports from Turkey this week have said they will be given a final assembly line in Turkey the possible order is so large. Typhoon replacing their RF-4, F-4 and F-5 fleets and the F-35 replacing their F-16 fleet.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 19:40
by Driver
I've seen some comments about the EFA. The JSF-A needs a longer strip then the EFA... The EFA altough it doesnt have STOVL it can do extreme short take-offs WITH full payload.. And the JSF can go to sea, but hey not many nations feel the need. And Again there is technology being developed in Europe and they're well on their way with it too... too make stealth visible.

Again for home defence (For Europe because Europe on the contrary to the USA has a much smaller focuss on offence and more on defence as most will agree) the EFA is the one to go.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 19:46
by RoAF
IF Turkey buys the Typhoon, Greece will follow right after it - or the other way around.
These two countries are priceless as customers, you get two customers with one marketing effort! :-D

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 21:05
by snypa777
boff180 wrote:There are a number of airforces that may end up operating both, not just the RAF.

The Italians have Typhoon, but will also operate a mixed fleet of F-35A/B's.

The most important potential place for duel operation is Turkey. It is increasingly likely Turkey are going to put a big Typhoon order in, news reports from Turkey this week have said they will be given a final assembly line in Turkey the possible order is so large. Typhoon replacing their RF-4, F-4 and F-5 fleets and the F-35 replacing their F-16 fleet.

Andy


Eurofighter Consortium are actually offering Turkey a position as the "Fifth" FULL partner nation, with full up assembly facilities etc.. Turkey would have responsibility of selling/marketing the Typhoon in certain regions in the same way as the other partners.

EF Ltd have just trumped the JSF deal offered by LM, which was worth $4 Billion.This included huge work-share. The Typhoon deal is worth $5 Billion and includes EF Ltd "club" membership. The cat fight begins.

The Typhoon looks more attractive, only because it is actually worth MORE money to Turkey. Maybe LM will "up" the ante.

Turkey is not in the EU, it would be cheaper to build Typhoons there in the long run, potentially? Same for JSF?
At least labour costs would be far lower as well as operating costs. Would Greece buy Turkish built Typhoons OR JSF? No, but they wouldn`t have to, there will be other production centres.

It is all politics and sales manouvre of course, but I think Turkey would benefit from having a mixed fleet. In any deal , Turkey will end up smelling very sweet though! LM and EF Ltd are falling over one another.

EF Ltd is considering expanding into the wider defence sector.. I don`t know if that is just marketing/bluff but UAV production for a Euro-UCAV has been talked about recently..Turkey would have a hand in this but for now, it is far too distant to pin any hopes on financially....Who knows what shape EU UCAV policy will be, it is rather fuzzy at the moment.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/arti ... wsid=44656

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 21:09
by sferrin
Driver wrote:Compared to what's out there... Yes.


Compared to what specifically? (And the F-22, B-2 & F-117 are off the table because nobody else is going to be buying those).

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 21:16
by sferrin
idesof wrote:the F-35's air-to-air capabilities, which are not significantly lesser than its larger cousin's, are being purposely down-played so as not to alert Congress that the F-35 will be significantly cheaper, but not significantly less capable, than the F-22.


While it's safe to say the F-35 is #2 in air to air there is a LARGE difference between #1 and #2. In flight performance (speed, altitude, manuverability) the F-35 won't touch an F-22. The F-22 has a more powerful radar and greater weapons load. It also has the ALR-94.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 21:41
by Driver
#2? that's a good one, O I needed a laugh :D. The EFA will carrie phoenix missles soon plus in close combat... The EFA is sayed to be able to match the F-22 in manuverability there is no evidence supporting this nor is there any saying it isn't true and I kinda believe it cause that thing can turn! Specially with the 3D thrust vector nozzles they might be giving it in a later tranche.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 22:20
by locum
Sferrin wrote: '2nd in air-to-air', can you prove this? The Typhoon has a beter T/W ratio, lower wingloading and more specific excess power than the F-35.

Driver wrote: 'phoenix missles', smoking funny grass, boy? Phoenix missiles were carried by the F-14 only, maybe you are mean the Meteor.
Driver can you tell us which European countries are developing counter-Stealth technologies and what kind of technologies, I am very curious.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 22:25
by boff180
driver... phoenix...NO.... METEOR... YES.

Although I do agree, the F-35 will not be #2 in the a2a role.

The F-22 is #1 most definately its combo of high payload, high stealth and powerful networking... there is nothing that can match it in BVR. In WVR, it has a match in the Typhoon, the 22 does have a higher instantaneous turn but in a sustained fight they are equals.

The F-35 though is too compromised towards the a2g roll to completely overcome the Typhoon in the a2a role. The only big advantage it has is stealth. It has been said from UK reps it won't be as manouveurable as the Typhoon either.

Although my main concern for an offensive and defensive platform is combat persistance.... something the F-35 greatly lacks.... in a stealth configuration it can carry a total of 4 missiles, thats it... and it remains to be seen if most nations will be able to carry a Hobs internally.

Imagine a typical european defensive scene.... 2 aircraft on Q covering half the country. An unexpected first strike occurs and a package of 25 aircraft are inbound, the two Q aircraft are scrambled with orders to engage. The 2 F-35s are carrying a load of either 4 AMRAAm/Meteor or 2 Am/Me and 2 Asraam... They are the only aircraft in range before the package reach their target. The F-35s can only destroy (if all missiles find home) a total of 8 aircraft before they have to RTB... leaving 17 aircraft to hit their target. Ok unless its the ASRAAM aircraft they would of been hit without knowing they were under attack... but its not very effective as it hasn't got the persistance to cover the airspace and/or await second waves.

Put the F-22 in the position... The 2 aircraft wipe out 12 of the 25 targets at BVR range without them knowing they are there... with half the package gone out of no-where a lesser trained pilot may bug out and RTB... coupled with the fact another 4 aircraft can be destroyed in the merge before guns... a total of 9 aircraft would remain without gun kills. This would probably significantly reduce the effectiveness of the inbound package.

Finally, Typhoon in the same role... with one of 2 typical load-outs.... 6BVR+6WVR+2or3T, 8BVR+2WVR+2or3T. Before getting into the merge, they have defeated a similar number of aircraft to the F-22, between 12 and 16. Leaving 13 or as little as 9 aircraft remaining. Then in the merge, between 12 and 4 more aircraft could be destroyed.

Leaving a total of 9 or as little as 5 aircraft from the package remaining which would render it ineffective.

I know they are perfect scenarios with 100% missile reliability and no losses. However, its still a typical EUROPEAN defence scenario that could possibly, happen anywhere in the world.

The F-35 is going to be an excellent multi-role aircraft but not a complete king of the A2A roll.

In my book the A2A rankings are as follows:

#1 F-22
#2 Typhoon
#3 F-35
#4 Latest Sukhoi
#5 J-10 (based on what i have heard).
#6 Rafale.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 23:40
by sferrin
LOL "the only advantage it will have is stealth" :roll: The only way it would lose to a Typhoon would be if the pilot were stupid enough to go guns with him. BRV the F-35 wins hands down and WVR (with HOBS and HMCS) it's whoever sees the other guy first. Since the F-35 will detect the Typhoon before it will be detected itself the F-35 will control the battle. He can either engage BVR, position himself for a WVR shot, or disengage with the Typhoon pilot unaware.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 23:52
by boff180
People say about the opposing aircraft won't have a clue the stealth aircraft is there, but thinking about it... if there isn't an AWACs datalink present... the F-35 will need to use its own sensors to detect the target in the first place.... a radar signal will give away the direction immediately. And the same will happen with an EO system, as the laser range finder will give it away.

Also saying about HOBs, unless its an RAF or RAAF example (carrying ASRAAM internally), then if the aircraft is in a full stealth configuration... this is not an issue. A fact is that the IRIS-T/Aim-9X are NOT being cleared for internal carriage so it won't be carrying a HOBs in the first place unless it wants to sacrifice its stealth. Aim-9X is only being cleared for a dedicated "end of wing" (not wingtip) station.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 00:42
by sferrin
boff180 wrote:People say about the opposing aircraft won't have a clue the stealth aircraft is there, but thinking about it... if there isn't an AWACs datalink present... the F-35 will need to use its own sensors to detect the target in the first place.... a radar signal will give away the direction immediately. And the same will happen with an EO system, as the laser range finder will give it away.

Also saying about HOBs, unless its an RAF or RAAF example (carrying ASRAAM internally), then if the aircraft is in a full stealth configuration... this is not an issue. A fact is that the IRIS-T/Aim-9X are NOT being cleared for internal carriage so it won't be carrying a HOBs in the first place unless it wants to sacrifice its stealth. Aim-9X is only being cleared for a dedicated "end of wing" (not wingtip) station.

Andy


Well that's dumb. :? You'd think they'd incorporate LOAL and internal carriage of AIM-9X on the F-35. I mean the cost to do that has got to be chump change compared to the cost of the program as a whole. Oh well. Maybe they don't see the need I guess. (Not saying it's so good it doesn't need it but that maybe they don't see it getting into situations where it would be the decision maker all that often).

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 01:38
by toan
The question of this topic might not have the confirmed answer until post-2015 ~ The time that DACT will begin between EF-2000 of RAF and F-35 of RN.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 07:02
by RonO
Andy, thanks for posting the radar information.

Enjoyed the latest chitchat. I think any scenario that has an F-35 operating on it own without AWACS totally misses the point. It's highly networked enabled and that's so it can operate in a network and not go dicking around on its lonesome. And secondly it's being built down to a price so you can afford two of them for every Typhoon. So convince me that twice as many F-35's in a network with offboard data from AWACS etc. on theor way to bomb the heck out of a high value target would loose to a handful of Typhoons. Because that's the real picture and not some one on one WW1 type dogfight.

Wouldn't suprise me to see Germany become another JSF/Typhoon user. More the merrier says I. Horses for courses.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 07:04
by RonO
Sorry I missed toan's post. I'm betting on the RN. No better fighter pilots in any air force in any country. Hope they're still around then.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 08:30
by FANTASMA
At the end of the year Turkey will make her decision on JSF or Typhoon and the numbers she will purchase.. My opinion is that they will select at first a number likeky 80-100 F-35 and a second order will take place for Eurofighters tranhce 3 about 40-60..From the other side of the Aegean i think there is a decision kind of "wait to see their move and then make ours"..Maybe 40-60 Eurofighers tranche 2 or 3 (which means that a desicion will take place place at the end of the decade if Greece goes for tranche 3) and a later order for JSF for about 40-60 airframes between 2013 to 2015..A mixed force including F35 for bombing missions and EFA Trance 3 for air superiority is an excellent combination.. Oh the radar info was given from Andy gives us the potential to compare some of the most critical parts between these fine aircrafts..

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 08:57
by boff180
Enjoyed the latest chitchat. I think any scenario that has an F-35 operating on it own without AWACS totally misses the point. It's highly networked enabled and that's so it can operate in a network and not go dicking around on its lonesome. And secondly it's being built down to a price so you can afford two of them for every Typhoon. So convince me that twice as many F-35's in a network with offboard data from AWACS etc. on theor way to bomb the heck out of a high value target would loose to a handful of Typhoons. Because that's the real picture and not some one on one WW1 type dogfight.


Well he was on about a one-on-one scenario so I gave him that scenario ;)

Although my european one is perfectly valid as it exemplifies most European nations standard alert aircraft procedures... including constant AWACs cover for some nations (Belgium/Holland/Germany = NATO E-3 fleet; France = E-3F fleet; UK = E-3D fleet).

ie. RAF..
4 aircraft on Alert at RAF Leuchers, Scotland. 4 aircraft on Alert at RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire. 2 aircraft at each base on 10/15min alert... the other 2 on 30min alert. 1 AWACs constantly airbourne.

- If the 15min birds are launched the 30min aircraft are usually prepped and put on 10min alert in order to maintain coverage/alert status once the first wave RTB and a re-readied.
- At weekends, if both birds go up or one aborts take-off with a problem (I have seen this happen) then the airbourne aircraft is not permitted to land until there is another aircraft on 10/15min alert on the ground.

Andy

EDIT:
Also thinking about it, going on the radar figures.... IF you are a nation that doesn't really possess an AWACs component (ie. Turkey) facing a nation that does (ie. Greece, with SAAB Eyrie) and posses F-35, then the Typhoon Tranche 3 is the more sensible choice for air defence for the none-awacs nation... the CAESAR will be able to detect the inbound F-35s; sure they'll be seen first but CAESAR will see the F-35s sooner than another F-35 will. That little bit of extra range gives you a little more time to turn away/avoid a BVR missile launch... and if armed with Meteor especially... as soon as you detect them, fire and then run away.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 09:45
by LordOfBunnies
Gentlemen, we can compare length all day. It still doesn't answer the question at hand. Which is better for the country in questions defense? Frankly, the plane needs to fit with the countries defense plan. That is more important than which plane can kick the others butt under some narrow set of conditions we're defining. A package of Typhoons and F-35s would be friggin dandy, but few (only one I think) country will have that. In some cases, the F-35 will be better (especially if LM gets their heads out of their @$$es on this one). The F-35 needs two things to be able to keep up with basically everything out there and whoop its butt (Raptor excluded). 1) Internal carriage of HOBS heaters. 2) stealthy pods for outboard stores. This would allow more carriage of weapons without significantly compromising stealth. I heard something about it for the 22 (mentioned in passing). That would turn the thing into the missile truck it would need to be for the heavy AD role.

I'm just curious, how many missiles do Vipers carry on AD mission?

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 10:59
by FANTASMA
The supercruise ability of EFA is questioned in that production stage...Any info on that??

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 11:02
by boff180
LordOfBunnies wrote:A package of Typhoons and F-35s would be friggin dandy, but few (only one I think) country will have that. .


Britain and Italy are the definate joint operators... Turkey and possibly Saudi Arabia being the other two.

I'm just curious, how many missiles do Vipers carry on AD mission?


6 if i remember rightly, either all slammers or 4 slammer and 2 winders.

The Typhoon has been quoted to be able to supercruise at Mach 1.25+ with a combat warload on board. Thats all the info officially released on its supercruise capabilities.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 12:09
by CheckSix
There are two sceanrios:

1. F-35 is as stealthy as advertised. It might get the first shot but Typhoons DASS and its maneuvrebility should trick the AMRAAM. F-35 has to stay on target until the active seeker finds the Typhoon 10km away. Doing this F-35 gives away its position and is therby attacked by Meteor missles.
F-35 con only opt for a lucky shot using AMRAAM, in terms of acceleration, top speed and turning Typhoon has the edge.

2. F-35 can be detected some 50km away
In a BVR shootout both launch their missles an have to evade enemies missle. Again F-35 needs to avoid dogfight. IRIS-Ts range is supposed to be a bit wider than AIM-9X, ASRAM plus it should be more maneuvrable.

This is pretty much sting thinking I know. So my educated guess is typhoon wins 2:1

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 12:59
by FANTASMA
not sure for the ratio 2/1 in EFA favour but seems that the combination CAESAR, METEOR is deadly

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 21:06
by RonO
So Checksix, you assume that Typhoon can't be shot down by a BVR missile so you conclude it's invincible? Brilliant analysis.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 21:29
by psycho
thanks Guys, I didnt know that much about F35 and Typhoon, clearly this discussion has helped broaden my horizons :)
I fly f16 for TuAf, personally I would rather convert to F35 than Typhoon, reasons being that it could be easier to transition . but I d love to fly Typhoon too. I didnt know that we were gonna get Typhoons. however, my guess is that we might actually get it with our politicians sucking up to EU all the time , which further demeans the cause. looking forward to flying both,

fly safe and be the best, everyone

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 05:12
by RonO
If you looking for thrills that's a totally different question - Typhoon hands down winner.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 08:10
by Driver
In combat too :P

The only event where the JSF has a chance at beating the Typhoon is when the JSF has its cannons loaded or a bomb in its bay and the Typhoons on the runway :)

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 08:29
by clown_shoes
man you guys are funny, sure you can argue the merits of the typhoon, but the first operational jsf hasnt even been built yet, so how you can say anything about its capabilities when a finished operational aircraft hasnt even been produced yet...its all theoretical at this point. All of that being said, after flying the jsf sim and seeing the typhoon in action, I'd say that people are overestimating the typhoons abilities and underestimating the jsf's "theoretical" capabilities...

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 10:51
by RichF
I don't think the Eurofighter Typhoon has a chance against the F-35. JSF will be better in every role when it will be operational.
JSF will be much more stealthy, more survivable, with a better radar, a longer range. A better platform, period.
Moreover, the Typhoon has the RCS of a truck (for a new aircraft).

All these talks about Typhoons detecting stealth planes are fairy tales.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 11:47
by dkarko
what is the chance of new awacs (like Eyrie) detecting F-35 (edit: most likely distance that it would be detected)? Assuming that F-35 engages with awacs support and so does Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 13:12
by clown_shoes
doesnt really matter tactically...rule number 1 when the real stuff hits the fan, dont ever trust GCI...ever, not because they suck, but because more times than not you wont even be able to hear them...

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 13:51
by skyward
AWACS support will help F-35 tactically more then the typhoon. My guess the detection range on the f-35 for AWACS is about 100km given that the typhoon own radar have less then half vs the f-35.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 14:41
by FANTASMA
What could be the outcome of a scenario, Typhoons supported by Erieye against F-35'S??? It's rather possible in the near future around 2015 to have these aircrafts operational and opposing one another over Aegean skies..Air superiority from Typhoons or JSF will end the game??

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 15:08
by dkarko
Fantasma good point, but in this case the game is mock fight (hope it won't be happening by then). So i guess it is a matter of agility.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 15:08
by RoAF
I see where you're getting at, FANTASMA. But let's not forget that by that time Turkey will most likely have the Boeing Wedgetail...

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2006, 07:34
by FANTASMA
Yes RoAF it is accurate that by 2008 Tyrkey will get 4 AWACS Boeing Wedgetail..and there are strong possibilities to see dogfights or interceptions over Aegean skies by 2015 Typhons-Erieye vs JSF-Wedgetail..i hope won't happen and problems till then to be resolved in a peaceful manner..nice day to all.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2006, 13:36
by dkarko
Of course if the world exists by then. Behold, the end is near muahahaha :p
:cheers: :cheers:

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2006, 14:22
by FANTASMA
:cheers: :cheers: :beer: FRIDAY AT LAST..SATURDAY=time to leave these for the time and track some p....e. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2006, 16:49
by CheckSix
Do you guys really think, an aircraft with the latest defensive equipment and an very good maneuvrebility is unable to evad these clipped-AMRAAMS?

This missle is fast, but has a serious maneuvrebility problem.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2006, 21:29
by RoAF
This missle is fast, but has a serious maneuvrebility problem.


Especially in the terminal phase.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2006, 19:50
by RonO
So the US wasted billions of dollars on the F-22 so that its main missiles will miss??

errrr no. AMRAAM does not have a "serious manouverabilty problem". If you doubt me, I'll be waiting in my F-22 for you to arrive in your fighter of choice to prove you wrong.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2006, 19:58
by clown_shoes
sounds like people are fishing...amraam manueverability problems, thats a new one...

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2006, 20:19
by CheckSix
well, there are no miracles in aerodynamics. Look at the weight and look at the small control surfaces...

At the and it will be decided in WVR combat.

No wonder that all modern planes have superb maneuvrebility (F18E, Typhoon, Rafale, F-22, a capacity that F-35 lacks a bit.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2006, 20:36
by RonO
No it won't. WVR is a crap shoot and will be avoided by the newer jets. If you have a gun and the other guy has a knife, why would you get close? Remember Indiana Jones.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2006, 23:08
by locum
CheckSix wrote: 'F-35 lacks manouvrability a bit', true...
If the Typhoon goes A2A against the F-35 the Typhoon will carry typically 2 ASRAAMS/ Iris-Ts, 4 BVRAAMs, 1 1.000 liter or 2 * 1.500 liter tanks + aprox 6.250 liter (4.995 kg / 11.012lbs) internally.
The F-35 on an A2G mission, has it's target designator, ECM equipment, most of it's weapons except maybe a pair of AIM-9X's and fuel INTERNAL.
The Sidewinders does not add much drag and RCS and the F-35 (A) has an in-board usable 'swimming pool' of gas containing 10.290 liter / 18.073 lbs / 8.198 kg
A dirty cofiguration against an (allmost) clean configuration, so the bare T/W ratio, wingloading, and SEP numbers can be somehow misleading.
In fighter manouvering, excess power is important so does the lift/ drag ratio.

The public consumption figure for the F-35 max speed is Mach 1.6, many observers believe that in fact this number is higher, estimated from 1.8 to even 2.0+, so the F-35 Mamba can 'energize' it's AMRAAMs almost at the same speed as the Typhoon.
For comparison, the subsonic cruise speed of the F-35 is 100 km/h (60 miles/h) higher than the F-16, I do not know the subsonic cruise speed of the Typhoon.

The aerodynamic lay-out of the Typhoon is optimised for supersonic speed, the F-35 is optimised for Mach 0.8 - 1.2. In WVR, the F-35 driver will probably choose for horizontally (out-turning) manouvres and the Typhoon will go for vertical outclimbing/diving manouvres.

In A2A combat, situation awareness is very important. The F-35 has the better LPI radar, ALR-92-ish RF signals analyser and 360 deg infra red DAS and eventually with the IR EOTS, presented at a 'Big Picture' screen.

So I think, even in WVR combat the F-35 can fight it's oponents effectively.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2006, 03:11
by RonO
You make some excellent points.

Just one minor comment: the JPO says the F-35 is Mach limited to 1.6. the implication to me is the the stealth coatings limit top speed and not aerodynamics.

I sure hope it will not be called the mamba.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2006, 17:44
by CheckSix
Typhoon's top speed is Mach 1,6 carrying 3x1000l supersonic tanks, 4xAMRAAM, 2xIRIS-T.

Maybe in this configuration it is comparable to a clean F-35A in terms of flight characteristics. :twisted:

F-35 seems to be optimised for subsonic speeds, good range and payload.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2006, 22:40
by locum
The F-35 Triple Ugly can manouver with 9 G, when loaded with max. internal fuel + 2 2.000lbs JDAMs + 2 AMRAAMs + eventually 2 external AIM-9s. For comparison: the F-16s G limit with the same equipment is 5.5 G.
What is the maximum G limit of the above mentioned Typhoon configuration?
And those 3 1.000 l. gasbags have a lot of drag.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2006, 07:35
by skrip00
Umm, one thing I have trouble with here is the claims the F-35's radar is inferior to the F-22As. The F-35 radar builds upon the F-22As and has more T/R modules. Its also larger and more powerful in size.

Also, its RCS is approximately that of a golf ball, roughly .0014m. Its also optimized for frontal RCS reduction and and against ground-based radar.

Lastly, where are you getting you numbers on CAPTOR and CAESAR? Aren't those classified? Also, where are the Europeans getting their T/R modules? Such IC-systems arent produced much outside of the US. Or are they going the French-route and putting "Made in the US of A" parts in their radar? ;)

The F-35 is the better aircraft hands-down. While it wasnt designed with pure AtA in mind, it can do all those roles equally well.
1. The Eurofighter will always be seen by the F-35 first and will always be forced on the defensive by incoming BVR missiles. The Typhoon or any aircraft cannot attack and prosecute what it cannot see.
2. The Eurofighter still lacks AtG capabilties that it was intended to have.
3. The ECD has no stealth and no attempts at RCS reduction. Comparing it to the F-35, it might as well be a BUFF.
4. The F-35 can penetrate enemy air defenses more easily and with less support.
5. The F-35 has DAS.

Lockheed Martin recently stated that the F-35 is the world's best fighter-aircraft... After the F-22A of course. :)

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2006, 09:12
by snypa777
As has been said, comparing the two just misses the point. I have a problem comparing an operational jet with one that hasn`t flown yet....

The Typhoon was never meant to be an attack aircraft. It`s A2G package is still being developed, in a hurry I might add for export purposes because people decided that MULTI-ROLE was the way ahead, in terms of costs and export profit.

It is just wrong to say that Typhoon has no Lo observable features...

A limited low observability IS built into it. It cannot be classed as a stealth aircraft though. Some features evolved during it`s long design phase.

S-shaped intakes with sloped sides and rounded lower section, all meant to lower RCS. Wing leading edges, wing tip pods and rudder trailing edges are RAM coated. There has also been a lot of work on the radome to reduce frontal RCS/ and out of band RF emissions. Recessed weapons (also reducing drag). BAE say the Typhoons frontal RCS is only bettered by the F-22, take that as you will....!

One let down is that the ECR-90 is supposed to be easy to detect, a problem that won`t be solved until CAESAR is fitted.

The French and others used US built T/R modules until recently, now Europeans are building their own T/R modules.... An all European T/R module is used in CAESAR AFAIK.

There is a lot of talk about the capabilities of an aircraft that doesn`t even exist, F-35 that is.....I think we should wait and see. Especially when we see an aircraft with no weight/power/range issues.....That still isn`t clear. The F-35 has a lot of fancy features, is anybody CERTAIN that all of those features will work as advertised and be as capable as the manufacturers say? In aircraft as in anything else, some kit works superbly, some kit turns out to be a P.O.S.!

On paper, the F-35 SHOULD be a better striker if you need a stealthy, day one attacker etc....As long as no one comes up with a way of detecting low RCS aircraft in the next ten years. Anyone take any bets?

I don`t think the F-35s radar will be inferior to the F-22s, just optimised for differing roles. The F-35s unit may not be able to do A2A as well as the F-22 because it primarily does a different job....ie, ground mapping and targeting, etc...

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2006, 15:10
by skrip00
The F-35's radar is a further development of the F-22A's. Advances from this system will be seen in future F-22A upgrades.

The F-35 can have some merit. It has flown to some exten (as the X-35). And it uses proven technology in the Raptor.

As for the Typhoon's LO features. Against a modern radar system, they might as well be nothing. It has some optimization, but it wasnt really designed for it.

By now you know I harbor issues with the Tiffy. But I dont think its the aircraft Europe needs. Or the aircraft they had the capability to produce. They took a good idea and ruined it. Then delayed it so that when it finally flew, it would be obsolete. Basically, theyve built an aircraft that still cant keep up with the latest F-16BLK 60s. Not having an AtG role hurts it immensly since most warplanes these days drop bombs. Not fire missiles.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2006, 17:00
by Brad
skrip00 wrote:Umm, one thing I have trouble with here is the claims the F-35's radar is inferior to the F-22As. The F-35 radar builds upon the F-22As and has more T/R modules. Its also larger and more powerful in size.


I think your confusing size/module count for the two radars. The APG-77 is bigger with a larger module count. The -77V1 uses the same technology, going to 'tiles' instead of 'bricks' but I have no idea if the module count goes up with this new radar or not. At any rate most industry pubs point to higher A-A performance for the APG-77.

Brad

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2006, 17:56
by snypa777
The F-35, when it enters service, will be far from a "developed" aircraft, just like Typhoon. Congress wants to slow down the production schedule I believe to allow a less rushed development program, AFAIK. We could be looking at 2015 before we see a mature system.

It looks to be the same kind of process for most new types. The Typhoon has had a long gestation period, the F-22, although more complex, has been alive for the same amount of time. The complexity-re-time taken to get the thing into service can be blamed on the ever shifting requirements and inter-government wrangles. Building an aircraft with 4 "equal" partners was always going to be a bitch.

The Tornado F3 was never going to be an air superiority king. Europe HAD and HAS a very good medium range striker in the Tornado GR4 (RAF). Europe needed an air superiority fighter.
To maintain a European fighter industry and to fulfill that role, we needed the Typhoon, not the F-15.

I would hardly call the Typhoon obsolete. Look at the threats it might face, ie the Russian Mafia- SU, MIGs, ( Talking about those not in Russian airforce). It compares very well and betters them in many ways. Better SA, better engines, better avionics..

The S/Hornet came about very quickly, I suppose it was a big advantage to have a working jet at the squadrons to base it on. The USN also needed it quickly, no 20 year schedules there. The original Hornet wasn`t the S/Hornet of today, it had to be developed over the years. The same will be true of Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2006, 21:54
by skrip00
The F-35 program is not slowing down at all. There have been no reported delays, and everything is on schedule.

The funny thing is, the F-35A will do all the gruntwork in terms of testing. Weapons launching, systems tests, flight tests, etc. So the job is easier when working with the F-35B and C.

The Typhoon is also supposed to replace the Tornado in a strike role AFAIK.

On this note, i will concede some points:
1. The European aircraft industry needs to stay alive.
2. The faults of the Typhoon are not due to European technological incompetence. But more administrative.
3. Eventuall, after a very long teething period, the Tiffy will be a pretty decent warplane.

Right now, its still not performing up to expectation. It will... just not now. Hence my problem with it. Europe has produced an aircraft which cannot compete in terms of cost, capability, and performance, with aircraft like the F-16E BLK60, the F/A-18E/F, and so on. At least not yet. But by the time it does, the damage will have been done in terms of exports.

Tell me: Why would any nation buy a Tiffy if it can get a F-16 BLK60?

The F-22A on its arrival has out-done its own requirements. So has the SuperHornet. The US paid for these aircraft and ended up with alot more for their money.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2006, 23:03
by boff180
Why would any nation buy a Tiffy if it can get a F-16 BLK60?


In one word: Longetivity.

The Block 60 represents the pinnicle of the F-16 development and upgrade paths. The airframe is being used to its maximum capability. There is little potential for "easy" upgrades. It would be difficult to keep updating these airframes in order to keep up with the changing requirements.

Typhoon represents an aircraft at the beginning of its life, more than capable of defending your airspace from any potential real threat (highly unlikely a NATO nation will take on F-22s in a real war) out there in the near future. It was designed to be able to comfortably defeat the next generation of Russian aircraft not just the current production variants. It will very soon also have an A2G capability that is constantly expanding into something that could be counted as being much more "multirole" than certain other so called "multirole" similar aircraft.
After that waffle... the Tiffie has potential for upgrades and progress to the airframe to keep abreast of any threat for the foreseeable future. There is also space available for quite "easy" upgrades. An example is the radar... the CAESAR upgrade is being designed to be an antenna switch over, nothing more.
Massive potential.

Andy

p.s. your comment on not having a gun. Now, ALL aircraft are fitted with the gun, and it is maintained. However some of the equipment has not been purchased for loading the weapon (RAF only). Its also not fired often to help extend maintenance hours.etc as the gun needs servicing.etc and vibration.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2006, 00:05
by skrip00
F-16E BLK60s are brand new airframes AFAIK.

As for longevity, they offer more than the Tiffy has right now. In fact, much of the Tiffy's upgrade life will be to catch up. So there isnt musch longevity there.

Export orders also speak for themselves.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2006, 09:26
by RoAF
Export orders also speak for themselves.

You can't compare exports of a plane which is on the market for more than 25 years with one who began series production just a few years ago

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2006, 09:42
by snypa777
Senate votes to delay F-35
By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg News

The U.S. Senate passed a $517.7 billion defense spending measure Thursday that would delay initial production of the first F-35 joint strike fighters by a year while restoring a backup engine for the plane that the Pentagon wanted to kill.

By a vote of 96-0, the Senate passed legislation that authorizes fiscal 2007 military spending. The measure cuts $1.2 billion the Pentagon wanted that would enable Lockheed Martin to begin building the first 21 production F-35s.

The spending cut, which would have to be agreed to by the House, would delay production for one year to allow for more development and flight testing....

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5747.html

Typhoon and Tornado will serve together until about 2018. It seems more likely the Tornado GR4 will get an AESA before the Typhoon. Work in this direction is being done at time of writing. Yes, eventually, the Tornado will be replaced by Typhoon.

The Typhoon is performing to most expectations at this stage in it`s development, although there have been some concerns about the CAPTOR radar and spares availability, LRUs and such. Pilots love the aircraft, that speaks for itself....

On exports, watch the Saudi order, 48 aircraft could be just be for starters.....some say as many as 200 could be purchased. That is an export success in my book! We will have to wait and see....

It is not yet the all rounder the F-16 is as well as the F-18, but as you said, it ill get there, more quickly than you suppose....Meteor has been test flighted already, JDAM is being dropped right now.

Singapore wanted the Typhoon but it wanted Tranche 3 spec` aircraft NOW! That hurt exports, Eurofighter Consortium woke up and has hurried development of the A2G capability considerably.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2006, 12:15
by FANTASMA
Some details for the cost of the JSF..According to details given to publishity from the General Manager of the Pentagon for the JSF Steven Enewold the cost for the aircraft will arise about 150 mn $ until the end of the decade but after 2014-15 will be reduced to about 50-60 mn $..around 2011 to 137 mn $ and 2013 to 116 mn $, for the time being the cost is 82mn $..there is a study from CRS a department of Congress (02-06-2006) that there is a serious possibility for the US airforce to cut down by 1/3 the total number from the 1763 JSF originally required..if that comes true it will have consequences of the final cost of the airframes targetted for exports..this was published in a greek newspaper a few days ago..

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2006, 20:18
by boff180
skrip00 wrote:F-16E BLK60s are brand new airframes AFAIK.

As for longevity, they offer more than the Tiffy has right now. In fact, much of the Tiffy's upgrade life will be to catch up. So there isnt musch longevity there.


New airframes yes.... being used at their maximum potential.... YES

That is what I mean, it is extremely difficult to keep these aircraft constantly updated compared to earlier Vipers...

And as RoAF says, an aircraft on the market for 25years with many of the block 60 orders made to replace older Vipers so already have infrastructure in place is not a fair comparison.

Infact I do believe all foreign sales comparisons and not applicable... there is always one major factor.... POLITICS..., Singapore were never going to buy Typhoon... they have close military ties with France (A-4 training) and the US (F-16 training). Being as they are getting rid of their A-4s and not their F-16s it makes political sense to purchase the F-15SG as all training can be conducted at one location.

Same with Saudi Arabia... Rafale never got a look in (and still hasn't despite desperate efforts) as there are very very strong political and military ties with the UK.

Rafale will be successful when ex-french colonies want to replace their M2000's and not before..... I could go on and on as the list of political influence in orders is endless.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 03:27
by sferrin
CheckSix wrote:well, there are no miracles in aerodynamics. Look at the weight and look at the small control surfaces...


LOL what's that say about ASRAAM then?

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 03:34
by sferrin
boff180 wrote:
Why would any nation buy a Tiffy if it can get a F-16 BLK60?


In one word: Longetivity.

The Block 60 represents the pinnicle of the F-16 development and upgrade paths.


Hardly. There's a lot more that could be done with it. Give it 3D TVC with a low observability nozzle and up the power to 36k. Add a diverterless inlet and/or a radar blocker in the inlet. You could do a big nose modification and mount an APG-79 or go to the F-16XL configuration or the big wing of the Japanes F-2. Granted some of these mods become less and less an "F-16" and they don't come cheap but the fact remains there's a lot you can still do.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 04:17
by skrip00
An elegant solution to this argument.

Why the F-35 is superior to the Eurofighter Typhoon

Some things to make clear:
1. No platform ever operates alone. Not numerically, and not capability. IE you'll have AWACS and other aircraft supporting.
2. Stealth is a major advantage. While not 100% invisible, it does degrade enemy radar capabilities immensly.

Now to the why...

The best way to decribe the F-35's superiority is to use a scenario:

2018
A revolution overthrows Saudi Arabia. The nation rallies and begins taking an aggressive posture against US forces in Iraq and Kuwait.

On a summer night, a flight of 6 Tiffys take off. Across the border are 4 ANG F-15Cs. Without warning, the Tiffys fire their missiles. Of the 4 F-15Cs, 1 limps home with a damaged wing.

War begins. The Gulf is effectively lost.

The USS Stennis is sent in to restore supply lines and to shut down the Saudi Air Force.

Its immediate. Just after midnight, 8 F-35Cs are launched with 4 F/A-18Fs and 4 F/A-18Es. The F-35s each carry 2 AIM-120Ds and 8 SDBs. The F/A-18Fs carry 6 AIM-120Ds and 2 AIM-9Xs. The F/A-18Es carry buddy stores for the whole flight group.

This ammounts to 48 AIM-120Ds and some pretty long legs.

The F-35Cs take point in EMCOM. Their primary mission on this night is to get some kills. Behind them, the F/A-18Fs trail 100km behind with their AESA's scanning.

Hawkeyes are available, but they are holding back over the carrier group. This strike package is on its own.

6 Typhoons are found over the Gulf. Theyve been flying for 45min. They have 2 drop tanks and 4 Meteor missiles. Before things went south, they also recieved major upgrades in their engines and their brand new AESA radars. The pilots are proficient and came back from exercises in Europe only months before.

The Saudis have no AWACS support.

Immediately the Saudi RWRs go off intermittedly. They know someone is out there and watching them. They flip on their radars and pick up 2 Navy SuperHornets in the distance (approx 150km). Immediately they lock-on. As they push to supercruise RWRs go off once again. This time they're missile radars. 12 AIM-120Ds are bearing down on them. They try to turn and run, but cannot beat the terminal missiles. 4 Tiffys go down. 2 survive through the use of decoy lures and chaff.

The Survivors are return to the threat. This time the SuperHornets are closer... yet they hold fire. Immediately, 2 more missiles scream in. Both Typhoons see more targets. The AIM-120Ds are flying a 20km distance, and close it in no time. End game.

This same thing can be done again and again with the F-35 in the service of any of its air forces.

Drawbacks: Limited stealth AtA missile load. 4 F-35s can make up for on F-22A.

However, after the Tiffys are downed, the F-35Cs proceed to bomb Saudi air bases. As they leave, the escorting SHs fire at chasing targets. Providing cover.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 07:28
by boff180
five flaws with that scenario...

1. at 150km they are already within meteor range.... official quotes are "4 times the range of the aim-120c-7" which puts it over 200km. So meteors will be away before the 120D's reach home.
2. you still dont think even in 12 years time RWRs an't effectively etect AESA? Things move on, if they can't by then... engineers aren't as good as they make out.
3. Probably more than 4 Meteors :p with two tanks the BVR missile loadout is between 6 and 8 depending on how many WVR are on board... stations 2 and 12 can either take a double rail WVR launcher or a single BVR.
4. Have you seen is what planned for Tranche 3 Typhoons? Which is what all but 24 aircraft will be in Saudi service? I wouldn't even call them Typhoons.... Active cancellation, no vertical fin, 3d tvc, cft. Among others... greatly reducing its RCS and it would definately be below a point 150km away of detectability.
5. On the figures banding around... the F-35 is capable of detecting a Typhoon tranche 1/2 RCS size target 100Km away... not further... so I doubt the F-18s would have detected anyway at that distance in the first place. And vice versa.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 09:04
by snypa777
The biggest flaw...revolution in Saudi?? Not in a million years, everybody is too rich! :wink:

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 11:09
by Safetystick
Actually, the biggest flaw is the fact that the Saudi aircraft are largely maintained by contracted foreign personnel (BAES in the case of the Tonka and lieklly the Tiffy too). If the Saudi were going up looking for a fight then the UK (and, unless they have somehow REALLY pissed us off in the meantime) and thus the US would know it was coming.

Also, whilst TV has been suggested as a possible T3 upgrade the other two have not been voiced as official T3 features. I can't see the T3 not having a tail (that's a large structural change).

Some other points (@ Skrip):
* What happened to Saudi's AWACS? They have 5 E-3A.
* Why only four Meteor? If the Saudi were expecting a retaliation surely the Typhoons would be carrying AA weapons on the Inboard and Outboard pylons too (so 4 x ASRAAM, 6 x Meteor). Clean config is nice but if your going to take on the USAF/USN...
* How has the AIM-120D (a Medium ranged missile) outranged the Meteor? If the Typhoons are traking them out at 150km (probably a bit extreme, I imagine that the USN will be using Growlers as well to mess up the radar picture) then the RCS advantage that the SH is presumed to have (stess presumed. Every manufacturer is making big boasts about RCS these days so I just take the JSF and Raptor as being proper stealthly and leave it at that) is moot.
* Also, what happened to the Typhoon's DASS? The Saudi Typhoons are going to be UK spec so they'll have DASS fitted, giving them a fighting chance against the AIM-120.
*As the Saudio have the home advantage they'll pop off their (probably empty) drop tanks. Makes them less encumbered. The Hornets may or may not be able to do the same.

I imagine that the Saudi airforce is going to come off worse anyway you play this scenario. Hell, why even have the Super Hornets up, just use Tomahawks, B-2 and JSF to take out the rather centralised Saudi military structure, avoid the Typhoons and wait for them to run out of fuel! - Play the strengths!.

The JSF is a stealthy strike platform. It SHOULDN'T be enagaging enemy fighters. Think of it as the Mosquito of the 21st century. Except exchange speed as a defence for stealth. It's flying AROUND the enemy defences and using SDB to take out their base facilities!

As an AA platform it has to rely on its stealth to position it for the killer shot, rely on its AMRAAM to work flawlessly (a good bet, the AMRAAM is enjoying succes rates in the high 90's IIRC) and then all the opposing aircraft to be unable to avoid the incoming shots. Once it's fired off its four AMRAAM (so eight for a standard two ship flight) it only has a gun (if carried - only the CTOL has it as a standard fit), stealth and the pilot's skills to get it home and away from and (liklly miffed) surviving aircraft and other CAP. If it's carry external AA weapons it's essentially an F-16 with better legs and sensors (not a bad thing by any means!)

IMHO, the JSF is going to be a great strike aircraft and I think the RAF should look at a modified JSF (slight lengthend CTOL with a Navy style big wing, uprated engine and ability to carry four or so PWIV internally + at least two ASRAAM) to replace the Tornado. As a Fighter I think it's better suited to hit and run attacks against high value targets (refuellers and AWACS beware!) in enemy airspace.

If an airforce can afford two types then I'd say get JSF for CAS and Strike and secondary AA and get Typhoons to deal with CAP, Escort and secondary CAS roles. If it's only one then the air force needs to decide if it's going to mainly defending it's own airspace (Switzerland, Belgium, Saudi) or going to be acting as and offensive asset (Netherlands are a good example - no defence worries but a lot of commitments to UN. NATO and the like). Typhoon is best for the first, JSF certainly is best for the second.

All of which will mostly be ignored as the wonderful world of FMS discounts and politics get involved ;)

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 14:39
by Lasse
I think what he intended was that the superior range of the Meteor has no say when it takes the EF much longer to detect the stealth JSF than it takes the JSF to detect the low-observable EF.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 14:49
by Safetystick
Hmm, that makes sense. I missed the fact that the F-35 were taking point and just assumed that the escorts would be out front. -1 reading comprehension for me! Still, it does make the E Hornets kinda redundant. Just use the F's (who would be carrying a pair of AMRAAM and AIM-9X for self defence no doubt) to sucker the Typhoons.

EDIT - Actually disregard that. I doubt the buddy packs are the best thing to be carrying around in a dogfight!

I wonder if using non-stealthy aircraft as 'bait' may become a valid target in the future. I guess it would require a degree of trust between the two groups of pilots!

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 18:07
by boff180
Also, whilst TV has been suggested as a possible T3 upgrade the other two have not been voiced as official T3 features. I can't see the T3 not having a tail (that's a large structural change).


Don't make me find the article lol!!! They are looking at using the 3D TVC for yaw control and removing the vertical fin... resulting in a major RCS reduction.
On active cancellation - the official word came from the technologies developer... saying it was being considered for T3 fitting.
And Eurofighter themselves have shown fullsize CFT mock-up typhoons and its being developed by BAE Systems Australia.

Does he also realise that in his scenario, CAESAR is in the F-22 class for A2A combat (no information has been released about A2G...yet) so will have superior detection to the F-18E.

Also I know what point he was trying to make about the Meteor... I was making the point, the Typhoons have no need whatsoever to go supersonic to engage in that scenario... turn, detect, fire... run like hell! Its a bit arrogant to think that the Saudi's wouldn't be expecting "hidden" F-35s to be operating alongside the SH's. They aren't stupid.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 18:17
by skrip00
Safetystick wrote:Hmm, that makes sense. I missed the fact that the F-35 were taking point and just assumed that the escorts would be out front. -1 reading comprehension for me! Still, it does make the E Hornets kinda redundant. Just use the F's (who would be carrying a pair of AMRAAM and AIM-9X for self defence no doubt) to sucker the Typhoons.

EDIT - Actually disregard that. I doubt the buddy packs are the best thing to be carrying around in a dogfight!

I wonder if using non-stealthy aircraft as 'bait' may become a valid target in the future. I guess it would require a degree of trust between the two groups of pilots!

The Saudis did have AWACS, but they had them in other places. Having only 3 really limits the time theyre up, even with in flight refueling. 1 would be up over the Kingdom, 1 on the ground fueling and being maintained, and 1 heading up.

Why only 4 Meteors? Well the Saudi Tiffys had 2 external fuel stores for a prolonged patrol over the Gulf. Maybe 2 IR AAMs as well.

We're they expecting an attack? Yes. But you only have so many aircraft to spare. We can assume the Saudis were dealing with Kuwaiti assets and USAF assets in Iraq and Kuwait.

Why the F/A-18Es? They need to gas up at some point on the way to their targets. Logistics of the mission.

Why the F/A-18Fs? Because 2 of them can haul a greater weapons load than 3 F-35Cs. They can hold back though and allow the front-running F-35Cs get some clean kills.

Why no DASS? They had it. But! We will assume that the AIM-120D will use 2-way datalinking and GPS to get into close-in terminal guidance. At which point, the Eurofighters will have only seconds to react.

Another point is that there were more than one missile tasked per aircraft. Towed decoys and automated defense systems can only help so much agains ONE missile. Not 3 or 4.

While my distances were off, consider this: The F/A-18Fs and Typhoons will have detected each other long before they will have been in range of each other. So nstead of 150km, itll be 200km.

However, the F-35Cs would be ahead of their own escorts by 150km!

Its a kind of perverse escort role where the defenders fly behind the aircraft they are defending.

Basically, the F-22A does the same thing when operating, just faster and less aircraft.

If they can find a way to add more internal BVR AAMs to the F-35C, then itll be quite a force to deal with.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 19:12
by boff180
Why only 4 Meteors? Well the Saudi Tiffys had 2 external fuel stores for a prolonged patrol over the Gulf. Maybe 2 IR AAMs as well.


This still DOES NOT answer this, why just 4... in an active war scenario and defending you would fly with a full A2A load
.
Each wing has 4 pylons... 1 dedicated to a WVR AAM, 1 wet and the others are multi-purpose... all cleared for Meteor. In conjunction with the 4 BVR/targetting dedicated and 1 wet pylons on the fuselage.

The max possible loadouts is what I have stated below.
BVR: stations 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12.
WVR: stations 1,2,3,11,12,13.
double rail WVR: stations 2,12.
Wet: 3,7,11.
A2G: 2,3,4,7,10,11,12.
Sensors: 5,7,8

However going on what the RAF are currently flying on BVR tests is.....
BVR: 2,5,6,8,9.
WVR: 1,13.
Fuel: 3,11. Sometimes 7 aswell.

Standard ops (ie. pilot training)....
WVR: 1,13.
Fuel: 7.

The heaviest load yet carried/cleared is....
BVR: 5,6,8,9.
WVR: 1,13.
Fuel: 7.
1000lb LGB: 2,3,4,10,11,12.

The F-35A and C are going to be crackers... but as you don't like Typhoon... I hate with a passion the F-35B as I think it is well and truly a donkey.. not what the RAF/RN need. And as I have said many a time before, the F-22 is without question the best A2A platform around, with Typhoon in second.

According to the calculated detection (>50% chance) distances by Toan... which have been calculated using OFFICIAL publically stated figures and then using standard accepted mathematical formulae. Even at 50km.. the F-35 is getting very close to CAESARs detection capability of it. If not already in it... as public figures are never the real classified ones.

I have attached his figures below, you may be interested in the Block60's radar capabilities.

Andy

CAPTOR(EF-2000 Tranch 1 and 2):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 12 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 22 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 70 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 124 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 185 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 220 km+

CAESAR AESA(EF-2000 Tranch3, post-2015 with 1,500 T/Rs):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 18~21 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 32~38 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 104~122 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 185~216 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 278~324 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 330~385 km+

RBE-2 PESA(Rafale F1/F2/F3):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 7~9 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 13~15 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 41~49 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 73~87 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 110~130 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 130~154 km+

APG-77 AESA(F-22A):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 20 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 35 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 112 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 200 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 300 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 355 km+

APG-81 AESA(F-35A/B/C):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 28 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 160 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 240 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 285 km+

APG-80 AESA(F-16E):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 11 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 20 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 62 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 110 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 165 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 195 km+

APG-68 V9(F-16 C/D/I)and RDY-2(M2000-5MK2 and -9):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 4~5 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 8~9 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 25~30 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 46~54 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 66~80 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 78~95 km+

And so you can make head nor tail of those detection figures...
RCS data from different official sources:

EF-2K Tranche 1/2 - 0.1 ~ 0.5m2
Rafale - 0.05 ~ 0.2m2
F-22A - 0.0002 ~ 0.0005m2
F-35A - 0.001 ~ 0.002 m2
JAS-39C - 0.5 m2
Su-27/Su-30 - 10.0 m2
Su-35 - 1.0~3.0 m2

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 20:19
by RonO
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.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 20:40
by skrip00
boff180 wrote:According to the calculated detection (>50% chance) distances by Toan... which have been calculated using OFFICIAL publically stated figures and then using standard accepted mathematical formulae. Even at 50km.. the F-35 is getting very close to CAESARs detection capability of it. If not already in it... as public figures are never the real classified ones.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Why the F-35 will usually win in Air-to-Air versus the Tiffy:
STEALTH!

Even with the newest radars, ala, CAESAR, the F-35 can close within AIM-9X firing range! Using datalinks and the ability to work with other platforms, such as AWACS or even fellow non-stealthy platforms (F/A-18F), then it can really pack a whollop.

With stealth, the attacking platform can always have the advantage.

boff180 wrote:This still DOES NOT answer this, why just 4... in an active war scenario and defending you would fly with a full A2A load

Does it matter? Chances are they won't even get a shot off.

With F-35s operating in EMCON, they are as invisible as ghosts. As soon as the SHs detect the Typhoons, they pass up the data to the F-35s. F-35s shoot. Tiffys are dead.

The F-35 has the potential to be the better AtA platform due to its LOW RCS characteristics. Its biggest drawback is only being able to haul 2 AAMs. :)

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.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 20:41
by skrip00
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.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 22:15
by Safetystick
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.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 22:36
by RonO
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.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2006, 22:38
by boff180
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.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2006, 02:43
by snypa777
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".

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2006, 02:55
by skrip00
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

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2006, 06:52
by boff180
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.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2006, 08:24
by LordOfBunnies
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.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2006, 16:38
by Lasse
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? :(

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2006, 17:23
by skrip00
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.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2006, 23:52
by drummertr
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.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 05:25
by toan
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................

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 06:44
by skrip00
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.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 07:16
by toan
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.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 08:09
by toan
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.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 18:04
by skrip00
toan wrote: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.

Another good point. The US has the money to fully research and keep on researching these technologies as to maintain an advantage over future foes. But then again, the repercussions of such technology does have an affect on civilian markets. Next gen AESAs will not use GaAs. They will most likely use GaN and SiC substrates... Imagine, after the costly development, we have SiC substrates available for personal computing and such? So as the first Euro and Russian AESAs begin to roll out, the US will already be knee deep in researching the "next best thing".

But you're right on European AESA production. I forgot they built them for their ships and such. But I agree with your 2012 assesment. My only problem was the extrapolated range of a radar system which has just begun testing. I doubt the CAESAR will be more powerful than current radars that are available. Maybe itll offer similar performance.

toan wrote: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 read an article on this recently. Apparantly, someone started a rumour that non-US F-35s will have dis-advantages in stealth. Later on, this rumour was found to be untrue. Remember, the F-35 and F-22A barely use any RAM these days. Only on the most reflective portions of the airframe.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 18:24
by Brad
I have to say that for most counter-air work I would probably prefer the Typhoon to the F-35 but I have some skepticism regarding the CAPTOR-E and the claims that it’s in the APG-77 class of performance. I think most ‘web pundits’ are shoehorning public factoids and are trying to connect the dots that may or may not be accurate. Intuitively it doesn’t really make sense that one could get roughly 50% more performance over the near contemporary APG-79 which has a similar radome bulkhead diameter and hence most likely has similar T/R count, avionic volume and cooling capability. The latter being very important, as RUMIT has suggested that is why the T/R count came down on the APG-77 as the cooling requirements prevented from going as high as they would have liked.

I might be inclined to believe similar to APG-81 performance but I think that even that is a bit of a stretch as the F-35 has a larger nose, though AvLeak and other secondary sources suggest a module count only around 100 or so more than the APG-79. This says nothing of the near 1m diameter of the APG-77 and I have to admit I’m curious if the APG-77v1 has an increase in performance/module count as it uses the APG-81’s ‘tile’ modules, which should theoretically give a larger module density.

Brad

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 18:47
by skrip00
The only reason I'd use the Typhoon for AtA is the most logical one: It can carry more AtA missiles!

One complaint I've heard from F-15 drivers on various sites is that, even for that very capable platform, the limiting factor in Air-toair (for them) is a lack of missiles. They run out too fast! So the same can be said for the Tiffy.

An F-35 can only carry 2 AAMs and maintain its most desireable feature, stealth. So this means, the attacking F-35 force has to outnumber and defending Tiffy force to get the usual 2~3 missiles per aircraft.

Brad wrote:I might be inclined to believe similar to APG-81 performance but I think that even that is a bit of a stretch as the F-35 has a larger nose, though AvLeak and other secondary sources suggest a module count only around 100 or so more than the APG-79. This says nothing of the near 1m diameter of the APG-77 and I have to admit I’m curious if the APG-77v1 has an increase in performance/module count as it uses the APG-81’s ‘tile’ modules, which should theoretically give a larger module density.

Another good point. Its also important to consider, that the F-35's radar is more advanced than the APG-77. And that the APG-77's next upgrades will use alot learned from the APG-81. It's a leap-frog upgrade system. Technology from the F-22A was incorporated in the F-35. Technology from the F-35 will be applied to the F-22A. And so on...

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 20:50
by LordOfBunnies
One thing I've got to point out, it's all about the equipment carried. A gun can be really useful for hitting someone over the head if you're out of bullets, but you're not using it right then. The Europeans will have the Meteor, the Russians have some sort of really long range A2A missile, they're useful, but you have to detect the aircraft they're shooting at first. Now, the US has done away with the AIM-54 for lots of reasons and we've got the AMRAAM. It's range is enough that we can shoot anything (in the case of the F-35 and F-22) before it sees us. Now this is like sniper rifle versus assault rifle. The F-35 has the initial advantage of first shoot. Now if we're assuming these things are backed by their respective forces (F-35 for the US and Tiffy for the Brits) the F-35 has a distinctive advantage because of how the US prefers to run things (Net centric warfare means the F-35 is using somebody else's radar). A straight this versus that, not that great. Now if we're assuming they're both going in with their radars on, I'd give it to the Tiffy because of the longer missile ranges.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2006, 21:49
by skrip00
Of course. Its neve X vs Y. Its usually a couple of Xs backed up by a D and a B, versus a few Ys and a couple of Zs.

The AIM-120D will be a truely amazing AAM when it enters production within the next two years. I've seen pictures of the new form factor of its guidance package, and it can carry considerably more fuel for increased range. In addition to this, it will make use of GPS and have a 2-way data-link for an vastly increased probability of success.

This will help give the USN the bite it always wanted.

The F-35's advantage will always lie with its stealth. Even future projected radar advances will still allow the F-35 to close in well within the AIM-120D's tange. But in US service, this is moot. The F-22A will sweep the skies clear in a way no one can be prepared for.

Also, for me, I see a more important need to move towards warfare we will be fighting. For many nations flying the F-35 or Typhoon, the Air war will be won in a matter of days. If not hours. Then the whole focus moves to ground pounding.

Hence my love for the F/A-18E and F. It can win the air war, and still be very useful afterwards. :)

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2006, 00:36
by Corsair1963
Regardless, what's been printed I don't see the F-35 carrying only 4 AA Missiles Internally. The first examples will be used mainly in the Strike Role. Yet, shortly after it enters service. Many will want to use the Lightning in a Air Defense Role. Much like the many current F-16's and F (A)-18's. Remember the Viper had very limited Air to Air Capabilities whe it was first introduced with only two Sidewinders. Later it was equipped with Sparrows then finally AMRAAMS.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2006, 00:44
by skrip00
Well, in an ADF role, you can still mount AIM-120s and AIM-9Xs on the wing pylons and even wing tips.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2006, 02:41
by LordOfBunnies
Another thing to remember, the F-35 was built for the US with other people being able to buy it. It's never going to be up there alone when in US service. It was built with the though that Raptors, Vipers, Eagles, AWACS, KC-XXX, QR-XX (recon UAVs), etc will all be in the air with it. It was designed as a first 3 day stealth platform. Comparing the Tiffy to the F-35 is like comparing apples to JDAMs... yes huh? You can't look at a plane versus plane match up because it would NEVER happen. Something else would be almost always be in the air with them and plane on plane action is never quite the way it seems to work out. Different countries have different strategies about how to deal with everything so the discussion is almost silly. A discussion of capabilites is far more appropriate. Anyway, now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2006, 03:58
by sferrin
skrip00 wrote:Of course. Its neve X vs Y. Its usually a couple of Xs backed up by a D and a B, versus a few Ys and a couple of Zs.

The AIM-120D will be a truely amazing AAM when it enters production within the next two years. I've seen pictures of the new form factor of its guidance package, and it can carry considerably more fuel for increased range. In addition to this, it will make use of GPS and have a 2-way data-link for an vastly increased probability of success.


Do you know anything about NCADE? NCADE (Network Centric Airborne Defense Element) is suppose to be a TWO-stage AIM-120.

"The system would use an AMRAAM first stage, a new second stage developed by Aerojet and a modified AIM-9X seeker to engage missiles in their boost phase. But program officials say it could be emplyed in cruise missile defense scenarios."

Sounds like it could be LOAL and there doesn't seem to be any reason it couldn't be used against an aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2006, 05:47
by skrip00
All I know is things about the AIM-120D. Smaller guidance package, GPS, 2-way datalink, x-band terminal guidance. Smaller package means less fuel. Revised control surfaces and improved avionics usually means better kinematics.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 22:41
by Corsair1963
Much like Air Defense versions of the F/A-18 for Finland and Swiitzerland. You will see F-35's optimised for the Air Superiority Role. While, not at the same league as the F-22 Raptor. They will be a serious opponents nonetheless and one to be respected........ :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2006, 05:28
by JCSVT
For the the A2A role I'd have to pick the Typhoon. I'm not the biggest fan of the F-35 although it will probably end up being a great fighter. The Typhoon will more than hold its own in both WVR and BVR combat. I think people don't it the credit it deserves sometimes.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2006, 06:15
by skrip00
Why should they? Unlike the F-35, its development was marred by several problems overall.

The F-35, out the gate will be more advanced and more capable than the Typhoon will be in the same timeframe. Not to mention the F-35 is a stealth fighter. The Typhoon is not. Thats an advantage in its own right.

I think people don't it the credit it deserves sometimes.

I think it gets more credit than it really deserves. The Typhoon isnt that great of an aircraft. It still has a hard time competing in export markets with the latest F-16s and F-15s available.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 18:48
by boff180
skrip00 wrote:I think it gets more credit than it really deserves. The Typhoon isnt that great of an aircraft. It still has a hard time competing in export markets with the latest F-16s and F-15s available.


Lol under that logic your precious Super Hornet is a rubbish aircraft aswell! :lol: :lol:

There is FAR MORE to export sales than just how good an aircraft is. Greater factors are: Time-frame, Politics and Costs.

The final two being the most important in a foreign military export sale.

Aircraft capability has a minor part to play, there is usually a minimum requirement, and if the aircraft meets it, then its all fair.

Especially when sides play "dirty" both Europe and the US are guilty of that. Recently the US threatened trade embargo's with one nation unless they chose their aircraft!

Other times, its simplicity....

Eg: Singapore.
The reason officially why Typhoon wasn't chosen was that they couldn't provide the capability within the timeframe they wanted (12 months later iirc).
Now think of the politics. The two finalists were both French and US; all Singapore combat training happens in the US (F-16) and in France (A-4) which to me is no conincidence the two aircraft selected were from these nations.
Now the aircraft being replaced is the A-4 so it would make much greater COST and political sense to close training in France, and go solely to America... whats the easiest to do this with?
Answer: The F-15SG.
It is of note that the Typhoon was the ONLY aircraft of the competitors to complete ALL of its evaluation successfully. It was the only one to emerge the victor in the 3v1 simultaneous (both bvr and wvr) scenario's against F-16's. It was the only aircraft also capable of going supersonic within singapore airspace!

As has been said over and over and over.

The best combo for any future nation (that can't get hold of F-22) is going to be the Typhoon and the F-35 operating side-by-side.

It is highly UNLIKELY they will ever face each other in real combat, what they should be compared to is the latest technology coming out of Russia. The Mig 1.42.etc... something I strongly believe BOTH aircraft will have no problem defeating; especially in BVR.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 19:59
by skrip00
Again Boff, my point is: The F-35 offers many of the similar capabilities to the Typhoon, and then offers capabilities that leaves the Typhoon in the dust.

Future warfare will probably break down into: 10% Air-war, 90% ground-war.

You need an aircraft which can win the air war quickly and effectively, then simultaneously also handling the ground-pounding campaign, then the F-35 is the only logical choice.

Thats why I love the F/A-18E/F as well. It can easily defeat many of the world's top fighters in air-to-air combat. Yet it does the AtG mission even better.

This is also why I dislike the Typhoon. Initially, it had no real AtG capacity. Now it has some. But in the long run, it wont have the advantages of the F-35 in terms of stealth and technological growth.

The same can be said when comparing the Typhoon to the SuperHornet. The SuperHornet was designed to be a strike aircraft, first and foremost. Being highly capable in the AtA arena was just a side effect.

End result: The F-35 can do everything the Typhoon can, even better, and then some.

Want to do standoff attacks? F-35 can do it.
Clear enemy airspace? Send in F-35s with AMRAAMs or, for our European brethren, use Meteor.
SEAD? F-35.

The Typhoon's only saving grace is that it has a 2-seater variant.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 03:28
by JCSVT
skrip00 wrote:End result: The F-35 can do everything the Typhoon can, even better, and then some.


For the air superiority role, I wouldn't pick the F-35 over the Typhoon. In WVR combat, I wouldn't pick the F-35 over Typhoon. In the ground pounding role, I would want the F-35 there on the first day taking out everything. The Typhoon would come in later once the SAM sites are taken out.

I really do believe that by the time the F-35 is introduced, the Typhoon will have a decent AG capability. There aren't many fighters that can carry 6 2000lb LGBs, 4 AMRAAMs, and two SRAAMs.

Basically, I don't believe the F-35 will be able to cover every role the Typhoon will be used for. The Typhoon is quicker, will probably be more manueverable, and can carry more missiles. Yes, the F-35 has the potential to be a pretty good A2A fighter but I don't think the designers nor their initial buyers are focusing on that.

When the time comes (2010-2015) we all know that they will be equals when we sum up all the pros and cons. The differences will lay on the different roles they are built for. F-22 and EF for airsuperiority, crusemissiles attack/defence, intercept and the versatile F-35 for close air support, recon and escort.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 03:37
by JCSVT
Double post.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 03:44
by asiatrails
Picture of the BAE "Replica" test article. Looks familiar :-? maybe swing wing?

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 04:23
by skrip00
Manuverability is a token quality. These days you can turn a B-2 into an air-defense platform and still be deadly.

HOBS missiles, BVR, and even stealth have made the overall concept of better manuverability moot.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 05:40
by Night
I wouldn't go that far skrippeh. Maneuverability when used to an extenxt can be used to fool radars, and you can't totally dismiss it's usefullness in WVR combat, which will not disappear any time soon.

As for the argument, I'd say its an even match.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 05:42
by LordOfBunnies
Not necessarily Skrip00, you have to get into a position to use those to their best advantage which requires manuverability to get into position. Saying manuverability is moot is like saying the gun is moot. The US made that mistake with the F-4 and paid for it. You can't turn a stealth 747 into the ultimate fighter.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 16:22
by skrip00
Thats the neat thing about HOBS missiles and HMS. "Getting in position" is already 99% done in a WVR combat scenario.

Thats why even in WVR, itll always be a toss-up between two aircraft, irregardless is one is a super-performer. The missiles negate that.

Hence, why the F-35, while not being the same performer as the Typhoon, can still do the same job, BVR, WVR, and AtG as the Tiffy, no problem.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 16:30
by skrip00
I really do believe that by the time the F-35 is introduced, the Typhoon will have a decent AG capability. There aren't many fighters that can carry 6 2000lb LGBs, 4 AMRAAMs, and two SRAAMs.

Thats funny, I do believe the F-35 can haul more munitions than the Typhoon can... F-35A/C are in the 15,000lb load, Typhoon 14,000.

For the air superiority role, I wouldn't pick the F-35 over the Typhoon. In WVR combat, I wouldn't pick the F-35 over Typhoon.

Sad really.

Looks like someone just doesnt know the advantages of stealth in BVR, or the advantages of DAS, HMS, and HOBS missiles in WVR...

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 18:33
by boff180
Thats funny, I do believe the F-35 can haul more munitions than the Typhoon can... F-35A/C are in the 15,000lb load, Typhoon 14,000.


Be VERY careful when quoting max loads.

As any Viper guy on here will tell you, the maximum load of an aircraft really doesn't mean squat! This is because in the real world and not on the drawing board, the loadouts that are possible and usable never reach the maximum loading the aircraft is designed for.

Also, its all well and good being able to carry a heavy load... but can you carry a variety of weapon types at once allowing for a variety of different roles all at once? Another advantage of Typhoon over F-35, even in full non-stealth carriage, it can't carry the complete variety of weapons as the Typhoon can at the same time allowing for greater swing role capability. This would of been rectified if the aircrafts internal bay was bigger (and capable of carrying more different weapons internally than at current)... however most of the a2g ordinance being cleared has to be carried on 4 pylons externally. Severely limiting possible combo's.

Especially for nations with medium to small size air forces and limited resources.

ie. from a UK perspective theoretic mission... solo discrete deep penetration multiple storm shadow launch (deep inside a large country, where the weapon must be launched from within hostile airspace) in a hostile environment with no F-22 support (ie. US not in the fight) and a high SEAD threat. For this mission, the aircraft selected is required to carry and fire 4 Storm Shadow and still fight its way back in and out past highly advanced threats.

F-35 loadout:
Internal - 2x Meteor, 2x ASRAAM.
External - 4x Storm Shadow.

In this situation the F-35 is as much a sitting duck as the Typhoon as its stealth will mean nothing at all until it has released its external stores... which could be depending on the size of the country and the spacing of its targets... quite a long time; with the major threat here coming from SAMs.

Now in this engagement, the typhoon would be more at risk on the egress due to not having Stealth at this point.
However during Ingress and Combat it has the better "chance" than the F-35.

It's loadout in this scenario:
4x Meteor
1x Fuel
4x Storm Shadow
2x SEAD (more than likely Alarm)
2x ASRAAM.

With both at low level helping minimise SAM threat (but not AAA) an aircraft carrying atleast some SEAD weaponary is going to have a greater chance of success; especially of actually getting to the weapon launch co-ordinates.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 18:56
by LordOfBunnies
One must also keep in mind, the Tiffy and the Lightning are designed for completely different things. The Lightning is meant to use cheap, cheap munitions at moderately close ranges. With the addition of the SDBs, the Lightning will become a very deadly strike package. The Tiffy is meant for air superiority, A2G was an afterthought, BUT the A2G was meant to be at standoff ranges. It's all about how much you want to spend. The F-35 can hold its own in the AD role, but the Tiffy is probably got some edges with AWACs backup. The best you can get is to have both.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 20:23
by skrip00
LordOfBunnies, I do suggest you reconsider. Why can't the F-35 do both standoff and and direct airstrikes?

As Boff180 has shown, it can carry 4x Storm Shadow on its wings, 2 BVR AtA missiles, and an internal load of SDBs.

Pretty potent if you ask me.

boff180 wrote:However during Ingress and Combat it has the better "chance" than the F-35.

You're reasoning behind this is flawed. You're assuming only one aircraft is flying the mission.

Imagine a strike package made up of F-35s. A few dedicated to SEAD, a few to BVR, and a few to carrying an overall large weapons load.

Air-wars are fought in moderate succession:
1. Shoot down enemy airforce in the air, use standoff attacks to destroy remaining air forces on the ground.
2. Kick down the fence. Launch SEAD missions to take out enemy fixed radar defenses. Continue air-superiority missions at this time.
3. Go after mobile AA defense, begin infrastructure and ground unit attacks. (By this time, the enemy's air force is depleted or being held back in depth.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

The F-35 can be configured for all stages of this. But then again, I'm still touching upon the issue of the Norway deal.

Oh, ALARM is no longer in production.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 20:39
by toan
http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/

1. The MTOW of EF-2000 today: 23,500 kg (51,809 Ib)
2. The empty weight of EF-2000 today: 11,000 kg (24,250 Ib)
3. The internal fuel of EF-2000 today: 4,996 kg (11,000 Ib)
--> The maximal external loading it can carry now: around 7,500 kg (16,500 Ib)

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 20:43
by boff180
You're reasoning behind this is flawed. You're assuming only one aircraft is flying the mission.


As is yours in this scenario.

If you read the ENTIRE scenario it was for an F-35 user that has a medium - small air force in a combat scenario where there is no coalition and they have very limited resources!

Not all airforces have the luxury of a large airforce and the resources on their own to launch large strike packages alone. You can never rely on other nations and that coalitions will be formed!

In that situation a solo deep penetration mission that is "discreet" will not have a complete strike package and is not flawed! Missions along these lines have happened multiple times in the past.

Oh an Alarm, it isn't in production currently however it is still in use in the UK, MBDA are also currently developing an Alarm Mk2 which will include GPS.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 22:04
by LordOfBunnies
Skrip, there's no reason that standoff and close range weapons can't be used together. Fire off the standoff munitions then go downtown with SDBs. But going downtown you damn well have better fired off those standoff weapons. Not to mention those pylons better be cheap because you're going to be disposing of a lot of them. And let's not forget, the likelihood is that that stealth will be really helpful for the first three days or so of the war then it will have diminishing returns. Frankly the Tiffy is a good aircraft, and considering the opponents it will face, I wouldn't having it against any enemy but the US. With the US, you're just kinda screwed with the 22, 35, 15, 16, etc. and in greater numbers than any other country yeah. Against let's say France, nobody likes them anyway, the Tiffy will easily dispose of the Rafales and the 35s will do the striking quite successfully and boom they're toast in a few days. A combo of Tiffy's and 35s can be used successfully very easily, the 35s can get much closer without being detected so you lure the enemy into a bad position and overwhelm them with aircraft they didn't know were there.

Similar scenario against Russian aircraft, its not always about which aircraft is better. More often it is about how you use it.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 23:47
by skrip00
boff180 wrote:As is yours in this scenario.

If you read the ENTIRE scenario it was for an F-35 user that has a medium - small air force in a combat scenario where there is no coalition and they have very limited resources!

Not all airforces have the luxury of a large airforce and the resources on their own to launch large strike packages alone. You can never rely on other nations and that coalitions will be formed!

In that situation a solo deep penetration mission that is "discreet" will not have a complete strike package and is not flawed! Missions along these lines have happened multiple times in the past.

Oh an Alarm, it isn't in production currently however it is still in use in the UK, MBDA are also currently developing an Alarm Mk2 which will include GPS.

Stealth aircraft are called Force Multipliers for a reason.

If you have equal number of Typhoons and an equal number of F-35s, the F-35s can do the same missions the Typhoon can, and be more effective.

Not being stealth is a major defect in the whole Typhoon "idea".

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 23:51
by skrip00
LordOfBunnies, While having a combination is good and all, I'm talking about a small(er) nation needing a single type. Maybe numbering around 50 or 60.

Also, on the Typhoon, the Russians are only a few years off before exporting weapons and aircraft that will easily put them on an even footing with the Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2006, 17:12
by hansundfranz
One thing you always forget.

Stealth is quite useful right now but nobody knows how much progress will be made with signal processing, passive detectin methods and different improved radar technology in the next 15 to 20 years. And lets not kid ourself the F22 and F35 will stay for 30-40 years at minimum.

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2006, 17:53
by skrip00
Stealth would still help. Even with the best signal processing and power output, having a "stealth" design does yield major advantages when compared to non-stealthy aircraft.

The leader in radar technology is the USA. While most nations are still puttering around making AESAs that work, and making them cheaper, the US is already moving onto the "next best thing".

They are the only ones with the innovation and funding to continue to produce and improve these technologies...

As of right now, stealth only lowers detection range significantly. And will do so, even with newer radars.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 02:31
by JCSVT
skrip00 wrote:Sad really.

Looks like someone just doesnt know the advantages of stealth in BVR, or the advantages of DAS, HMS, and HOBS missiles in WVR...


Nope I fully understand. I fully understand that the Typhoon was designed to be an air superiority fighter from the outset unlike the F-35.

Yes, stealth is great. But for the air superority role, the F-35 isn't the best choice, at least not as good as the Typhoon. I can see the F-35 providing escort, SEAD, and precision strike because of it's stealth qualities but in wartime the Tyhpoon, F-22, and F-15 would perform the same roles.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 02:33
by RonO
As long as radar remains the primary long range detection, stealth will be invaluable. That's why 100% of aircraft manufacturers in the world are spending fortunes developing LO technology and why supporters of aircraft that are rather difficient in that regard, spend so much energy rubbishing stealth. You watch the dassault, saab & bae salesmen turn 180 degrees as soon as they have a LO design to sell. It's just like when the car makers that didnt have air bags/cruise control/ABS at first said they were crap then spoke out of the other sides of their mouths when their next model appeared.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 03:07
by skrip00
The only drawback to the F-35's air superiority role is a lack of internal AAM capacity... but if what we discussed in the other thread pans out, we can see up to 6 internal AAMs. But currently, the F-35 can only mount 4.

But then again, even with missiles on the external wing pylons, the F-35 is still far stealthier than the Typhoon. Also, some nations can mount the Meteor on their F-35s, really packing a punch there.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 03:36
by toan
skrip00 wrote:But then again, even with missiles on the external wing pylons, the F-35 is still far stealthier than the Typhoon. Also, some nations can mount the Meteor on their F-35s, really packing a punch there.


A:
This statement needs to be proved. No matter whether the modification that you mentioned above will be done finally, up to now, F-35 can just carry two missiles (AIM-120 or ASRAAM) internally.

In the standard configuration of air-defense (4~6 BVRAAM + 2 WVRAAM), for the F-35 now, 4 to 6 missiles have to be carried below its main wings (For F-35B and C, even 25 mm cannon has to be carried outsides). As for EF-2000, four BVRAAMs will be semi-buried in its abdomen, and only 2 WVRAAM +/- 2 BVRAAM will be carried below its main wings.

In this kind of condition, which one will have the lower drag?? and how different of frontal RCS between them will be??? Personally, I think both of these need real measurement and evidence to prove.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 04:18
by skrip00
Evidence and measurement you wont ever see toan.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 04:46
by toan
To make my previous post more clear, let me make a very rough and inaccurate assumption:

1. The frontal RCS of F-35 is around 0.001~0.0015 m2, and the frontal RCS of EF-2000 is around 0.1 m2, so according to the formula, for the same radar, the detection / tracking range for F-35 shall be roughly 1/3 of the the detection / tracking range for EF-2000 theoretically.

2. I've no idea for the RCS influence of AIM-120 / AIM-9 under an external pylon, but its increase of frontal RCS must be big enough so that it deserves many costs (more weight, more cost, less fuel.......) for F-22A in order to put eight missiles internally. Suppose that one AIM-120 or AIM-9 with its pylon will increase 0.1m2 of RCS, and the missile which is semi-buried below the fighter's abdomen will increase 0.05m2 of RCS, then:

The frontal RCS of EF-2000 with 4 missiles semi-buried, and 2~4 missile under its main wings shall be: 0.1 m2 (fighter) + 0.05 m2*4 + 0.1 m2*2~4 = 0.5 ~ 0.7 m2.

The frontal RCS of F-35 with 2 internal missiles, 4~6 missile under its main wings shall be: 0.001~0.0015 m2 (fighter) + 0.1 m2*4~6 = 0.4 ~ 0.6 m2.

The frontal RCS of F-35 with 4 internal missiles, 2~4 missile under its main wings shall be: 0.001~0.0015 m2 (fighter) + 0.1 m2*2~4 = 0.2 ~ 0.4 m2.


As I mentioned above, I've no idea about the "real" RCS influence of AIM-120 / AIM-9 under an external pylon and the BVRAAM semi-buried below the fighter's bottom. But I think once both EF-2000 and F-35 carry AAMs externally, the difference between their frontal RCS may be decreased significantly, and it needs the real measurement and evidence to prove that if F-35 can still has a much smaller RCS than EF-2000 in this condition.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 05:00
by toan
skrip00 wrote:Evidence and measurement you wont ever see toan.


A:
Then the previous statement "Even with missiles on the external wing pylons, the F-35 is still far stealthier than the Typhoon" of yours should be your personal anticipation or belief, not necessarily the truth.

Of course, the real evidence and measurement may never be seen by us. However, when RAF and RN begin the DACT between EF-2000 and F-35 around 2020, some parts of the truth might be revealed.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 05:41
by skrip00
Think about it. Pylons dont have to be made of metal. Carbon composites or even fiberglass ones are transparent to radar. The only metal in them would be the release system and the wiring. Not big enough in terms of reflectivity.

Then you have a missile. Whose frontal RCS may actually diminish and be stealthy in itself. Why? I'd imagine the radar seeker in the missile can be angled, or is angled and rotates. Its usually something like this: ======[][]-/

= is the motor/engine, [][] is the guidance/warhead, and / is the radar seeker.

Anyways. Its a matter of RCS distribution. Even if you increase the RCS in some areas of the aircraft, your not increasing the overall return. Radars dont see a circle that represents RCS, they see what gets reflected back.

Another question: Can a Typhoon's radar track an incoming AAM like the Meteor or AIM-120D?

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 05:48
by toan
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eu ... s.html#maw

Missile Approach Warner (MAW)

Although the goal of any fighter pilot is to remove an enemy before they have fired there will of course be occasions when this is not the case. To enable tracking of such missile launches the DASS incorporates three Missile Approach Warners (MAW), one each in the port and starboard wing roots (near the cockpit) and one in the rear fuselage (near the tail). The units are derived from the Plessey PVS2000 MAW which utilises an active, pulse-doppler radar for detection. Since the units are active they are able to detect not only radar guided ordnance but also passive weapons such as infra red guided short range missiles. To increase the effectiveness of the system the MAW is also directly linked to the flare launchers allowing an instantaneous response to a local launch.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 16:16
by skrip00
Again, can its radar track a missile coming at it. Just using its plain ol radar system. Not ECM.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 16:47
by toan
Its MAW system is basically a small pulse-doppler radar with 360 degrees coverage, and I think its power, output, and effective range shall be far less than the main radar of CAPTOR.

If a small active, pulse-doppler radar can detect and track the coming of AAMs, why CAPTOR can't have such a capability at the longer range??? (Of course, the scanning coverage of Captor is much smaller than the coverage of PVS2000, therefore, in the most conditions of missile approaching, the Captor may not be able to see the coming missile(s) since it / they is / are at the location(s) out of Captor's scanning coverage...............)

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 16:56
by skrip00
Exactly. Its one thing to detect a missile coming in terminally at 5nm out.

Basically, I'm trying to see what the possible RCS effect of a missile is. Because hanging on wing pylons, it does add up. But I'm thinking it wont mean too much in terms of RCS penalty.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 17:09
by Safetystick
I recall a RAeS lecture I attended a few years ago (well, quite a few years ago - it was at uni) that talked about sensor fusing in modern fighters. JSF was still in the competion stage and the lecturer talked about how it was expected that which ever won would be the pinacle of fighet sensor fusion combining micro bursts of radar with FLIR and RWR data to produce a composite picture of the environment of the aircraft. From what I've seen he was pretty mcuh spot on.

The next part of his lecture dealt with the Typhoon, pricipably the fusion between DASS, PIRATE, JTIDS and Captor (I sure that was ECR-90 back then). Paraphrasing him (there's been far too many beers since then) he talked about the pilot's DASS display which took the form of a circle on the MFD. This circle would present the pilot with 360 coverage of threats being picked up by the RWR. This data was limited by the capabilities or RWR (i.e. is it a strong radar at a distance or a a weak radar close?) This was then overlaid, through 360 degrees, by threats known to the JTIDS network to fix the RWR threats. Finally there was a cone in the front hemisphere which fixed the DASS threats with active and passive information from the two front sensors. The important bit of this discussion to what Toan and Skrip are discussing is this:

The full 360 arc would tell the pilot where the launcher or active missile was coming from but not neccesarily how close [JTIDS does improve the picture compared to RWR on its own]. The forward arc would present a 'true image' of the threat in terms of speed and distance as well as any passive threats (presumably IR missiles).

Now, that suggests that the CAPTOR (IRST wouldn't give range) can certainly detect and track an incoming threat. I presume that that's still the case and there is obviously the limitations of public accesible data to consider but it would back what Toan is saying.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 17:16
by toan
Exactly. Its one thing to detect a missile coming in terminally at 5nm out.

A:
With the speed of Mach 4+, the modern AAM will fly across the range of 5 nm in 7 to 8 secs, if PVS2000 really can only detect the coming missile at that range, then:

MAW: "Warning!! Missile is coming!!, "Warning!! Missile is coming!!......"

Pilot: "Oh!! Shxt!! Where is its location........OMG!!!"

Bang !! and Game Over.....................

=================================================================================

Basically, I'm trying to see what the possible RCS effect of a missile is. Because hanging on wing pylons, it does add up. But I'm thinking it wont mean too much in terms of RCS penalty.

A: Then why Raptor paid so much price in order to put all of its AAMs internally????
[The empty weight of F-22A (18,144 ~ 19,489 kg) is roughly equal to, or even heavier than Su-35 (18,400 kg)nowadays. However, its internal fuel (9,300 ~ 9,400 kg) is about 1 ton less than Su-35's (10,400 kg).......]

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 17:25
by skrip00
Many reasons. For one, with all of them internally, its stealthy as hell. Put some on its wings and its chances of being seen on radar increase... but itll still be pretty stealthy.

As for the missile situation, a pilot normally wouldnt do the reacting. I'd imagine the system would take over and begin ECM automatically. But thats the thing. If the enemy gets a lucky shot off you, the best defense systems in the world will only marginally improve your chances of survival.

Wanna know what worse? Being targetted by 2 missiles. If your lucky enough to survive the 1st one, the 2nd one will knock you out.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 19:53
by RonO
Toan, I think you should assume external tanks on Typhoon for your RCS calculations. Range on internal fuel esp if supersonic is involved is rather limited.

Also it has been reported that in the JOUST simulations, Typhoon pilots shot down incoming missiles with their own. The report was rather critical of that.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 20:03
by skrip00
It's possible, but I wouldn't want to test that in practice.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 22:03
by Safetystick
Welll... Raytheon always claim the AMRAAM can deal with cruise missile sized targets. Some of those older Russian AAM are kinda large!

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2006, 18:48
by idesof
This from a recent article in the Guardian, a BRITTISH newspaper...

"It's described by a senior official at the Ministry of Defence as "a dead duck ... expensive and obsolete". The editor of World Defence Systems calls it "10 years out of date". A former defence minister remarked that it is "essentially flawed and out of date". So how on earth did BAE Systems manage to sell 72 Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia on Friday?"

Exactly as I've contended all along...

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 00:03
by toan
The Personal opinion is not necessarily equal to truth.

Some senior USAF officers, aircraft-designers, and military analysts of "Fighter of Mafia" in USA also think F-22A as the greatest failure and mistake in the history of American military aviation. So can we also prove that Raptor is nothing more than a trash by just what they said???

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 05:24
by skrip00
Well... we call those guys "whackos" in the US.

But technically speaking. The Typhoon is only in the 4th generation. Not being a stealth aircraft is a major weakness.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 18:33
by idesof
skrip00 wrote:Well... we call those guys "whackos" in the US.

But technically speaking. The Typhoon is only in the 4th generation. Not being a stealth aircraft is a major weakness.


I would not say that a senior official at the Ministry of Defence, the editor of World Defense Systems and a former defence minister are all "whackos." I happen to think they are right.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 18:42
by idesof
toan wrote:The Personal opinion is not necessarily equal to truth.

Some senior USAF officers, aircraft-designers, and military analysts of "Fighter of Mafia" in USA also think F-22A as the greatest failure and mistake in the history of American military aviation. So can we also prove that Raptor is nothing more than a trash by just what they said???


You are wrong. Show me the senior USAF officers and military analysts or others outside of Sprey and his little group who oppose the F-22 on technical grounds. This is a very small, yet vociferous group. Others who are critical of the F-22 deride it not because of its abilities--which they do not argue--but because of its cost.

On the other hand, your personal opinion may not be worth a damn simply because you are nobody, but the personal opinion of senior officials at the Ministry of Defence, former defence ministers and editors of reputable defence publications is certainly worth quite a lot, particularly when they are informed opinions that matter. Fact is, the Eurofighter has a lot of detractors based on its obsolescence, outdated electronics, lack of performance and, especially, lack of stealth. It is one generation behind aircraft it will be competing against for sales and perhaps even in battle. A consensus is building that this aircraft is a miserable failure, and a miserable failure it is.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 20:18
by Corsair1963
idesof wrote:
toan wrote:The Personal opinion is not necessarily equal to truth.

Some senior USAF officers, aircraft-designers, and military analysts of "Fighter of Mafia" in USA also think F-22A as the greatest failure and mistake in the history of American military aviation. So can we also prove that Raptor is nothing more than a trash by just what they said???


You are wrong. Show me the senior USAF officers and military analysts or others outside of Sprey and his little group who oppose the F-22 on technical grounds. This is a very small, yet vociferous group. Others who are critical of the F-22 deride it not because of its abilities--which they do not argue--but because of its cost.

On the other hand, your personal opinion may not be worth a damn simply because you are nobody, but the personal opinion of senior officials at the Ministry of Defence, former defence ministers and editors of reputable defence publications is certainly worth quite a lot, particularly when they are informed opinions that matter. Fact is, the Eurofighter has a lot of detractors based on its obsolescence, outdated electronics, lack of performance and, especially, lack of stealth. It is one generation behind aircraft it will be competing against for sales and perhaps even in battle. A consensus is building that this aircraft is a miserable failure, and a miserable failure it is.


Maybe not such a failure? Really wasn't the Typhoon and Rafale designed to out perform Russian Mig-29's and Su-27's and there likely successors? Neither type was design to compete with the Americans.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 21:02
by idesof
Corsair1963 wrote:Maybe not such a failure? Really wasn't the Typhoon and Rafale designed to out perform Russian Mig-29's and Su-27's and there likely successors? Neither type was design to compete with the Americans.


For me, the beauty of the F-22 and F-35 is that they were designed to outperform not only the Mig-29 and Su-27 but their successors as well. They both represent a major technological leap, while the Rafale and Typhoon represent a modest evolution of the 4th Gen. model. I just don't see the logic in building an airplane that still has to compete hard against the likes of the F-15 and F-16 for export orders. Can you imagine pitting either of these last two against either an F-22 or F-35? No contest whatsoever. No one in their right mind, given available funds, would choose the F-16 over the F-35 or the F-15 over the F-22. On the other hand, the superiority of the Typhoon and Rafale is not so clear cut over the latest models of the Viper and the Eagle. I've said it before: comparing an F-35 against a Typhoon is like comparing an F-16 to a Mig-15. The leap in capability between one and the other is that great. On the other hand, a late model F-16 vs. a Typhoon is more like, well, an F-16 vs. a two-engined Lavi. I mean, come on, the Israelis were ready to field a 4.5 Gen. aircraft almost a full two decades before the Typhoon reached IOC! The Swedes did it almost a decade earlier with the Grippen. And if the U.S. had gone for the F-16XL instead of the Mud Hen, the USAF would have had a 4.5 Gen aircraft already in the mid 1980s. But, in retrospect, they made the right decision to stick with the standard F-16 and invest in a revolutionary capability in the shape of the F-22 and later the JSF, now the F-35. Inexplicably, Germany, Britain, Spain, France and Italy decided to field designs reflecting outdated late 1970s thinking. It really boggles the mind.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 21:21
by Corsair1963
idesof wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Maybe not such a failure? Really wasn't the Typhoon and Rafale designed to out perform Russian Mig-29's and Su-27's and there likely successors? Neither type was design to compete with the Americans.


For me, the beauty of the F-22 and F-35 is that they were designed to outperform not only the Mig-29 and Su-27 but their successors as well. They both represent a major technological leap, while the Rafale and Typhoon represent a modest evolution of the 4th Gen. model. I just don't see the logic in building an airplane that still has to compete hard against the likes of the F-15 and F-16 for export orders. Can you imagine pitting either of these last two against either an F-22 or F-35? No contest whatsoever. No one in their right mind, given available funds, would choose the F-16 over the F-35 or the F-15 over the F-22. On the other hand, the superiority of the Typhoon and Rafale is not so clear cut over the latest models of the Viper and the Eagle. I've said it before: comparing an F-35 against a Typhoon is like comparing an F-16 to a Mig-15. The leap in capability between one and the other is that great. On the other hand, a late model F-16 vs. a Typhoon is more like, well, an F-16 vs. a two-engined Lavi. I mean, come on, the Israelis were ready to field a 4.5 Gen. aircraft almost a full two decades before the Typhoon reached IOC! The Swedes did it almost a decade earlier with the Grippen. And if the U.S. had gone for the F-16XL instead of the Mud Hen, the USAF would have had a 4.5 Gen aircraft already in the mid 1980s. But, in retrospect, they made the right decision to stick with the standard F-16 and invest in a revolutionary capability in the shape of the F-22 and later the JSF, now the F-35. Inexplicably, Germany, Britain, Spain, France and Italy decided to field designs reflecting outdated late 1970s thinking. It really boggles the mind.




I would have to agree..........................really what's so sad is how many people think we should just upgrade current types. Which, is like racing last years race car!

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 21:33
by skrip00
The Typhoon and Rafale are the results of the typical mis-management in most joint-European affairs. If it werent for bickering among member nations and squabbles over its funding and construction, then it may have been build sooner, and with more capability.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 21:39
by Corsair1963
skrip00 wrote:The Typhoon and Rafale are the results of the typical mis-management in most joint-European affairs. If it werent for bickering among member nations and squabbles over its funding and construction, then it may have been build sooner, and with more capability.




Yes, both programs were delay by many years! What is funny many of those same people complain about delay's in the JSF Program. Is that what they mean by a "Oxymoron"? :?

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2006, 23:07
by skrip00
JSF's delays are nowhere near the magnitude of the Typhoon or Rafale. Barely 7 years for a 5th gen jet and only 4 more to go... not bad.

Wanna talk about setbacks: The F-22A also fell victim to long developmental... But me thinks it was done to save it. Because if the F-22A program was "complete" in the mid-1990s, then it wouldve definitely sufferred.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2006, 00:01
by Corsair1963
skrip00 wrote:JSF's delays are nowhere near the magnitude of the Typhoon or Rafale. Barely 7 years for a 5th gen jet and only 4 more to go... not bad.

Wanna talk about setbacks: The F-22A also fell victim to long developmental... But me thinks it was done to save it. Because if the F-22A program was "complete" in the mid-1990s, then it wouldve definitely sufferred.



Complex Military Programs like the Typhoon, F-22, and F-35 are bound to run into delays. Personally, I remember all of the controversy over the F-16 and M-1 Tanks back in the late 70's and early 80's. Which, have in the end turned in to widely successful Weapons Systems........... :roll:

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2006, 23:58
by Scorpion1alpha
Corsair1963 wrote:I would have to agree..........................really what's so sad is how many people think we should just upgrade current types. Which, is like racing last years race car!


No, it's like continuing to upgrade a race car designed 30+ years ago. You can only get so much out of upgrading an OLD design. Which is why the USAF is no longer interested in aquiring F-15s and F-16s.

On the other hand, I will say that there are other countires in certain varied situations that obtaining an "upgraded" F-15 or F-16 would be a good choice and fits their requirements just fine.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2006, 00:53
by Corsair1963
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I would have to agree..........................really what's so sad is how many people think we should just upgrade current types. Which, is like racing last years race car!


No, it's like continuing to upgrade a race car designed 30+ years ago. You can only get so much out of upgrading an OLD design. Which is why the USAF is no longer interested in aquiring F-15s and F-16s.

On the other hand, I will say that there are other countires in certain varied situations that obtaining an "upgraded" F-15 or F-16 would be a good choice and fits their requirements just fine.



Agreed and both have many good years left! I especially like the idea of turning F-15C into a multi-role fighter! Can we expect to see F-15C's equipped with AESA Radar (APG-79) and conformal fuel tanks? Maybe they would call it a F/A-15C+????

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2006, 02:57
by dwightlooi
Agreed and both have many good years left! I especially like the idea of turning F-15C into a multi-role fighter! Can we expect to see F-15C's equipped with AESA Radar (APG-79) and conformal fuel tanks? Maybe they would call it a F/A-15C+????


The F-15 will NEVER get the APG-79 -- that is a 700mm radar for the F-18E/F radar. The F-15 has a larger randome and can accomodate a larger and more powerful radar!

The F-15's first AESA is the APG-634(v)2. Only have two dozen F-15Cs were converted to this radar. This is an AESA front end coupled with the APG-63(v)1 backend. This is no longer in production.

The F-15SG being exported to Singapore will get the APG-63(v)3 AESA. This uses a NEW front end made using the same tile style T/R modules used in the APG-79 and APG-80 radars. But it still retains the APG-63(v)1 backend albeit with new software. The USAF probably will not buy the (v)3

The current plan is for ALL the F-15s to receive the AN/APG-63(v)4 at some point. The (v)4 is the (v)3 front end with the APG-79 backend.

The APG-63 family radars are 950mm and have 184% the antenna area as the APG-79 in the F-18E/F.[/quote]

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2006, 04:12
by skrip00
Forget upgrading F-15Cs... just buy F-22As.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2006, 05:07
by Corsair1963
dwightlooi wrote:
Agreed and both have many good years left! I especially like the idea of turning F-15C into a multi-role fighter! Can we expect to see F-15C's equipped with AESA Radar (APG-79) and conformal fuel tanks? Maybe they would call it a F/A-15C+????


The F-15 will NEVER get the APG-79 -- that is a 700mm radar for the F-18E/F radar. The F-15 has a larger randome and can accomodate a larger and more powerful radar!

The F-15's first AESA is the APG-634(v)2. Only have two dozen F-15Cs were converted to this radar. This is an AESA front end coupled with the APG-63(v)1 backend. This is no longer in production.

The F-15SG being exported to Singapore will get the APG-63(v)3 AESA. This uses a NEW front end made using the same tile style T/R modules used in the APG-79 and APG-80 radars. But it still retains the APG-63(v)1 backend albeit with new software. The USAF probably will not buy the (v)3

The current plan is for ALL the F-15s to receive the AN/APG-63(v)4 at some point. The (v)4 is the (v)3 front end with the APG-79 backend.

The APG-63 family radars are 950mm and have 184% the antenna area as the APG-79 in the F-18E/F.
[/quote]

I should have said based! While it wouldn't be a direct copy of the APG-79 out of the Super Hornet. Its backend could be based on the APG-79 with a larger array with more T/R modules to fit the larger radome of the F-15. At least that is my understanding? I believe I read it in Defense Tech or some other Military Publication?

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2006, 01:20
by sferrin
dwightlooi wrote:The current plan is for ALL the F-15s to receive the AN/APG-63(v)4 at some point. The (v)4 is the (v)3 front end with the APG-79 backend.


Where did you get this info? The last I heard was that 180 or so F-15Cs will get (v)3s and all F-15Es will get either (v)4s or APG-77s with more modules than the Raptor's version (bigger nose on the Eagle).

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2006, 01:36
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:The current plan is for ALL the F-15s to receive the AN/APG-63(v)4 at some point. The (v)4 is the (v)3 front end with the APG-79 backend.


Where did you get this info? The last I heard was that 180 or so F-15Cs will get (v)3s and all F-15Es will get either (v)4s or APG-77s with more modules than the Raptor's version (bigger nose on the Eagle).



I also heard that the APG-77 along with the APG-79 were possibilities for future F-15 upgrades! Seems like the APG-81 would be better yet? That is with more modules to take advantage of the Eagles larger radome............. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2006, 02:12
by Neotopia
dwightlooi wrote:
Agreed and both have many good years left! I especially like the idea of turning F-15C into a multi-role fighter! Can we expect to see F-15C's equipped with AESA Radar (APG-79) and conformal fuel tanks? Maybe they would call it a F/A-15C+????


The F-15 will NEVER get the APG-79 -- that is a 700mm radar for the F-18E/F radar. The F-15 has a larger randome and can accomodate a larger and more powerful radar!

The F-15's first AESA is the APG-634(v)2. Only have two dozen F-15Cs were converted to this radar. This is an AESA front end coupled with the APG-63(v)1 backend. This is no longer in production.

The F-15SG being exported to Singapore will get the APG-63(v)3 AESA. This uses a NEW front end made using the same tile style T/R modules used in the APG-79 and APG-80 radars. But it still retains the APG-63(v)1 backend albeit with new software. The USAF probably will not buy the (v)3

The current plan is for ALL the F-15s to receive the AN/APG-63(v)4 at some point. The (v)4 is the (v)3 front end with the APG-79 backend.

The APG-63 family radars are 950mm and have 184% the antenna area as the APG-79 in the F-18E/F.


Yeah, and can you explain to me somehow how the Europeans are, with an inferior radar industry and tech base, going to outift the Eurofighter with a Radar half the size of the F-22, but with equal detection ranges?? (Eurofighter radar is ~700mm wide which means ~384mm^2 area, and the F-22 is 1m = 785mm^2...) nevermind the APG-81 which has tech right now the Europeans could only dream of *and* is larger?

At best, CAESAR will use tech 10 years from now that we already have right now. Unless you can somehow believe a fairytale that the European radar industry will leapfrog the USA, who already has more than half a dozen successful AESA designs, and when it can't even make it's own TR modules?

Simply put, the CAPTOR/CAESAR claims, imho, are rediculous. It will probably perform, in real life, similar to the APG-79 which is the same size.

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2006, 16:13
by skrip00
European technology is a bit behind because they dont or didnt have the funding to keep up with American technological pace. The Europeans dont even have a AESA radar for their fighters in service yet, or even near ready.

hello

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2006, 22:26
by fuschnicken
skrip00 wrote:European technology is a bit behind because they dont or didnt have the funding to keep up with American technological pace. The Europeans dont even have a AESA radar for their fighters in service yet, or even near ready.


european tech behind?

the JSF is slated to enter into serv. in 2012 or probably much later (money rule the schedule) , and the EF is allready in service


europe is focused now on unmaned weaponsys. and upgrades for their existing weaponry. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2007, 23:28
by elp
The thread that will not die. Loved the Saudi scenario. That was a hoot. :lol:

Who said it was right. JSF doesn't go in alone....

B-2 with 80 JDAMs and other mean things... buy the time of that goofy Saudi scenario a three digit figure of SDBs on airframes too.

240 Tomahawks from 4x converted OHIO class boomers for anything that is near the coast.

Tomahawks from other USN sources.

JASSM from numerous sources ( think Diego Garcia )

Airborne laser project. Be interesting to see what form that tecnology puts into the field at the time mentioned for tactical ops.

AESA. Yes AESA. Thought it was just a sensor? It's more. What should scare anyone is what AESA on JSF and F-22 years from now can do when the software geeks really discover things. And I mean the non-traditional uses of it.

Class as in RSAF ain't got none facing anything we can put up. See the Italian military in WWII for reference. What is sad about the Typhoon and AWACs team is we aren't going to play war with yesterdays legacy airpower playbook. Those systems aren't even up for this kind of fight.

Of course any air to air battle would be near fantasy. Most of the RSAF stuff would be killed on the ground ( look at the map again of the wide amount of airspace )... What did make it off the field in the last moments would be ridden into the turf after clearing the runway. He who defends everything, defends nothing. All of our stuff working on one entry point (one option) would break anything in it's path. The better choice would be to consider you made a damn bad mistake and pick up the phone and consider talking out the problem. Because any dual you call us out on for 6:00 the next morning means at 6:01 you have one eye shot out and are dead, staring up at nothing the rest of the day.

Re: hello

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2007, 01:05
by skrip00
fuschnicken wrote:
skrip00 wrote:European technology is a bit behind because they dont or didnt have the funding to keep up with American technological pace. The Europeans dont even have a AESA radar for their fighters in service yet, or even near ready.


european tech behind?

the JSF is slated to enter into serv. in 2012 or probably much later (money rule the schedule) , and the EF is allready in service


europe is focused now on unmaned weaponsys. and upgrades for their existing weaponry. :wink:


And the US is not?

Also, the EF project was started in the mid 1980s and not even finished. The aircraft still lack some AtG capabilities. The F-35 was designed in the late 1990s.

Re: hello

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2007, 03:19
by dwightlooi
fuschnicken wrote:
skrip00 wrote:European technology is a bit behind because they dont or didnt have the funding to keep up with American technological pace. The Europeans dont even have a AESA radar for their fighters in service yet, or even near ready.


european tech behind?

the JSF is slated to enter into serv. in 2012 or probably much later (money rule the schedule) , and the EF is allready in service


europe is focused now on unmaned weaponsys. and upgrades for their existing weaponry. :wink:


As far as radars go, the CAPTOR as it is mounted on the EF-Typhoon is around the late model F-18C/D and 1st flight F-18E/F's AN/APG-73's class in terms of size, performance and capabilities. The Eurocanards' (Typhoon's, Rafale's and Gripen's) newest radar outfits are notably behind the currently newest AESA radar outfits on the F-15, F16, F-18 and F-22. They are roughly comparable to the final generation of MSAs in US service -- APG-63(v)1, APG-68, APG-73, etc -- in terms of performance in relation to size. There is no indication otherwise.

The AN/APG-81 has not entered service yet, it is currently being developed. But it starts from the R&D base with five fighter AESAs already under the belt. The CAESAR starts from where the USA was in circa 1990 and the only advantage it has is non-radar specific commercial electronics progress over the last decade and a half. The AN/APG-81 draws has the same advantage. It is my opinion that when the AN/APG-81 and CAESAR are both in service circa 2015 the AN/APG-81 will still be a more advanced and more capable radar than the similarly sized CAESAR.

As far as fighters go, the F-22 is a significantly more advanced and capable jet that the Typhoon or Rafale. There is a generational difference between the Raptor and the Eurocanards, The F-35 takes all the attributes in the F-22 that mattered the most -- stealth, superior sensors, internal weapons & massive fuel load to support stealth -- and adds even better sensory and interface components, while lowering the production costs to 1/3 the F-22's. In terms of overall A2A, A2G and Recon capabilities it will significantlly outclass the the Eurocanards.

Yeah, and can you explain to me somehow how the Europeans are, with an inferior radar industry and tech base, going to outift the Eurofighter with a Radar half the size of the F-22, but with equal detection ranges??


Wishful thinking?

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2007, 03:55
by Corsair1963
idesof wrote:
Driver wrote:For bombing a city, choose the F-35 JSF.

For bombing a city, defending your airspace, escort transport planes etc., choose the EFA.

Really the EFA is better on all fronts except range which can be dealt with. The JSF does have stealth though but very little and there are nations that are well on their way to make stealth useless.


I realize this is a discussion board and therefore, obviously, topics are up for debate and as such, different views may be proffered. However, I have been reading the posts on this board for the past several weeks with a great deal of interest regarding the views expressed herein and few posts have struck me as completely off the mark as the one quoted above. Firstly, the claim that the F-35 (JSF) possesses "very little" in the way of stealth is an outlandish claim without any sort of evidence to back it up. Indeed, while it has been argued the F-35 will not achieve the same degree of all-angle stealth as the F-22, not even the F-35's most vehement detractors claim it is in possession of "very little" stealth. While the stealth properties of the F-22 and F-35 are distinguishable by a matter of degree, the qualitative difference between the F-35's stealth capabilities and those of the Typhoon is separated by several orders of magnitude. Secondly, Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The assertion made above, that "nations" are "well on their way" to making stealth "useless" is an extraordinary claim for which evidence is neither offered by the writer nor proven by another known, reliable source, let alone sources. All else is conjecture until proven otherwise.

Therefore, on the merits of its advantage conferred by stealth alone, in air combat the F-35 will see an enemy, and shoot that enemy, much earlier than will the Typhoon, even after the latter is given an updated AESA radar later in the century. In a hypothetical and unlikely head-to-head match-up, all else being equal (support elements, pilot skill, etc.), the Typhoon will be terminated more than likely before its pilot is even aware he or she is under attack. It is important to note that at this stage of its development, when the USAF is trying to secure funding for additional F-22s, the F-35's air-to-air capabilities, which are not significantly lesser than its larger cousin's, are being purposely down-played so as not to alert Congress that the F-35 will be significantly cheaper, but not significantly less capable, than the F-22. Indeed, it is very much like the F-15 vs. F-16 debate the USAF was engaged in during the 1970s and 80s. As has been widely acknowledged, the F-15 is not an inherently superior air-superiority fighter vis-a-vis the F-16. Had the USAF optimized the F-16 from early on for the air-superiority role, the USAF would have never needed to buy the F-15, period. See Pierre Sprey and John Boyd. An F-35, optimized for the air-to-air role, would not be inferior to the F-22. However, even when its air-to-air performance is compromised by its need to be a bomb truck, when the F-35 enters service it will be second only to the F-22 in the air-dominance mission. The evidence of this are all the countries--which must use the F-35 in both air-to-ground and air dominance roles--that are opting to wait several years for the arrival of the F-35 instead of procuring the Typhoon, despite the makers of the latter practically paying other nations to purchase their already obsolete design. Indeed, the capability gap between the F-35 and the Typhoon at all levels in favor of the former is greater yet than that between a late-model F-16 and an early-model Mig-23 (again, of course, in favor of the former).

Sadly for the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia and whoever else has made the disastrous mistake to purchase this relic of a by-gone era, the Typhoon will soon be almost, but not quite, as irrelevant as the so-called Super Hornet. The F-35 will exceed the Typhoon at all levels, including maneuverability. Despite the latter's canards, I am astounded by how very little people on this board understand the very peculiar yet very unbeatable aerodynamic configuration common to both the F-22 and F-35. The enormous control surfaces, set far behind the axis of gravity in both as well as far behind the engine, provide a degree of maneuverability unmatched by any comers. Again, the USAF is being coy about the F-35 in this regard, but this aircraft will not be beaten by any aircraft now flying except for the F-22. Were the F-35 to be fitted with thrust-vectoring, however, it would be more maneuverable yet than the F-22.


I've also noticed how many want to compare a relatively clean Typhoon (or similar) fighter to the F-35? Clearly, a Typhoon equipped with External Fuel Tanks and Stores is not going to perform like one with none! Really, with the Internal Weapons Carriage combined with its Stealth, Sensors, and Situational Awareness. The Lightning is going to be nearly unbeatable with the exception of the Raptor of course! I hate to say but the F-22 & F-35 combination of Stealth and Internal Weapons Loads are going to make everything else obsolete is very short order................with all do respect. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2007, 18:39
by NATOVIPER
Eurofighter is belong to old days. F-35 is a new age fighter for the new battlefield.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2007, 17:15
by CheckSix
idesof wrote:
"Indeed, the capability gap between the F-35 and the Typhoon at all levels in favor of the former is greater yet than that between a late-model F-16 and an early-model Mig-23 "
and
"
The enormous control surfaces, set far behind the axis of gravity in both as well as far behind the engine, provide a degree of maneuverability unmatched by any comers."


What a nonsense!

You can pack the same electronics in any aircraft including a B747 :roll:
In terms of kinematics, F-22 and typhoon are pretty even with little advantage for F-22 maybe. But F-35... is a bombtruck.

weight, thrust, sweep angle, wingload, drag... forget it!

Even with 6 AAMs an 3 droptanks Typhoon reaches Mach 1,6, the design speed of F-35. I think F-35 is a formidable tactical bomber, that is what is is obviousely designed for.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2007, 17:38
by elp
Unfortunately "Kinematics".... being a nice $20 dollar word IMO is incomplete to the topic here. Like it or not, things become different when you load F-22 up with internal weapons only and compare it to a combat loaded Typhoon and add fuel burn to the problem. Where are the metrics again that actually show a combat loaded Typhoon in your config,...doing m1.6 for any useful amount of time?

Speed aside, there is still the problem of the legacy... ( any legacy ) spotting a low observable first. This all by itself is a serious problem. And not just spotting some, but spotting all the JSF working together at a useful rate. Tally on one... great. Now where are the other 3 before you commit?

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2007, 18:04
by CheckSix
well Pirate IRST will be quite nice and the first exercise will show how stealthy a F-35 is.
Due its good speed typhoon may force F-35 to use its AB...

Also Typhoon has a nice DASS suite. If it works against AMRAAM, all ends up in a dogfight...

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2007, 19:41
by SpeakTheTruth
To be honest these discussions do annoy me, any thread with "X vs Y" usually has many replies from people who do not have a full understanding of the aircraft in question. The Eurofighter R&D budget was not nearly as much as the F-22 (and F-35) budget. The reason why is just down to the money that can be put up for each project, seeing as at the time there was no potential in the Soviet Union developing stealth aircraft, the need for a stealth aircraft was not great enough to justify the high costs of research and design that would be imposed on the European nations involved.

Don't get me wrong, stealth obviously provides a great advantage, but as the Europeans see it, potential foes aren't going to have it and even though the advantage is great, the cost outweighs the advantage. Also the US has the current lead in stealth, any future wars that require a NATO/UN response will involve the USAF so future coalitions would have stealth aircraft in their arsenal. The Eurofighter specifications were to build an aircraft with excellent dog-fighting and BVR capabilities, high speed performance, LO features and good bombing capabilities. The specifications were met albeit late and over-budget. Most simulations show that the Eurofighter (F-35 is not included in these for obvious reasons) is second only to the F-22 in combat. Its met the specifications it was designed for, so do consider that when you start making these comparisons.

Also none of us here really know the effectiveness of stealth in a quantitative perspective, people quote numbers here on this board, but they always vary . A real combat situation is the real tester for a new aircraft, but until then you can't state silly facts like "The F-35 is better because of stealth". If you really fell you must compare aircraft with different specifications then say it in a speculating way such as "I think the F-35 would win in BVR because..."

Really this thread is like me starting a thread with the title "C17 vs C130, which is the better cargo carrier".

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2007, 18:57
by Corsair1963
elp wrote:Unfortunately "Kinematics".... being a nice $20 dollar word IMO is incomplete to the topic here. Like it or not, things become different when you load F-22 up with internal weapons only and compare it to a combat loaded Typhoon and add fuel burn to the problem. Where are the metrics again that actually show a combat loaded Typhoon in your config,...doing m1.6 for any useful amount of time?

Speed aside, there is still the problem of the legacy... ( any legacy ) spotting a low observable first. This all by itself is a serious problem. And not just spotting some, but spotting all the JSF working together at a useful rate. Tally on one... great. Now where are the other 3 before you commit?



While stealth is a big advantage to both the F-22 and F-35. Many still over look the performance gains by carrying weapons & fuel internally.......Seriously, I doubt a loaded Typhoon would out perform a clean Lightning regardless of the politics. :? Are we to believe the formers acceleration, turn rates, fuel burn, etc. etc. are better while loaded?

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2007, 20:03
by boff180
Fuel burn of course will be more, thats a no-brainer... then again dogfights never last more than a few moments. On the other points of turn rates.etc at Farnborough last year, BAE carried out full displays in IPA1 (zj699) using block 5 software with a loadout of 4 amraam, 2 aim-9 and 6 gbu-12 and a centreline tank.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1135726/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1094492/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1078308/L/

Technical observers (I didn't see it personally it only displayed on the private days) stated in writing in reviews that there was no noticable reduction in performance over the clean displays performed in a block 2b RAF Typhoon.

Andy

Re: hello

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2007, 20:30
by Pilotasso
dwightlooi wrote:As far as radars go, the CAPTOR as it is mounted on the EF-Typhoon is around the late model F-18C/D and 1st flight F-18E/F's AN/APG-73's class in terms of size, performance and capabilities. The Eurocanards' (Typhoon's, Rafale's and Gripen's) newest radar outfits are notably behind the currently newest AESA radar outfits on the F-15, F16, F-18 and F-22. They are roughly comparable to the final generation of MSAs in US service -- APG-63(v)1, APG-68, APG-73, etc -- in terms of performance in relation to size. There is no indication otherwise.

The AN/APG-81 has not entered service yet, it is currently being developed. But it starts from the R&D base with five fighter AESAs already under the belt. The CAESAR starts from where the USA was in circa 1990 and the only advantage it has is non-radar specific commercial electronics progress over the last decade and a half. The AN/APG-81 draws has the same advantage. It is my opinion that when the AN/APG-81 and CAESAR are both in service circa 2015 the AN/APG-81 will still be a more advanced and more capable radar than the similarly sized CAESAR.

As far as fighters go, the F-22 is a significantly more advanced and capable jet that the Typhoon or Rafale. There is a generational difference between the Raptor and the Eurocanards, The F-35 takes all the attributes in the F-22 that mattered the most -- stealth, superior sensors, internal weapons & massive fuel load to support stealth -- and adds even better sensory and interface components, while lowering the production costs to 1/3 the F-22's. In terms of overall A2A, A2G and Recon capabilities it will significantlly outclass the the Eurocanards.


Your seriously underestimating the CAPTOR. It was specialy designed to be the fatest mechanical radar arround and managed the feat to be the only one in the world capable of doing ground mapping and AA search silmultaneously. Similar to APG-73/68's? Not a chance in hell mate.
Adding to that, Rafale has AESA today (on typhoon soon) how can you compare decade old APG-xx radar technology to that and say they are on the same level?!
Those same Euro canards of "inferior" technology will have the biggest stick arround yet to be matched by any american missile. ;)

BTW The Euro canards are NOT a generation behind. They simply are not as stealthy as F-22 because of budget reasons. Youll find anythin inside the cockpit of Euro canards to be of the highest standards arround. Me thinks your talking too much out of ignorance and banging on your chest a litle too hard m8. :)

Re: hello

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 00:02
by Corsair1963
Pilotasso wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:As far as radars go, the CAPTOR as it is mounted on the EF-Typhoon is around the late model F-18C/D and 1st flight F-18E/F's AN/APG-73's class in terms of size, performance and capabilities. The Eurocanards' (Typhoon's, Rafale's and Gripen's) newest radar outfits are notably behind the currently newest AESA radar outfits on the F-15, F16, F-18 and F-22. They are roughly comparable to the final generation of MSAs in US service -- APG-63(v)1, APG-68, APG-73, etc -- in terms of performance in relation to size. There is no indication otherwise.

The AN/APG-81 has not entered service yet, it is currently being developed. But it starts from the R&D base with five fighter AESAs already under the belt. The CAESAR starts from where the USA was in circa 1990 and the only advantage it has is non-radar specific commercial electronics progress over the last decade and a half. The AN/APG-81 draws has the same advantage. It is my opinion that when the AN/APG-81 and CAESAR are both in service circa 2015 the AN/APG-81 will still be a more advanced and more capable radar than the similarly sized CAESAR.

As far as fighters go, the F-22 is a significantly more advanced and capable jet that the Typhoon or Rafale. There is a generational difference between the Raptor and the Eurocanards, The F-35 takes all the attributes in the F-22 that mattered the most -- stealth, superior sensors, internal weapons & massive fuel load to support stealth -- and adds even better sensory and interface components, while lowering the production costs to 1/3 the F-22's. In terms of overall A2A, A2G and Recon capabilities it will significantlly outclass the the Eurocanards.


Your seriously underestimating the CAPTOR. It was specialy designed to be the fatest mechanical radar arround and managed the feat to be the only one in the world capable of doing ground mapping and AA search silmultaneously. Similar to APG-73/68's? Not a chance in hell mate.
Adding to that, Rafale has AESA today (on typhoon soon) how can you compare decade old APG-xx radar technology to that and say they are on the same level?!
Those same Euro canards of "inferior" technology will have the biggest stick arround yet to be matched by any american missile. ;)

BTW The Euro canards are NOT a generation behind. They simply are not as stealthy as F-22 because of budget reasons. Youll find anythin inside the cockpit of Euro canards to be of the highest standards arround. Me thinks your talking too much out of ignorance and banging on your chest a litle too hard m8. :)


The advantages of Stealth combined with the APG-81 Radar (AESA) and the vastly superior situational awareness of the Lightning. Will in the end give it a big edge over either the Typhoon or Rafale. With your way of thinking a F-16 must be Superior to the F-15 in the same role? If, not I would like to hear your reasoning???

Re: hello

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 00:47
by dwightlooi
Pilotasso wrote:Your seriously underestimating the CAPTOR. It was specialy designed to be the fatest mechanical radar arround and managed the feat to be the only one in the world capable of doing ground mapping and AA search silmultaneously. Similar to APG-73/68's? Not a chance in hell mate.
Adding to that, Rafale has AESA today (on typhoon soon) how can you compare decade old APG-xx radar technology to that and say they are on the same level?!
Those same Euro canards of "inferior" technology will have the biggest stick arround yet to be matched by any american missile. ;)

BTW The Euro canards are NOT a generation behind. They simply are not as stealthy as F-22 because of budget reasons. Youll find anythin inside the cockpit of Euro canards to be of the highest standards arround. Me thinks your talking too much out of ignorance and banging on your chest a litle too hard m8. :)


Nobody is underestimating the CAPTOR. The CAPTOR is losely speaking an evolution of the Blue Vixen -- be said of the PS/05 in the Gripen. This puts it in the same technological class in terms of wave guides, power and sensitivity as the AN/APG-73. The AN/APG-73 is about as good as the USA or anyone can make an MSA. Hence, there is every reason to believe that the CAPTOR and the APG-73 has very similar range and detection performance. That makes it a very good radar. But it is not in the same performance class as say a larger unit like the F-15's APG-63(v)1 or the latest AESA units.

The Rafale does not have an AESA. The RBE/RBE2 is a PESA. And compliants regarding its performance suggests that it offers no range advancement over the RDY which is not a particularly impressive MSA to begin with. The cause for this attributed to the PESA's electronic steering unit places ahead of the antenna. This is a typical problem with PESAs and it affects every PESA antenna inlcuding the Patriot's MPQ-53 or the AEGIS SPY-1. The difference is that these are radars with lots of power to spare to overcome this problem. A fighter radar -- due to size and weight constraints do not. This is the primary reason PESAs did not make it into the mainstream of fighter radars even though the technology has been around since the 1960s and is very mature. Because of the small size of the Rafale's radar and the compromising nature of a PESA array, it is expected that it has inferior range and sensitivity compared to similar sized or large MSAs of the latest evolution. This includes the AN/APG-68(v)9 and others.

Re: hello

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 02:48
by Pilotasso
Corsair1963 wrote:The advantages of Stealth combined with the APG-81 Radar (AESA) and the vastly superior situational awareness of the Lightning. Will in the end give it a big edge over either the Typhoon or Rafale.


First of all I didnt put Rafale, and Typhoon VS F-35. My purpose of my earlier post was to dissmiss any missconception that Fighters produced in europe are made of inferior technological standards.

Second,Typhoon enjoys a similar concept of cockpit and sensor/pilot integration as seen in the F-22.

While Eurofighter wont pick up the F-35 untill closer in, VS the same non observable oposition, be it russian, chinese or indian made aircraft, the Canards wont lack any situational awareness, nor radar range nor weaponry, infact the Typhoon and Rafale will enjoy better combat persistence, and firepower range over the F-35 unless the lighning is willing to throw stealth out of the window.

Corsair1963 wrote: With your way of thinking a F-16 must be Superior to the F-15 in the same role? If, not I would like to hear your reasoning???


huh?
Sorry?!!! :shock:

Re: hello

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 03:23
by Corsair1963
Pilotasso wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The advantages of Stealth combined with the APG-81 Radar (AESA) and the vastly superior situational awareness of the Lightning. Will in the end give it a big edge over either the Typhoon or Rafale.


First of all I didnt put Rafale, and Typhoon VS F-35. My purpose of my earlier post was to dissmiss any missconception that Fighters produced in europe are made of inferior technological standards.

Second,Typhoon enjoys a similar concept of cockpit and sensor/pilot integration as seen in the F-22.

While Eurofighter wont pick up the F-35 untill closer in, VS the same non observable oposition, be it russian, chinese or indian made aircraft, the Canards wont lack any situational awareness, nor radar range nor weaponry, infact the Typhoon and Rafale will enjoy better combat persistence, and firepower range over the F-35 unless the lighning is willing to throw stealth out of the window.

Corsair1963 wrote: With your way of thinking a F-16 must be Superior to the F-15 in the same role? If, not I would like to hear your reasoning???


huh?
Sorry?!!! :shock:



In what way would a Typhoon or Rafale enjoy better combat persisitence or firepower range over the Lightning??? :?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 03:35
by Thumper3181
Pilotosso
My purpose of my earlier post was to dissmiss any missconception that Fighters produced in europe are made of inferior technological standards.


You obviously do not understand the advantages Stealth brings to the table.
You do not understand AESA
You seriously underestimate the power of net centric warfare.

All three Eurocanards would be world beaters in 1989. Problem is it is now 2007. Raptor and Lightening would be shooting these planes out of the sky long before the eurocanards could use Pirate.

Tiffy isn't even a match for a block II Rhino. Rhino has a lower RCS and a better radar

Sorry speak the truth but comparisons do matter. Better to buy a potent 5th gen fighter than the Eurocanards who are obsolete the moment the Lightening enters production.

Re: hello

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 03:37
by dwightlooi
Corsair1963 wrote:

In what way would a Typhoon or Rafale enjoy better combat persisitence or firepower range over the Lightning??? :?


I think he is of the opinion that a Typhoon or Rafale can carry over 10 AAMs if that is what the operator wants it to do. The F-35 will not be able to do the same unless it carries external stores. This is a frequently coined argument against the F-35.

The answer to this question is rather simple. The question one has to ask really should be "Is the typical combat load of the Typhoon or Rafale -- 4~6 AAMs in addition to a tank or two -- sufficient". And "How often do they ever sling more than that." If this is sufficient, then the F-35's loadout capability of at least 4 AAMs internally and more likely 6 with the appropriate ejectors is also sufficient.

IMHO, it is sufficient and an aircraft is only as persistent as it is survivable; when you are shot down you can no longer fight. When you take into account flight performance, sensors, networking ability and stealth, it is also my opinion that the F-35 is much more survivable and effective in A2A combat than an Eurocanard.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 12:45
by Tintin
Surly this debate about A2A effectiveness should also be around weapon performance. The warfighter's capability comes from the weapons deployed. Otherwise the aircraft is not much more than an expensive dustcover for engines and avionics! Typhoon with ASRAAM and Meteor (or Rafale with Mica IR & RF plus Meteor) vs. F-35 with AIM-9X (External only) and AIM-120. No real contest, as its 5th generation weapons against 4th. But put new weapons on F-35 and it could be interesting. F-35 is also not invisible; I think from certain aspects angles (and from the rear) that the aircraft will not have a particularly low rcs, therefore making it a little vulnerable! It will certainly not have the nose pointing authority of a Typhoon, an important factor in A2A combat. In my opinion, both aircraft are good for what they are designed to do. Both aircraft will do that in very different ways.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 14:05
by Pilotasso
Thumper3181 wrote:You obviously do not understand the advantages Stealth brings to the table.
You do not understand AESA
You seriously underestimate the power of net centric warfare.


... you obviously dont understand the purpose of my earlier posts...
Thumper3181 wrote:Raptor and Lightening would be shooting these planes out of the sky long before the eurocanards could use Pirate.

... and this proves it, now Im being confused by one of those "IRST-beats-everything" guys.

Thumper3181 wrote:Better to buy a potent 5th gen fighter than the Eurocanards who are obsolete the moment the Lightening enters production.


Obsolete?! Your seriously believe that? Your kidding yourself.

What I dont understand is why people are taking this discussion to F-35 VS Canards dogfights. I never even went close to that, and this discussion has come off target realy.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 20:08
by dwightlooi
Tintin wrote:Surly this debate about A2A effectiveness should also be around weapon performance. The warfighter's capability comes from the weapons deployed. Otherwise the aircraft is not much more than an expensive dustcover for engines and avionics! Typhoon with ASRAAM and Meteor (or Rafale with Mica IR & RF plus Meteor) vs. F-35 with AIM-9X (External only) and AIM-120. No real contest, as its 5th generation weapons against 4th. But put new weapons on F-35 and it could be interesting. F-35 is also not invisible; I think from certain aspects angles (and from the rear) that the aircraft will not have a particularly low rcs, therefore making it a little vulnerable! It will certainly not have the nose pointing authority of a Typhoon, an important factor in A2A combat. In my opinion, both aircraft are good for what they are designed to do. Both aircraft will do that in very different ways.


A few things...

(1) The only missile mentioned above that is one generation ahead of the rest is the Meteor. Perhaps half a generation because it is really very much like an AMRAAM other than the air breathing sustainer. There is no technological or capabilities enhancement over the AIM-120 other than propulsion. The MICA is nothing more than an ASRAAM class motor (6.3") trying to play the role of both a WVR dogfight missile and a medium range AAM. It is available in two versions because an RF seeker is not ideal for short range HOBS engagement, whereas an IR one is inferior of BVR missions because of its shorter range homing basket. The problem is that it is neither as fast nor as long ranged as the AIM-120 because it is a smaller missile with a lower energy content and with higher drag broad strakes. The MICA is in every way inferior as a BVR AAM compared to the AMRAAM other than the fact that it is a little smaller and lighter to carry. Both the ASRAAM and the AIM-9X are available to both the Typhoon and the F-35, the former being optimized for longer ranged NBVR shots whereas the later is optimised for maximum HOBS performance.

(2) The F-35 will also carry the Meteor if the client's country operates this missile. MBDA made this very clear because they don't want to lose out on the potentially dominant fighter in the 21st century in terms of market share. In fact, under the current plans there will NOT be two versions of the meteor. There will be only one. The Meteor's fins and ducts will be made compliant with the F-35's internal weapons envelope if it is not already.

(3) There is no reason the AIM-9X has to be an external only missile. It is certainly small enough and light enough to fit internally. The only thing one can say is that internal carriage will not be available by 2009 because it didn't make the list of weapons that will be the first ones to be certified for F-35 carriage.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 20:31
by Pilotasso
F-35 is not planned to have ejection rails for internal bays, and it makes sense, because they would waste for AMRAAM space. That is not an issue on the F-22.

By no means I am here to diss out the F-35, infact I would like it to replace my countries F-16's some day but I find the claims that Eurocanards are obsolete to be highly innacurate and dissing themselves.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 21:49
by dwightlooi
Pilotasso wrote:F-35 is not planned to have ejection rails for internal bays, and it makes sense, because they would waste for AMRAAM space. That is not an issue on the F-22.

By no means I am here to diss out the F-35, infact I would like it to replace my countries F-16's some day but I find the claims that Eurocanards are obsolete to be highly innacurate and dissing themselves.


(1) The F-35 has two ejectors (they are not rails) on the doors of the internal bays. These are rated for 350 lbs making them suitable only for AAMs. The two bays also have two heavy weapon stations. These are really hard points rated for 2500 lbs each. A variety of ejectors may be placed on it to accomodate one, two or four weapons simultaneously. The only condition being that the total load must not exceed 2500 lbs and the weapons must fit. We know for sure that AAMs like the AIM-120 and the Meteor fits the envelope that is > 4.13m long. Width is harder to determine, but it will be >18" wide at the top (because the 2000 lb JDAM's fins are that wide and they go all the way to the top). Because of the trapezoidal shape of the bay we know that the bay has to be wider lower down. By looking at the photographs available, it appears that the bay is ~28" wide half way down and about 35" wide at the mouth. Two AIM-120s in a staggered arrangement only require 22.75" width including a 0.5" clearance, which is why many believe that two can be accomodated in the weapon station. In addition to the door rail that makes a total of 3 AAMs per bay or 6 total in internal carriage.

(2) The suspicion that the F-35 is capable of 6 internal AAMs of the AIM-120 class was further reinforced by comments made by the JSF program officials. For instance, during a visit to Canberra Australia in October 2006, (USAF) General Charles Davis -- Program Executive Officer of the F-35 program -- commented that "the F-35A’s internal carriage weapons bays have volume to carry more than four missiles, with studies underway to develop a new rack to carry additional weapons.".

http://www.adbr.com.au/download/2510.pdf (See Page 23)

(3) The Eurocanards are not obsolete compared to the general fighter landscape of the world. But they are clearly outdated and out classed both in A2A and A2G combat when compared to the F-35. This is because they were designed around the same paradigm as the F-16 -- small, light, agile -- with incremental improvements in the areas of agility and to a lesser extent cruising speed. They do not offer a better value either in terms of purchase price. life-time costs and/or operability. This makes them dogs in the market place once the F-35 comes onto the stage full swing.[/url]

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 22:47
by Pilotasso
Well I still see a problem for the 9X employment from the F-35's internal bay. Its that the missile has to be extended outside the bay prior to launch, the weight and number of weapons in the bay space are not an issue if you can just drop them. Like JDAM or AMRAAM. But then the whole picture changes when you need to extend 1 missile out of that space before firing it. Either you discart all other weapons on that rack to carry the Sidwinder, or all wepons on the same rack are extended out together. This may necessitate a beefier reinforced rack, not only due to the weight involved but because now its got moving parts that have to endure the stresses of high G combat, and that may offset and cancel out the number of weapons you inteded to add in the first place.

Besides a bely position is a horrible place to have a heat seeker when you need to cue it with the helmet on the widest viewcone possible.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2007, 23:38
by dwightlooi
Pilotasso wrote:Well I still see a problem for the 9X employment from the F-35's internal bay. Its that the missile has to be extended outside the bay prior to launch, the weight and number of weapons in the bay space are not an issue if you can just drop them. Like JDAM or AMRAAM. But then the whole picture changes when you need to extend 1 missile out of that space before firing it. Either you discart all other weapons on that rack to carry the Sidwinder, or all wepons on the same rack are extended out together. This may necessitate a beefier reinforced rack, not only due to the weight involved but because now its got moving parts that have to endure the stresses of high G combat, and that may offset and cancel out the number of weapons you inteded to add in the first place.

Besides a bely position is a horrible place to have a heat seeker when you need to cue it with the helmet on the widest viewcone possible.


Actually, if the AIM-9X is put in the door position, it will be fired in lock-on before launch mode only for relatively straight forward bore sight shots. In every other scenario, it'll be fired in lock-on after launch mode. The HMD or radar or DAS or EOTS or EW sensors or a combination of the above will provide an estimated position of the target to the AIM-9X immediately prior to launch. The seeker itself doesn't see the target. The missile will pitch towards the previously memorized approximate target location after release and wil try to acquire and lock onto the target after weapons release and initial maneuvering. The ASRAAM is operated in the same manner.

Whether the missile leaves the aircraft on a rail or is ejected really doesn't matter at all.

The F-22 has a rail that extends outwards to maximize the AIM-9's seeker field of view partly because it was designed prior to the AIM-9X's introduction. The F-22 was designed to operate the AIM-9M/L from the internal bays and these missiles can only be used in LOBL mode.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2007, 15:05
by elp
Pilotasso wrote:Well I still see a problem for the 9X employment from the F-35's internal bay. Its that the missile has to be extended outside the bay prior to launch, the weight and number of weapons in the bay space are not an issue if you can just drop them. Like JDAM or AMRAAM. But then the whole picture changes when you need to extend 1 missile out of that space before firing it. Either you discart all other weapons on that rack to carry the Sidwinder, or all wepons on the same rack are extended out together. This may necessitate a beefier reinforced rack, not only due to the weight involved but because now its got moving parts that have to endure the stresses of high G combat, and that may offset and cancel out the number of weapons you inteded to add in the first place.

Besides a bely position is a horrible place to have a heat seeker when you need to cue it with the helmet on the widest viewcone possible.


JSF will most likely do AMRAAM internal, which btw isn't so bad at closer ranges.

Image

large image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... stores.jpg

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2007, 20:41
by Pilotasso
I know AMRAAM is to be going internal but I had some doubts, and still have from AIM-9X's internal bay. Even Lock after launch from an internal bay (thx dwightlooi , completely missed that one out) doesnt sound too good if you have more planes in the same directions as the target does or if you want to keep the same number of AMRAAMs and not trade one for another.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2007, 21:14
by dwightlooi
Pilotasso wrote:I know AMRAAM is to be going internal but I had some doubts, and still have from AIM-9X's internal bay. Even Lock after launch from an internal bay (thx dwightlooi , completely missed that one out) doesnt sound too good if you have more planes in the same directions as the target does or if you want to keep the same number of AMRAAMs and not trade one for another.


Well, this afflicts the ASRAAM too. And, there are two solutions to the problem.

The first is relatively straight forward. If you put the AIM-9X or ASRAAM on the door rails they will at least be able to look forward pretty well. In situations where you have the above concerns, then you use LOBL release and you don't employ the extreme HOBS option.

The second is based on upgrading the weapon. The ASRAAM and the AIM-9X both have imaging IR sensors and modern image processors. Working in conjunction with the F-35, the target type can be identified and a set of IR signatures downloaded to the missile. The missile will then have to perform image recognition and homing in only one the target type it knows it is supposed to go after.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2007, 21:34
by Meathook
Here is a very nice photo to share

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2007, 22:01
by dwightlooi
Holy cow! It almost seems that they were trying to fly it into the cargo bay!

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2007, 22:07
by boff180

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2007, 16:51
by japps
With regards to the F-35 vs. the Eurofighter (or any 5th generation vs. 4.5 generation fighter)...I also think one has to keep in mind the enormous R&D costs the US has sunk into creating the F-22 and F-35. The F-35 will borrow heavily on the advances of the F-22.

- F-22 R&D cost: $33.0B
- F-35 R&D cost: $36.5B ($40.5B including 10% foreign contribution)
- Typhoon R&D cost: $8.0B (I've seen as high as $19B, but this included the purchase of a number of aircraft as well)

I'm truely impressed by the Eurocanards and would love to claim that my country is producing better aircraft, but I think this is not a level playing field. As it shouldn't be. When all is done, the US will have an spent $69.5B on R&D for these 2 aircraft. To give a benchmark, the defense budget in 2006 for Britain was $66.7B and France was $39.3B.

Jeff

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2007, 17:14
by Corsair1963
japps wrote:With regards to the F-35 vs. the Eurofighter (or any 5th generation vs. 4.5 generation fighter)...I also think one has to keep in mind the enormous R&D costs the US has sunk into creating the F-22 and F-35. The F-35 will borrow heavily on the advances of the F-22.

- F-22 R&D cost: $33.0B
- F-35 R&D cost: $36.5B ($40.5B including 10% foreign contribution)
- Typhoon R&D cost: $8.0B (I've seen as high as $19B, but this included the purchase of a number of aircraft as well)

I'm truely impressed by the Eurocanards and would love to claim that my country is producing better aircraft, but I think this is not a level playing field. As it shouldn't be. When all is done, the US will have an spent $69.5B on R&D for these 2 aircraft. To give a benchmark, the defense budget in 2006 for Britain was $66.7B and France was $39.3B.

Jeff


You only win in the Military Arena by not playing on a level field! Sorry, but no points for second place...................respectfully! 8)

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2007, 18:04
by japps
I totally agree. The US has such an enormous R&D budget that it is a skewed playing field. As it should be when you spend more on just military R&D every year than the total defense budgets of Britian and France combined. However, I get the feeling here that there are a lot of people who get into a pissing match over "my countries aircraft is better than yours". Well, yeah...if a F-35 or F-22 isn't the top 2 aircraft in the world for the next 20 years, then we have some substandard engineers. Look, we're spending 5 times as much in developing the F-35 (ignoring any bleed-over tech from the F-22) as the EF2k developmental costs...then coming onto a message board and proudly proclaiming that we have a bettera aircraft.

On a side note...I have seen some referances to a Russian fighter (Su-47 “Berkut”) that was supposed to match the F-22 (5th gen). This looks like the test-bed F-15 with swept forward wings and canards. It's my understanding however that it takes a lot more than just swept forward wings and canards to make a 5th generation fighter (avionics, stealth). Does anyone have any more info on this aircraft?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2007, 18:12
by Corsair1963
japps wrote:I totally agree. The US has such an enormous R&D budget that it is a skewed playing field. As it should be when you spend more on just military R&D every year than the total defense budgets of Britian and France combined. However, I get the feeling here that there are a lot of people who get into a pissing match over "my countries aircraft is better than yours". Well, yeah...if a F-35 or F-22 isn't the top 2 aircraft in the world for the next 20 years, then we have some substandard engineers. Look, we're spending 5 times as much in developing the F-35 (ignoring any bleed-over tech from the F-22) as the EF2k developmental costs...then coming onto a message board and proudly proclaiming that we have a bettera aircraft.

On a side note...I have seen some referances to a Russian fighter (Su-47 “Berkut”) that was supposed to match the F-22 (5th gen). This looks like the test-bed F-15 with swept forward wings and canards. It's my understanding however that it takes a lot more than just swept forward wings and canards to make a 5th generation fighter (avionics, stealth). Does anyone have any more info on this aircraft?


Personally, I just don't think it resources.............the US looks further down the road. While many take a half steps the US often take leaps! :wink:

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2007, 15:36
by SpeakTheTruth
Corsair1963 wrote:Personally, I just don't think it resources.............the US looks further down the road. While many take a half steps the US often take leaps! :wink:


Its not JUST resources, but come on resources do make a huge proportion of a successful design. The R&D for these aircraft are not in the same league, as I have said, the Typhoon has met its requirements albeit late and over-budget. The F-35 is looking to do exactly the same as well.

Also those great leaps you say, do remember a lot of great leaps in both aviation and general engineering & science have been from outside the US. Most nations cannot make great leaps simply because they don't have the resources.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2007, 17:09
by Corsair1963
SpeakTheTruth wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Personally, I just don't think it resources.............the US looks further down the road. While many take a half steps the US often take leaps! :wink:


Its not JUST resources, but come on resources do make a huge proportion of a successful design. The R&D for these aircraft are not in the same league, as I have said, the Typhoon has met its requirements albeit late and over-budget. The F-35 is looking to do exactly the same as well.

Also those great leaps you say, do remember a lot of great leaps in both aviation and general engineering & science have been from outside the US. Most nations cannot make great leaps simply because they don't have the resources.


Clearly, Europe has the resources to compete with the US as a equal. Yet, its the will that is a little lacking! With all do respect................... :?

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2007, 10:51
by Paulofische
To a certain extent i'd have to agree with you i'd loe it if the variuos eruopean governments tooled themselves up with fancy kit and loads of it but the economic situation in europe and certainly britain is different. I expect the US wouldnt bother with the f-22 and f-35 programs if it didnt need them to replace the teen series, a lot of effort has been placed on affordability certainly in the f-35 program. I'm not going to debate international economics in here because i'm not qualified but in the UK health service takes the most government ££, in europe various other things. in terms of GDP we spend a decent proportion.

You could argue the US has been over investing and willing to throw money at projects considering its borrowed substantially off China recently ( $ 2trillion) has a debt of over 8 trillion and by 2050 will have a pension deficit of $47 trillion. Chances are it will need them planes because when the USA can't afford to pay it back a lot of angry chinese people may nock on the door to take it back!!!

http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/W ... States.htm

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2007, 20:53
by boff180
Before anyone says, I have no idea with what loadout and what fuel consumption rates are like. I would suspect knowing ef marketing this is either clean or with a loadout of 4 bvr + 2wvr.

Just thought of interest is the latest official figures. The supercruise capability of Typhoon is M1.5

Andy

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2007, 20:53
by SpeakTheTruth
To a certain extent i'd have to agree with you i'd loe it if the variuos eruopean governments tooled themselves up with fancy kit and loads of it but the economic situation in europe and certainly britain is different. I expect the US wouldnt bother with the f-22 and f-35 programs if it didnt need them to replace the teen series, a lot of effort has been placed on affordability certainly in the f-35 program. I'm not going to debate international economics in here because i'm not qualified but in the UK health service takes the most government ££, in europe various other things. in terms of GDP we spend a decent proportion.

You could argue the US has been over investing and willing to throw money at projects considering its borrowed substantially off China recently ( $ 2trillion) has a debt of over 8 trillion and by 2050 will have a pension deficit of $47 trillion. Chances are it will need them planes because when the USA can't afford to pay it back a lot of angry chinese people may nock on the door to take it back!!!


Yes V.true. Corsair is right to a certain extent about Europe, but European projects are always held back for the same reason - politics. European engineers can come out with marvels provided the politicians agree with funding them (and seeing as politicians make these engineering decisions despite their lack of knowledge in the area mostly get it wrong).

Yes in todays age defense budgets are not going to be like they were in the cold war, defense is not the only priority. Really the F-22 like the Typhoon were designed for the cold war, seeing as that ended we are left with these 2 aircraft which seem to be a bit unnecessary, however both the USAF, RAF and various other European air forces have aging aircraft that need replacing.

Paulofische is right, the US is in an incredible amount of debt. And if you really don't believe him and me you can get a direct indication from the strength of the US dollar at the moment. I think its very close to getting 2 dollars for 1 pound sterling. Crazy, can't imagine what its like for US tourists coming over to Europe.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2007, 00:56
by Neotopia
Paulofische wrote:To a certain extent i'd have to agree with you i'd loe it if the variuos eruopean governments tooled themselves up with fancy kit and loads of it but the economic situation in europe and certainly britain is different. I expect the US wouldnt bother with the f-22 and f-35 programs if it didnt need them to replace the teen series, a lot of effort has been placed on affordability certainly in the f-35 program. I'm not going to debate international economics in here because i'm not qualified but in the UK health service takes the most government ££, in europe various other things. in terms of GDP we spend a decent proportion.

You could argue the US has been over investing and willing to throw money at projects considering its borrowed substantially off China recently ( $ 2trillion) has a debt of over 8 trillion and by 2050 will have a pension deficit of $47 trillion. Chances are it will need them planes because when the USA can't afford to pay it back a lot of angry chinese people may nock on the door to take it back!!!

http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/W ... States.htm


China only holds about $300 billion of our $8.3 trillion in bonds, Japan owns more and China is not even the biggest buyer, the UK is... I guess we have to beware of those evil brits.. :roll:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/03/foreig ... phosp.html

and not all of China's $1 trillion in Forex is dollars, If it follows the same pattern as most national reserve banks it is probably 60% dollars, 20% Euros, 10% yen, 5% pound and the rest 5%.

So China really holds about $600 billion in US dollars or bonds (about half/half)

Of course there is the factor that Of China's $900 billion in yearly exports (35% of the enitre economy!) half of them are owned by foreign enterprises (mostly American)... And that Exports to the US alone make up over 10% of the Chinese economy.

And our national debt/deficit is pretty good campared to the rest of the large industrial nations, especially considering that our sustained economic growth levels are also the highest by a good maragin.

government Debt/GDP 2006
~170% Japan
~120% Italy
~75% France
~68% Germany
~65% Canada
~63% USA
~51% UK

Government deficit/GDP 2006
~6.5% Japan
~5.0% Italy
~3.0% UK
~2.6% Gremany
~2.5% France
~1.9% USA
~1.0%(surplus) Canada

Average annual GDP growth, last 10 years
3.54% Canada
3.42% USA
2.69% UK
2.19% France
1.43% Germany
1.39% Italy
1.21% Japan

Trade deficits are overblown. Most healthy, growing economies have one, and the most moribund economies often have large surplses. The Trade deficit is merely a mirror-reflection of the capital account surplus. Other countries invest in the (generally higher-yielding) US, and we go around and use much of that money to buy their products.

On China, I wouldnt be surprised if it hits the glass wall soon as all export-overdepent asian economies have that were "supposed to take over the world"(but died in the hype). factor out exports and the Chinese domestic economy is only growing about 3-4% a year, almost solely from building up empty skyscrapers and un-needed factories (overcapacity). China is far more dependent on foreign demand and financing than 80s Japan and the mid-90s SEA tigers were.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2007, 01:12
by Neotopia
SpeakTheTruth wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Personally, I just don't think it resources.............the US looks further down the road. While many take a half steps the US often take leaps! :wink:


Its not JUST resources, but come on resources do make a huge proportion of a successful design. The R&D for these aircraft are not in the same league, as I have said, the Typhoon has met its requirements albeit late and over-budget. The F-35 is looking to do exactly the same as well.

Also those great leaps you say, do remember a lot of great leaps in both aviation and general engineering & science have been from outside the US. Most nations cannot make great leaps simply because they don't have the resources.


Europe has been falling pretty far behind the rest of the world when it comes to R&D. ~1.8% of GDP(compared with about 2.7% in the US and 3.2% in Japan)... China Spends about 1.3% and the per capita income there is only about $2000...

The UK has been falling the most, R&D went from 2.3% in 1980, to 2.1% in 1990, 1.9% in 2000, to about 1.7% now.

The EU-15 spends about $550 per person on R&D compared with $1,000 In Japan and $1,200 in the US, and the gaps are growing larger.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2007, 01:44
by skrip00
Didnt you guys get the memo? The vast majority of Western Europe doesnt "fight" war any more. They merely use their militaries as extensions of their social institutions. Except they get to wear camo and carry a gun.

England, Italy will be soon to follow. Eastern Europe tends to have more balls than the western nations.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2007, 01:59
by dwightlooi
skrip00 wrote:Didnt you guys get the memo? The vast majority of Western Europe doesnt "fight" war any more. They merely use their militaries as extensions of their social institutions. Except they get to wear camo and carry a gun.

England, Italy will be soon to follow. Eastern Europe tends to have more balls than the western nations.


Fight who? The USSR isn't staring down their throats anymore. And the EU is unable or unwilling to do the right thing on the international stage by actively identifying, confronting and fighting the forces and entities that seeks to destroy their very way of life. They are unable because their heads are completely buried in the cesspool of Liberalism and Socialism. That are unwilling because they lack the will and moral commitment to make the sacrifices.

As far as I am concerned, I have given up on the hope that Europe will ever do the right thing. I am happy just as long as they don't get in the way.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2007, 05:19
by snypa777
NEOTOPIA, some good info there, ie . facts and figures. The question I have is your figure on UK R&D and it`s downward spiral. Are the quoted figures for independent projects or do they include collaborative ones? We are always being told we are spending less on research but clear figures escape me.

On Europe not wanting to fight anybody, two world wars which came right into your living room...this has left deep wounds in the European psyche , IMHO. European governments tend to shy away from sabre rattling and shows of force. The last time they did that, millions perished, memories are long...not an excuse, just an observation.

Europe doesn`t need to spend the sums the US does on military R&D, we have been there , done that in the past. Europe, or the vast majority of it dosen`t want to be the world policeman the US is. If Europe felt the need to invest, the funds would be diverted. It is staggering, the difference in military spending between the US versus the rest of the world. On individual projects like Eurofighter and F-22 it is not a surprise but an expectation the F-22 would be far superior in capability. The calibre of US and European engineers , designers, theorists is about equal. The opportunities in your chosen field and the money available in it is the difference.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2007, 07:30
by dwightlooi
snypa777 wrote:Europe doesn`t need to spend the sums the US does on military R&D, we have been there , done that in the past. Europe, or the vast majority of it dosen`t want to be the world policeman the US is. If Europe felt the need to invest, the funds would be diverted. It is staggering, the difference in military spending between the US versus the rest of the world. On individual projects like Eurofighter and F-22 it is not a surprise but an expectation the F-22 would be far superior in capability. The calibre of US and European engineers , designers, theorists is about equal. The opportunities in your chosen field and the money available in it is the difference.


It's not about saber rattling. It's about doing the right thing to keep our world headed in the right direction. Simply burying your heads in the sand or simply playing Neville Chamberlain and appeasing all the scums of the earth simply doesn't cut it.

Anyway, I am pretty sure that the caliber of engineers and researchers in Europe and the USA are comparable. The difference is two fold. The first being that higher spending -- both in basic research and in systems research -- means that the US is supporting a larger workforce of such individuals in the fields of advance military technology. Secondly, the legacy of higher spending and continued development means that the US currently owns more accumulated know how and experience in developing and implementing cutting edge hardware. Even though the engineers are equally competent, having more employed in the right field matters and having more accumulated accomplishments, knowledge and experience matters.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2007, 16:35
by Corsair1963
dwightlooi wrote:
snypa777 wrote:Europe doesn`t need to spend the sums the US does on military R&D, we have been there , done that in the past. Europe, or the vast majority of it dosen`t want to be the world policeman the US is. If Europe felt the need to invest, the funds would be diverted. It is staggering, the difference in military spending between the US versus the rest of the world. On individual projects like Eurofighter and F-22 it is not a surprise but an expectation the F-22 would be far superior in capability. The calibre of US and European engineers , designers, theorists is about equal. The opportunities in your chosen field and the money available in it is the difference.


It's not about saber rattling. It's about doing the right thing to keep our world headed in the right direction. Simply burying your heads in the sand or simply playing Neville Chamberlain and appeasing all the scums of the earth simply doesn't cut it.

Anyway, I am pretty sure that the caliber of engineers and researchers in Europe and the USA are comparable. The difference is two fold. The first being that higher spending -- both in basic research and in systems research -- means that the US is supporting a larger workforce of such individuals in the fields of advance military technology. Secondly, the legacy of higher spending and continued development means that the US currently owns more accumulated know how and experience in developing and implementing cutting edge hardware. Even though the engineers are equally competent, having more employed in the right field matters and having more accumulated accomplishments, knowledge and experience matters.



I think that is why the US is somewhat reluctant to share such advance technology. We invest great some of money and research while others want to reap the benefits................. :?

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2007, 16:54
by Neotopia
snypa777 wrote:NEOTOPIA, some good info there, ie . facts and figures. The question I have is your figure on UK R&D and it`s downward spiral. Are the quoted figures for independent projects or do they include collaborative ones? We are always being told we are spending less on research but clear figures escape me.

On Europe not wanting to fight anybody, two world wars which came right into your living room...this has left deep wounds in the European psyche , IMHO. European governments tend to shy away from sabre rattling and shows of force. The last time they did that, millions perished, memories are long...not an excuse, just an observation.

Europe doesn`t need to spend the sums the US does on military R&D, we have been there , done that in the past. Europe, or the vast majority of it dosen`t want to be the world policeman the US is. If Europe felt the need to invest, the funds would be diverted. It is staggering, the difference in military spending between the US versus the rest of the world. On individual projects like Eurofighter and F-22 it is not a surprise but an expectation the F-22 would be far superior in capability. The calibre of US and European engineers , designers, theorists is about equal. The opportunities in your chosen field and the money available in it is the difference.


The figures are mostly from the OECD, They include all R&D public and private. There are worse countries than the UK though... Italy has had R&D fall from 1.3% of GDP to about 1% now... there is no excuse for a modern industrial nation to spend so little on R&D.... and have it shrinking at the same time! but then again it's no wonder the Italian conomy has been in stasis for the past decade+.

The caliber of European and American researchers yes, is probably similar, but the US has much more compared with the size of the workforce, and because of the higher budges, can spend more on better tools (computers, labs, particle accelerators, etc.) to get the work done. There's also the brain drain, ~400,000 European researcher have fled Europe for the USA and it's more Tech-savvy economy and it's higher rewards.

The only European countries that have similar R&D intensities to the US are Sweden and Finland, mostly because scandinavia has become the "silicon valley" of Europe. (And Nokia is almost Finland's entire economy, it recently passed the Finnish government as the largest entity in Finland.... no I'm not kidding either)

R&D per GDP (2006 est.):
4.77% Israel
3.79% Sweden
3.44% Finland
3.15% Japan
2.83% Korea
2.71% USA
2.61% Switzerland
2.58% Taiwan
2.48% Germany
2.41% Denmark
2.35% Austria
2.11% France
1.85% Canada
1.79% Belgium
1.78% Netherlands
1.69% UK
1.58% Australia
1.52% Luxembourg
1.48% Norway
1.44% China
1.41% Czech Republic
1.29% Ireland
1.14% Spain
1.08% Italy
0.82% Portugal
0.60% Greece

Per Capita
$1,198 USA
$1,163 Finland
$1,162 Sweden
$1,161 Israel
$1,009 Japan
$958 Luxembourg
$904 Switzerland
$902 Denmark
$834 Austria
$790 Germany
$745 Taiwan
$671 Korea
$662 Canada
$642 Norway
$634 France
$582 Netherlands
$579 Belgium
$547 Ireland
$530 UK
$504 Australia
$318 Italy
$308 Spain
$295 Czech Republic
$162 Portugal
$139 Greece

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2007, 17:55
by Pilotasso
dwightlooi wrote:
skrip00 wrote:Didnt you guys get the memo? The vast majority of Western Europe doesnt "fight" war any more. They merely use their militaries as extensions of their social institutions. Except they get to wear camo and carry a gun.

England, Italy will be soon to follow. Eastern Europe tends to have more balls than the western nations.


Fight who? The USSR isn't staring down their throats anymore. And the EU is unable or unwilling to do the right thing on the international stage by actively identifying, confronting and fighting the forces and entities that seeks to destroy their very way of life. They are unable because their heads are completely buried in the cesspool of Liberalism and Socialism. That are unwilling because they lack the will and moral commitment to make the sacrifices.

As far as I am concerned, I have given up on the hope that Europe will ever do the right thing. I am happy just as long as they don't get in the way.


Both posts utterly untrue and baseless (not to mention explicity insultous). Just because EU didnt agree to participate directly on the start of Iraq Invasion on the US's own terms (lets not disscuss it here).
You have no idea of Europes motivations and actions.
You guys realy need a reality check.

Next time keep your nationalistic trash out of these boards, care to inform yourselves properly and spare us from your ignorant posts. Both of you.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2007, 01:53
by Corsair1963
Pilotasso wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:
skrip00 wrote:Didnt you guys get the memo? The vast majority of Western Europe doesnt "fight" war any more. They merely use their militaries as extensions of their social institutions. Except they get to wear camo and carry a gun.

England, Italy will be soon to follow. Eastern Europe tends to have more balls than the western nations.


Fight who? The USSR isn't staring down their throats anymore. And the EU is unable or unwilling to do the right thing on the international stage by actively identifying, confronting and fighting the forces and entities that seeks to destroy their very way of life. They are unable because their heads are completely buried in the cesspool of Liberalism and Socialism. That are unwilling because they lack the will and moral commitment to make the sacrifices.

As far as I am concerned, I have given up on the hope that Europe will ever do the right thing. I am happy just as long as they don't get in the way.


Both posts utterly untrue and baseless (not to mention explicity insultous). Just because EU didnt agree to participate directly on the start of Iraq Invasion on the US's own terms (lets not disscuss it here).
You have no idea of Europes motivations and actions.
You guys realy need a reality check.

Next time keep your nationalistic trash out of these boards, care to inform yourselves properly and spare us from your ignorant posts. Both of you.


I would agree yet many in Europe make similar claims against the US? :?

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2007, 04:50
by elp
Time for some to take this thread to another board. Waaaayyy off topic.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2007, 05:33
by Corsair1963
Well, in the future many countries will operate both types. (i.e. Typhoon & Lightning) So, I wouldn't be surprised to see a big rivalry among the two........it will of course be interesting to see which type is the preferred posting? That is years away unfortunately. :crazypilot:

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2007, 12:20
by SpeakTheTruth
Corsair1963 wrote:I would agree yet many in Europe make similar claims against the US? :?


Yes perhaps, yet many don't. If a European members says something negative about the US its likely you will see a US member retaliate by attacking Europe. And vice versa. But this behavior is not on, just because the person attacking your country is British, German, American etc doesn't mean you should attack theirs. They (pretty much all of the time) do not represent their countries view, they are not speaking what everyone is thinking in their country, all they usually have in common with their fellow citizens is a passport. They are just ignorant, uneducated and acting in a very bias and immature way.

I know retaliating against them by attacking their country is almost automatic, but your just dropping to their level. I mean the KKK were American, but I can safely assume (and hope) that no American or very few agrees with what the KKK stood for. So no one could come out with a comment saying Americans are all racists. Every country has its fair share of ignorant, uneducated loudmouths that always seem to get heard and promote a bad name for that particular nation, just ignore them. Lets keep the "my country is better than yours" out of this.

Also about the EU, some are speaking about it likes its a big nation, some argue that is what its goal is but the EU is far from it. I mean the Iraq war had seen real support from only 2 countries - Britain and Spain. Relations between some countries in the EU are not the greatest. The EU is not as integrated as some would think.

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2007, 05:16
by Corsair1963
SpeakTheTruth wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I would agree yet many in Europe make similar claims against the US? :?


Yes perhaps, yet many don't. If a European members says something negative about the US its likely you will see a US member retaliate by attacking Europe. And vice versa. But this behavior is not on, just because the person attacking your country is British, German, American etc doesn't mean you should attack theirs. They (pretty much all of the time) do not represent their countries view, they are not speaking what everyone is thinking in their country, all they usually have in common with their fellow citizens is a passport. They are just ignorant, uneducated and acting in a very bias and immature way.

I know retaliating against them by attacking their country is almost automatic, but your just dropping to their level. I mean the KKK were American, but I can safely assume (and hope) that no American or very few agrees with what the KKK stood for. So no one could come out with a comment saying Americans are all racists. Every country has its fair share of ignorant, uneducated loudmouths that always seem to get heard and promote a bad name for that particular nation, just ignore them. Lets keep the "my country is better than yours" out of this.

Also about the EU, some are speaking about it likes its a big nation, some argue that is what its goal is but the EU is far from it. I mean the Iraq war had seen real support from only 2 countries - Britain and Spain. Relations between some countries in the EU are not the greatest. The EU is not as integrated as some would think.



Don't worry the US never forgets its friends...............keep the faith! :D

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2007, 04:57
by MKeldergod
F-35 vs Typhoon

My vote goes to the F-35, Europe thinks they can play with the big boys all of a sudden lol :wink: .

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be:

Four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements
Eight times more effective than legacy fighters in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets
Three times more effective than legacy fighters in non-traditional Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions
About the same in procurement cost as legacy fighters, but requires significantly less tanker/transport and less infrastructure with a smaller basing footprint " gloablsecurity.org

This statement is just scratching the surface of what the Jet Fighter can do.

Also i gotta add since USA realizes they let themselves fall behind in Missle technology. USA will be seeing New 5th Gen missles to take its lead again.
Aim-9x
Aim-120D - This Missile sounds good, real good.
DRM / ASMT - This one really caught my eye.
And who even knows what else.

Also i dont like that this plane will be in the hands of other countries. Tech Transfering isnt the key to getting allies or being friendly or EVEN making money.

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2007, 07:52
by dwightlooi
I don't think the USA have let themselves fall behind in missile technology. If you look back in history at the weapons the US introduces -- the original sidewinder, the Sparrow, the Phoenix, the AMRAAM, etc. has all denoted a revolutionary step forward. Putting a VFDR motor on an otherwise AMRAAM type weapon -- which is basically what the Meteor is -- does not represent a revolutionary step forward. A VFDR type motor is in essence a better sustainer. It carries with it certain penalties such as a slightly worse initial acceleration profile, greater altitude dependencies and in the case of the Meteor a less responsive bank-n-turn maneuvering scheme. Such a motor allows for a range of 100~150km in the case of the Meteor. This is at the limit of, but nonetheless attainable by, rocket propulsion. The AIM-120D is such a missile.

The USA is not going to undertake the expensive process of designing a new missile unless it is pursuing more than incremental improvements. Currently, the efforts are confined to maturing several technologies which may make it onto the next new American AAM. These include dual combustion (RAM/SCRAM jet) hypersonic propulsion, multi-band seekers, stealth airframes, dual role (AAM & ARM) mission capabilities and LPI AESA radar seekers/atalinks. The next missile will begin development circa 2010~2012. The AIM-120D will field in 2008.

The program that is currently in existence to study the configuration, technologies and requirements for the next all new AAM is known as the Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM).

This is my SPECULATIVE work on how this missile may look like...
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/2739/jdradmrearqtrpw4.jpg
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/6116/jdradmfrontqtrdm8.jpg
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/7325/nosefunctionalityll5.jpg
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/2691/tailfunctionalityom6.jpg
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/4448/drawinguv0.jpg
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/7421/textco4.jpg

RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2007, 22:54
by avon1944
WOW..... gawd thanx for the information Dwight -Adrian

RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2007, 23:06
by avon1944
Sorry for the double posting.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2007, 12:19
by f-35guy
First of all, it is very unlikely the Typhoon and Lightning II will ever find themselves as adversaries of each other.

Second, they are intended for different roles. The JSF is multirole, but primarily ground attack, and the Typhoon is an air superiority fighter.

Britain has purchased both. I think they will be the best-placed to compare the two.

P.S. the Typhoon had the option of being navalized, it just didn't happen because the JSF program had already got underway.

From what I read, all the Typhoon would have needed was a tailhook.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2007, 21:32
by SpeakTheTruth
I see this post has made its way back up to the top...again. Personally I'm not a fan of x vs y comparisons because most of the time the two subjects in question shouldn't be compared because they have different roles. Its the same as making a thread with the title 'F1 cars vs Rally cars', the two vehicles aren't comparable because they have different purposes, a rally car sure as hell isn't going to win the Grand Prix and a formula one car wouldn't even finish on a rally track. Also lets not forget price here and I don't mean unit cost, I mean R&D. The R&D for the F-35 was a lot more than the tiffy.

And as for the issue of tech sharing, why are people so against it? Yes you pick your allies carefully and you don't give it away to make friends. But take the UK-US relationship, both countries have exchanged technology in both directions for decades, and its why both nations have very sophisticated militaries, so why stop it? Now an upcoming technology being developed in the UK at the moment, of which the US has shown a lot of interest in is Electrically charged armour, why do I mention this particular technology? Well as we have seen in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict, coalition vehicles have been quite vulnerable and armour found on MBT's is not appropriate for smaller vehicles such as APC's and patrol vehicles. However this new type of armour would offer similar protection to that of a MBT but with a much smaller weight penalty. Now if the US closes the doors on tech sharing, yes they stop giving out their innovative tech but they also stop receiving it. If you want to defeat an enemy like Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, then you best make sure you have the kit to do so and just as importantly, make sure your allies fighting with you do as well!

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2007, 01:07
by Thumper3181
Now an upcoming technology being developed in the UK at the moment, of which the US has shown a lot of interest in is Electrically charged armour,


And maybe the army will either buy the armor or license it from whoever makes it in Britian. They will not go out and sell it to other customers and becaome a competitor. BIG DIFFERENCE between that and the rip off going on with BAE, Rolls and the JSF.

The US government is paying to repeat the development process for a competitive engine the AF says it does not need nor can it afford. What's worse 40% of the work would be overseas. Why do I have to subsidize RR?

BAE and the British govt pays 2 billion out of 40 of development costs. They will reap at least 16 billion dollars in work from it. But no thats not enough they want to be able to integrate their own weapons so that they can go out and compete with American companies for foreign sales. Again my idiot president capitulates and I have to pay to subsidize British exports.

Now could the British maybe buy the F-22 which would have been light years ahead of the eurinflinger at the same price. Sure but then they lose out on the exports. Just think tech transfer!

The big difference is we do not have a BAE and Rolls burning the candle at both ends.

Tech transfer is fine when you pay for it and when you do not use it to sell competitive products. This is not tech transfer. This is enabling your competiters to compete on the American tax payers dime. That my friend is WRONG!

As for the eurinflinger, you cannot shoot down what you cannot see. Like all non stealth AC it will be obsolete once the JSF is fielded. Hell the RAF would have been better served by funding an air defense variant of the JSF. All it needs to do is carry a few more AMRAAMS .... oops I forgot Meteors ... oops I forgot if the eurinflinger where stealthy it would not need the additional range the Meteor (oops I forgot again you could have bought the AIM-120D with comparable range).

As a jobs program the eurinflinger is wonderful. Saudi eurinflingers will be no match for Israeli JSFs.

The British have always played this game so well. You would think that we would learn it eventually.

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2007, 01:20
by SpeakTheTruth
And maybe the army will either buy the armor or license it from whoever makes it in Britian. They will not go out and sell it to other customers and becaome a competitor. BIG DIFFERENCE between that and the rip off going on with BAE, Rolls and the JSF.

The US government is paying to repeat the development process for a competitive engine the AF says it does not need nor can it afford. What's worse 40% of the work would be overseas. Why do I have to subsidize RR?

BAE and the British govt pays 2 billion out of 40 of development costs. They will reap at least 16 billion dollars in work from it. But no thats not enough they want to be able to integrate their own weapons so that they can go out and compete with American companies for foreign sales. Again my idiot president capitulates and I have to pay to subsidize British exports.

Now could the British maybe buy the F-22 which would have been light years ahead of the eurinflinger at the same price. Sure but then they lose out on the exports. Just think tech transfer!

The big difference is we do not have a BAE and Rolls burning the candle at both ends.

Tech transfer is fine when you pay for it and when you do not use it to sell competitive products. This is not tech transfer. This is enabling your competiters to compete on the American tax payers dime. That my friend is WRONG!

As for the eurinflinger, you cannot shoot down what you cannot see. Like all non stealth AC it will be obsolete once the JSF is fielded. Hell the RAF would have been better served by funding an air defense variant of the JSF. All it needs to do is carry a few more AMRAAMS .... oops I forgot Meteors ... oops I forgot if the eurinflinger where stealthy it would not need the additional range the Meteor (oops I forgot again you could have bought the AIM-120D with comparable range).

As a jobs program the eurinflinger is wonderful. Saudi eurinflingers will be no match for Israeli JSFs.

The British have always played this game so well. You would think that we would learn it eventually.


Uh-huh? Well I din't really need to read your post there Thumper because as soon as I saw your name as the last reply, I could pretty much guess what was in the post. Same rubbish as usual which I'm getting tired of countering as you seem to post it again and again and again.

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2007, 06:06
by Corsair1963
The F-35 first look, first shot, and first kill capability will be second only to the F-22 Raptor. Really, everything esle is respectfully obsolete...............much like the P-51 Mustang was with the advent of the early jets. (i.e. Me-262, P-80, and Meteor)

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2007, 09:18
by dwightlooi
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 first look, first shot, and first kill capability will be second only to the F-22 Raptor. Really, everything esle is respectfully obsolete...............much like the P-51 Mustang was with the advent of the early jets. (i.e. Me-262, P-80, and Meteor)


Well, let's set that aside for a minute and consider this...

The Typhoon is at best about 10% faster and marginally more agile operationally. How much of a difference (if any) does that make is questionable. At the same time it has inferior sensors, pilot interface, networking capabilities and endurance (fuel reserves). Hence, an F-35 without stealth is not really an inferior fighter compared to the Typhoon. In fact, a reasonable argument can be made that its 4th gen AESA radar, 360-degree optronics, advanced data links, low drag internal weapon stowage and the ability to use the afterburner for longer periods, makes it a superior air superiority platform (even without stealth) than the Typhoon. The case will be based on the theory that these features -- taken as a whole -- is more important to A2A combat success than a small maximum speed increase and some amount of high AoA handling improvement. It won't be a weak case to argue!

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2007, 11:51
by Neno
Don't relay too much on sensors, pilot interface, networking capabilities, 4th gen AESA radar, 360-degree optronics, advanced data links.. Remember that all this features can be added some day. Tiffy is just an empty box, every air force is free to fill it with different devices..

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2007, 13:09
by boff180
Don't forget the CAESAR flew on a Typhoon last week. CAESAR = natural and intended and designed development of CAPTOR turning it into AESA.
http://www.eurofighter.com/medialibrary ... diaID=7574

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2007, 21:50
by Scorpion1alpha
Don't relay too much on sensors, pilot interface, networking capabilities, 4th gen AESA radar, 360-degree optronics, advanced data links.. Remember that all this features can be added some day. Tiffy is just an empty box, every air force is free to fill it with different devices..


What???

First you essentially lambasted the next generation sensors and radars that exists in the Raptor and Lightning II in the 1st sentence. Yet in the next 2, you you essentially praise them because they're planned on being integrated in other aircraft such as the Typhoon.

These next gen sensors and radars are a HUGE reason why our F-22 (proven now) and the near future F-35 has, and will continue to have dominance on the airspace.

So, just because they're not on your preferred aircraft, but on ours makes it alright to state some kind of fault with our aircraft?

:roll:

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2007, 22:21
by Neno
Scorpion1alpha wrote:So, just because they're not on your preferred aircraft, but on ours makes it alright to state some kind of fault with our aircraft?


Don't worry Scorpion, it's all right.. :wink:

FIRST: Since the first time i see the ATF's (even the canard configurations before 1990) i fell in love for them, the Raptor is my wet dream and i would NEVER, NEVER change it for a SU37 or a Tiffy even if it hurt my patriotism i'm not mad.

SECOND: when i say "don't relay on them" i mean "don't relay on them to make a comparison between F35 and EF2K" cause tomorrow this lack could be in some way filled.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2007, 00:53
by dwightlooi
Don't relay too much on sensors, pilot interface, networking capabilities, 4th gen AESA radar, 360-degree optronics, advanced data links.. Remember that all this features can be added some day. Tiffy is just an empty box, every air force is free to fill it with different devices..


The same goes for every aircraft. But, these things do matter A LOT, and they cost a lot to make happen. How much of the F-35'a $40~45 billion R&D budget do you think is vested in the airframe? I bet less than half! Probably as little as 1/3! The rest is vested in mission systems and software. The kind of money to develop a sensor, network and interface suite comparable to the F-35 for the Typhoon simply isn't there and if it did it'll be a decade long effort.

In any case, let's set that all aside for a second along with stealth. In doing so we have set aside ALL the leading superiority factors of the F-35. But, let's do that for a second.

What do we have then? Well, we have the Typhoon which offers a marginal and incremental kinematics and agility improvement over an F-16. And, we have the F-35 which meets or exceeds the F-16's dynamic performance (probably to a lesser extent than the Typhoon) while offering large endurance increase through a >2.5x increase in internal fuel capacity and drag reduction for most missions through internal weapon carriage. So which is the better platform based simply on that? Is being a little bit faster (or perhaps not with combat stores) and a little bit more agile better? Or is having the ability to fly twice as far or as long, or at a similar range use the afterburners 2 to 3 times as much preferable? Thats still a toss up.

In short, in the absence of stealth, sensory superiority, networking features and advanced interfaces, one still cannot definitively say that the Typhoon is a better A2A platform. I mean, you'll have to weigh a slight speed and tight turning capability against greater kinematic freedom due to the availability of twice as much fuel with which to feed the burner cans should you need to.

With stealth, sensors and mission systems in place, it is a completely lop sided contest -- the F-35 dominates hands down.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2007, 04:05
by Scorpion1alpha
Don't worry Scorpion, it's all right..

FIRST: Since the first time i see the ATF's (even the canard configurations before 1990) i fell in love for them, the Raptor is my wet dream and i would NEVER, NEVER change it for a SU37 or a Tiffy even if it hurt my patriotism i'm not mad.

SECOND: when i say "don't relay on them" i mean "don't relay on them to make a comparison between F35 and EF2K" cause tomorrow this lack could be in some way filled.


Clarification understood.

:cheers:

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2007, 11:06
by Pilotasso
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 first look, first shot, and first kill capability will be second only to the F-22 Raptor. Really, everything esle is respectfully obsolete...............much like the P-51 Mustang was with the advent of the early jets. (i.e. Me-262, P-80, and Meteor)


Bad analogy IMHO. Those early jest were infact badly beaten once they slowed down to dofight, their advantage were to stay fast and unreachable. They were bad dogfighters, not to mentions they suffered awfull engine reliability and maintainability problems compared to piston engines of the day.

As fas as the typhoon is concerned Its definatly NOT to be dissed.The Eurofighter is a monster, sure its not as stealthy as the F-22/35, but so isnt the F-35 compared to the F-22.
The tiphy was projected to beat all russian fighters and was depicted against a ficticious uber Su-37 Terminator that never came to fruition.
The builders ended up with a plane that in my point of view beats all Flaker/Mig variants plus F-15's and Superhornet.
Everytime I see coments saying that its obsolete I cant help but to smile, just imagining how good it actualy is as an european spearhead.

Cheers all.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2007, 17:24
by dwightlooi
Pilotasso wrote:Bad analogy IMHO. Those early jest were infact badly beaten once they slowed down to dofight, their advantage were to stay fast and unreachable. They were bad dogfighters, not to mentions they suffered awfull engine reliability and maintainability problems compared to piston engines of the day.

As fas as the typhoon is concerned Its definatly NOT to be dissed.The Eurofighter is a monster, sure its not as stealthy as the F-22/35, but so isnt the F-35 compared to the F-22.
The tiphy was projected to beat all russian fighters and was depicted against a ficticious uber Su-37 Terminator that never came to fruition.
The builders ended up with a plane that in my point of view beats all Flaker/Mig variants plus F-15's and Superhornet.
Everytime I see coments saying that its obsolete I cant help but to smile, just imagining how good it actualy is as an european spearhead.

Cheers all.


Sure, every fighter is designed to beat its opponents. And the Typhoon may very well do that to some degree. That doesn't change the facts regarding what exactly it is that the Typhoon offers.

Is the Typhoon faster that all the 4th generation fighters out there? Not really. Is it longer ranged or have better endurance? Not really. Is it higher flying? Not really. Is it LO? Not really. Does it have better sensors and mission systems? Its certainly above average, but does not lead the pack either. So what is it about the Typhoon that makes it better?

Well, two specific things tops the list of Typhoon "haves" -- super agility and the (yet to be available) Meteor missile. Thats about it.

The problem with extreme agility is that it is an advantage which applies only in gun duels and close stern shot IR missile use. This regime has become completely marginalized by HOBS missiles even in dogfights. Think about it for a minute... even 5km is a long way and the most "agile" fighter is going to have a hard time using agility to stay out of the frontal hemisphere of an F-4. At 1500km/h the maximum translation you are ever going to have is 0.4167 km/s (thats on a perpendicular vector), at 5km your opponent needs to turn at 4.76 degrees / second to keep up -- thats solidly Boeing 737 territory. At 1 km distance from the enemy, being on a perpendicular vector to your opponent at 1500km/h, requires that he turn at 22.6 degrees. Even that is under the F-16's sustained turn limit of ~26 degrees/sec. In short the super agility thing works out to be an advantage only at ranges of under 1km.

I suspect that the "projections" typically touted by EF promoters are really Meteor projections. That a missile with a 100+km envelope carried by a fighter with a radar to support its employment out to and beyond that range against typical airborne threats is the biggest plausible explanation for any kind of a significant edge to the Typhoon. And that may very well be true. The problem is that the Meteor is not the Typhoon and it is not exclusive to the Typhoon. This is not the AIM-54 we are talking about here. Chances are the Meteor will be carried by everything from the Typhoon to the Rafale to the Gripen to the F-35 to who knows what else depending on its market success.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2007, 18:44
by Thumper3181
I suspect that the "projections" typically touted by EF promoters are really Meteor projections.........The problem is that the Meteor is not the Typhoon and it is not exclusive to the Typhoon. This is not the AIM-54 we are talking about here. Chances are the Meteor will be carried by everything from the Typhoon to the Rafale to the Gripen to the F-35 to who knows what else depending on its market success.


Why stop at the Meteor and a new AESA radar, neither of which is anywhere close to production for EF?

Today the EF is out classed by anything from a blk 60 Viper, various eagle upgrades, Super Hornet and F-22 and that is before the AIM-120D is fielded this fall. Once it receives AESA and Meteor it may be roughly on par with the rest of the 4.5th gen AC.

The EF is merely a jobs program for europe which gives them an opportunity to compete for foreign orders where anything less than the F-35 is offered.

The builders ended up with a plane that in my point of view beats all Flaker/Mig variants plus F-15's and Superhornet.
Everytime I see coments saying that its obsolete I cant help but to smile, just imagining how good it actualy is as an european spearhead.


Care to give us reasons why your imagining is nothing more than that. Just a dream. What do you base this on? And since you will no doubt be using the vaunted Tranch 3 specs please keep in mind everyone else's AC will be upgraded over the next 10 years (when it fields) as well.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2007, 20:12
by SpeakTheTruth
Ok so we have Dwight who thinks the Typhoon is obsolete, and Thumper (as usual) thinks the Typhoon is sooo obsolete it can be defeated by aircraft of the past??? Right let us clear some points up here.

Dwightlooi wrote:Is the Typhoon faster that all the 4th generation fighters out there?


Well yes, seeing as the only two military aircraft at the moment that can super-cruise are the F-22 and Typhoon, the Typhoon outclasses all other 4 and 4.5 gen aircraft there and even the 5th gen F-35. Now if you're referring to top speed, well pretty much all Fighter Aircraft you're going to see will have a top speed in the range of Mach 2-2.5, above that you really need to start modifying your engines to bypass the compressor stage. Hell the English Electric Lightning had a top speed of Mach 2.3 in the 1950's.

Thumper 3181 wrote:Why stop at the Meteor and a new AESA radar, neither of which is anywhere close to production for EF?


Well is the F35 either? Well think of it this way; the Typhoon is in active servce at the moment and will have its AESA radar by the time the F-35 comes into service. And as for the Meteor, I agree with Dwightlooi in that its not exclusive to the Typhoon.


Thumper3181 wrote:Today the EF is out classed by anything from a blk 60 Viper, various eagle upgrades, Super Hornet and F-22 and that is before the AIM-120D is fielded this fall. Once it receives AESA and Meteor it may be roughly on par with the rest of the 4.5th gen AC.


???? You know the one thing that always boggles me is where the hell you get your facts from Thumper. See usually they are completely wrong but sometimes they even contradict what you have said in the past. Well if you want to exclude the various simulations done ranking the Typhoon second only to the F-22 (the F-35 was not included in these) why not recall an event involving 2 USAF F-15E aircraft that when "attacking" a single Eurofighter Typhoon were out maneuvered and "shot down". Yes they were F-15E's but it just shows you what this aircraft can do.

The Typhoon does what it says on the tin, its met its specifications and is an exceptional aircraft. Yes it lacks the stealth of an F-22 and F-35, but incorporates LO features. Stealth is expensive and none of us here can say how effective it is against modern radar. Most of the various and contradicting stats posted about the F-35's stealth are quoted for the Front Cross Sectional area, what about the rear? That however, in no way means to say I think stealth is ineffective, I'm just saying we don't really know how effective it is.

As for the avionics and systems of the Typhoon, they are very advanced and would hardly say they are obsolete. I don't know how good they are compared to the F-35 and F-22 because I have not flown any of these aircraft. People just post contradicting comments about them which are a lot of the time is just speculation.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2007, 21:30
by dwightlooi
SpeakTheTruth wrote:Well yes, seeing as the only two military aircraft at the moment that can super-cruise are the F-22 and Typhoon, the Typhoon outclasses all other 4 and 4.5 gen aircraft there and even the 5th gen F-35. Now if you're referring to top speed, well pretty much all Fighter Aircraft you're going to see will have a top speed in the range of Mach 2-2.5, above that you really need to start modifying your engines to bypass the compressor stage. Hell the English Electric Lightning had a top speed of Mach 2.3 in the 1950's.


Actually, that is not true. Most recent renditions of 4th generation fighters "supercruise" to some degree. The F-16 does, the Gripen does, the SU-27/30 does, etc. The problem is that while most of these jets fly at ~M1.2 with minimal weapon loads (or none at all), this is a far cry from an F-22 which lugs 8 AAMs and ample internal fuel to Mach 1.7+ on dry thrust. My estimate is that the Typhoon MAY* be able to do slightly better, but probably not by much.

* Officially, the Typhoon is capable of "supercruising", but officially there is also no word as to how fast it supercruises. I haven't seen one official document, quote from a test pilot or a customer nation selection disclosure claiming any particular supercruise speed for the Typhoon. I know that some guy on wikipedia said M1.5 clean and M1.3 with A2A loads, but without any documentation or sources. But thats... well... you and I can make up numbers and go edit the wiki article if we want so thats a little unreliable. This is especially true when the guy who wrote whats on wiki also dissed the Rafale in the same paragraph which hints on bias and a Rafale bashing agenda.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:Well is the F35 either? Well think of it this way; the Typhoon is in active servce at the moment and will have its AESA radar by the time the F-35 comes into service. And as for the Meteor, I agree with Dwightlooi in that its not exclusive to the Typhoon.


Not the F-35. The F-16, F-18, F-15 all have AESAs in service and available to customers. The Typhoon does not. In addition, it will be reasonable to believe that with 3 generations of AESA fighter radars under their belt (1. APG-63(v)2 -- 2. APG-77 -- 3. APG-79, APG-80, APG-77(v)1) the upcoming unit on the F-35 will benefit from a R&D and engineering experience base which is not present on with the developers of the Typhoon AESA.

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2007, 22:01
by Neotopia
boff180 wrote:Don't forget the CAESAR flew on a Typhoon last week. CAESAR = natural and intended and designed development of CAPTOR turning it into AESA.
http://www.eurofighter.com/medialibrary ... diaID=7574


I willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that it is still markedly inferior to US AESAs, especially the advanced APG-81...

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 03:47
by Thumper3181
Well is the F35 either? Well think of it this way; the Typhoon is in active servce at the moment and will have its AESA radar by the time the F-35 comes into service.


Actually I was thinking about today's Blk II Hornet. It has AESA (not 1st generation) and it has Aim-120C8 now and AIM-120D this fall. Today's Tiffy would not stand a chance against it. Ten years from now when Tiffy may have an AESA (1st generation) and meteor, and teething problems, the F-35 is fielded by then with a mature AESA radar, and F-18 has undergone another 10 years of improvement. So tomorrow's Tiffy may be a match for todays F-18 but then you would need a time warp.

If Tiffy runs in to either plane you better hope they are out of slammers because that would be the only way Tiffy would stand a remote chance.

You know the one thing that always boggles me is where the hell you get your facts from Thumper. See usually they are completely wrong but sometimes they even contradict what you have said in the past.

Such as. Care to elaborate.

Well if you want to exclude the various simulations done ranking the Typhoon second only to the F-22 (the F-35 was not included in these)


You mean the one DERA computer simulation (you know those things that depending on how you weigh your inputs gives you whatever results you want) done 12 years ago comparing early 90's models of various AC? That one that has zero value today.

why not recall an event involving 2 USAF F-15E aircraft that when "attacking" a single Eurofighter Typhoon were out maneuvered and "shot down". Yes they were F-15E's but it just shows you what this aircraft can do.


Got a source for that one? I did a google search and found nothing. I did find that in real combat in the 90's the F-15 shot down in Bosnia and Iraq close to 40 enemy aircraft without a loss.
http://afhra.au.af.mil/short_studies/No ... bat90s.pdf

I'm just saying we don't really know how effective it is.

It has been publicly acknowledged that the F-35 is stealthier in all aspects than the F-117.

As for the avionics and systems of the Typhoon, they are very advanced and would hardly say they are obsolete.


"The EuroFighter's combat avionics are built around the CAPTOR (previously ECR-90) pulse-Doppler multimode radar. ....... The CAPTOR is basically an improved version of the Ferranti "Blue Vixen" radar fitted to the BAE Sea Harrier FA.2."
http://www.vectorsite.net/aveuro.html

Harrier Blue Vixen Radar. Yup radar based on a 30 year old design. Real advanced.

As for the rest about speed and supercruise I believe Dwighlooi explained it to you. In the states there is a saying. "There is Hertz and there is not exactly". You go figure.

The facts speak for themselves. Show me one place where I was wrong or contradictory.

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 04:40
by dwightlooi
why not recall an event involving 2 USAF F-15E aircraft that when "attacking" a single Eurofighter Typhoon were out maneuvered and "shot down". Yes they were F-15E's but it just shows you what this aircraft can do.


Actually, I think this is very plausible -- if the definition of a "kill" in that exercise is to put your opponent in your gun sight for x number of seconds. This is frequently the case in some exercises and in A2A sparing where the objective is to hone aerobatic skills. The fifteens will have to close to a few hundred meters, the Typhoons will have the opportunity to out turn and out fly the Eagles such that they find themselves in the Typhoon's sights. If the story is indeed true, it is a good indication that the Typhoon is significantly more maneuverable in a knife fight that an Eagle. But, I think nobody has ever doubted that.

This however has nothing to do with actual air combat performance. I think it is safe to say that if the Eagles were approaching the Typhoons from the rear, they would have the Typhoons on their radar BVR and they would have shot at the EFs from tens of kilometers out. And even if they missed would have had ample opportunity to fire again either BVR or WVR without actually getting into a turning contest. If I have you in my frontal sector at say 80km or 40km or 20km or 10km, there is zero chance of you maneuvering out of it regardless of what you do or what you fly. If you are lucky, and you know of my presence, you may be able to turn around and exchange missiles with me. But there is no way to maneuver to prevent me from shooting at you.

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 08:27
by Shaken
Thumper3181 wrote:
SpeakTheTruth wrote:Well if you want to exclude the various simulations done ranking the Typhoon second only to the F-22 (the F-35 was not included in these)


You mean the one DERA computer simulation (you know those things that depending on how you weigh your inputs gives you whatever results you want) done 12 years ago comparing early 90's models of various AC? That one that has zero value today.


The charming part of the DERA report is it specifies AIM-120B [1994] for many western aircraft and Meteor [2010+] for Typhoon. Not an apples to apples comparison. (IMHO, the DERA report is a self-serving marketing document and should not be confused with an honest appraisal of the systems).


Thumper3181 wrote:
SpeakTheTruth wrote:why not recall an event involving 2 USAF F-15E aircraft that when "attacking" a single Eurofighter Typhoon were out maneuvered and "shot down". Yes they were F-15E's but it just shows you what this aircraft can do.


Got a source for that one? I did a google search and found nothing. I did find that in real combat in the 90's the F-15 shot down in Bosnia and Iraq close to 40 enemy aircraft without a loss.
http://afhra.au.af.mil/short_studies/No ... bat90s.pdf


I've heard ride-along reports (and audio tape) of two-vs-one ACM between F-15s, with a Sierra Hotel pilot in the one-ship. The honcho could take apart the pair of other aircraft quite readily, in spite of the fact they all have the exact same performance. (Just shows you what a good pilot can do).


The event involving the Typhoons and MudHens was reported by a EuroFighter marketing executive (seriously) and has been much quoted subsequently. The source is not particularly credible and many posters have cast their doubts on it. (I've got this in an aviation magazine, sadly no link to share).

Could it have happened? Sure, why not. Even if it did, the incident wouldn't prove much. Having a test-pilot outmaneuver an air-to-mud pilot or even a pair is not exactly front-page news. (Similarly, having AWACS supported USAF pilots slap around poorly-trained pilots in ill-serviced crates is no indication of performance against a peer pilot and/or aircraft).

Personally, I expect a Typhoon can out-dogfight (guns and boresight WVR missiles) an Eagle more often than not... and doubly so a MudHen lugging around conformal tanks and the like.

-- Shaken - out --

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 08:42
by boff180
thumper: on the avionics side apart from radar i can supply quotes from both us and uk representives stating the computer technology inside the f-22 and typhoon is the same.

Regarding the caesar, it isn't first generation. Europeans have been using aesa for a variety of applications for a long time.its just not been applied to a fighter before really. From quoted improvement rates and the proper maths applied. It was shown that its detective capabilities are on par with the APG-77 radar. It will probably not have the e-attack capability however.

As for network centric. Its a myth that typhoon isn't. Its fully network centric with a full data link suite.

One thing that seems to be forgot over all this "my aesa is better than yours" ***** size fight is that in modern combat its a moot point.

Why? AWACS

With full data links for most threats there is no need to turn on your own radar, just use the data from the awacs download to fire bvr! That technology is already in tornado f-3s and i believe f-15s aswell. In that scenario you would never know where the other guy was anyway as you'd never detect a radar signature.

Dwight: drop me a pm and i'll fill you in on uk lfa training which is what the f-15 incident was.

Andy posting off his mobile and has just got to work.

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 10:11
by Pilotasso
dwightlooi wrote:Is the Typhoon faster that all the 4th generation fighters out there? Not really. Is it longer ranged or have better endurance? Not really. Is it higher flying? Not really. Is it LO? Not really.


You seem to know alot of classified figures that nobody else does. But let me put it this way. The typhoon has variable geometry intakes, F-35 has fixed. Typhoon has a delta wing, guess wich altitude it works best at. Dont be so absolutist.

dwightlooi wrote:Well, two specific things tops the list of Typhoon "haves" -- super agility and the (yet to be available) Meteor missile. Thats about it.

The problem with extreme agility is that it is an advantage which applies only in gun duels and close stern shot IR missile use. This regime has become completely marginalized by HOBS missiles even in dogfights. Think about it for a minute... even 5km is a long way and the most "agile" fighter is going to have a hard time using agility to stay out of the frontal hemisphere of an F-4. At 1500km/h the maximum translation you are ever going to have is 0.4167 km/s (thats on a perpendicular vector), at 5km your opponent needs to turn at 4.76 degrees / second to keep up -- thats solidly Boeing 737 territory.


Wow you assume you can read my mind even before I start spewing the kind of stuff many people do but doesnt mean I will. And furthermore any plane thats going to be into combat wont do with with just "sufficient" manueverability.

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 12:10
by SpeakTheTruth
Could it have happened? Sure, why not. Even if it did, the incident wouldn't prove much. Having a test-pilot outmaneuver an air-to-mud pilot or even a pair is not exactly front-page news. (Similarly, having AWACS supported USAF pilots slap around poorly-trained pilots in ill-serviced crates is no indication of performance against a peer pilot and/or aircraft).


Just because these were F-15E pilots it doesn't mean they have no training in A2A. The point was that the Tiffy was engaged from behind by 2 aircraft.

Thumper3181 wrote:You mean the one DERA computer simulation (you know those things that depending on how you weigh your inputs gives you whatever results you want) done 12 years ago comparing early 90's models of various AC? That one that has zero value today.


Another Thumper-fact.

Thumper3181 wrote:Actually I was thinking about today's Blk II Hornet. It has AESA (not 1st generation) and it has Aim-120C8 now and AIM-120D this fall. Today's Tiffy would not stand a chance against it. Ten years from now when Tiffy may have an AESA (1st generation) and meteor, and teething problems, the F-35 is fielded by then with a mature AESA radar, and F-18 has undergone another 10 years of improvement. So tomorrow's Tiffy may be a match for todays F-18 but then you would need a time warp.

If Tiffy runs in to either plane you better hope they are out of slammers because that would be the only way Tiffy would stand a remote chance.


OK once again not true, even though the Typhoon has CAPTOR at the moment it doesn't mean its a terrible radar because its not AESA. CAPTOR has a very good detection range.

As Boff180 pointed out, Europe and especially the UK is not new to active array radars, they have been researching and developing these Radars for 25 years. Have a look at the new SAMPSON being installed on the new UK Type 45 destroyers. An incredible radar which illustrates my point that the UK and Europe are not as behind on this technology as your making out.

Yes they havn't put one in a fighter aircraft yet (well they have, but not in active service) but the technology for these radars is there. And yes I agree that there will probably be teething problems, but I'm sure these will be easily resolved.

I found a good article about SAMPSON and the Type 45 Destroyer, have a read - http://navy-matters.beedall.com/sampson.htm

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 12:49
by boff180
RE: That engagement... it was not a test pilot... its was an RAF pilot. And there are reasons why BVR combat was impossible in the scenario due to conditions in the area.

I do know more details about it, if you would like them please PM me and I'll respond tonight sometime (I'm at work at the moment).

Andy

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 13:58
by Thumper3181
As Boff180 pointed out, Europe and especially the UK is not new to active array radars, they have been researching and developing these Radars for 25 years. Have a look at the new SAMPSON being installed on the new UK Type 45 destroyers. An incredible radar which illustrates my point that the UK and Europe are not as behind on this technology as your making out.


Using your same beedall source both you and Boff should read better. Sampson is a 1st generation shipboard active radar that was first mounted on a still under construction warship this past March 30 2007.

A first generation shipboard active S band array that has not yet even gone to sea is a far cry from a third generation (starting in the 70s with the B1) airborne X band AESA. Hell you don't even have any experience integrating all the different capabilities into the FCS (maybe a reason why you want JSF source?).

Just take a look at the ship mounted array. Notice any differences?

Regarding the caesar, it isn't first generation.


It certainly is regarding airborne radar.

Europeans have been using aesa for a variety of applications for a long time


Such as? Considering the MESAR prgram only started 20 years ago.
its just not been applied to a fighter before really.

If you cannot tell that there is a big difference between airborne fighter sized radars and ship mounted, ground based or even bomber sized radars then you really have no clue.

Why? AWACS

But the Saudis and whoever else you sell them to that we may have to fight probably will not have AWACs and if they do, well that's why those half a dozen Raptors are being sent to the theater. AWACS would be target #1 for Raptor or JSF when it fields.

Dwight: drop me a pm and i'll fill you in on uk lfa training which is what the f-15 incident was.


Oh do share your story with the rest of us!

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 14:42
by boff180
It certainly is regarding airborne radar.


Wrong.. Eyrie, Shorts ASTOR (not the Raytheon Sentinal) to name two 1st Gen off the top of my head.

Such as? Considering the MESAR prgram only started 20 years ago.


AESA has been mainly used in the intelligence gathering and early warning role. Where the technology in europe has been developed. I know the first EWR AESA was operational at Fylingdales in the mid-70's. (which is an RAF base only recently wanted by the US for the missile defence net).

If you cannot tell that there is a big difference between airborne fighter sized radars and ship mounted, ground based or even bomber sized radars then you really have no clue.


The scientific principals are the same regardless of the size of the vehicle.

Oh and Saudi's have AWACS :)

I wait to hear if F-35 will have LWS or not, I know currently the F-22 does not. Indeed only RAF and Saudi Typhoons do aswell. It does represent a major weakness against a IRST armed aircraft approaching from any angle the radar doesn't cover. Without a way of detecting the laser range finder you will still never know they are there.

Oh do share your story with the rest of us!


UK combat flight training happens in a variety of areas known as OTA (Operation Training Area, medium to high alititude) and LFA (Low Flying Area, most between 250-500ft, some in Wales down to 150ft).

The incident occured in a Welsh LFA close to a popular photographic area known as the "Mach Loop" (http://www.lowfly.net/18.html). Aircraft that are doing low level runs through the passes are regularly "bounced" by aircraft training for CAP missions above the area.

Due to the terrain in the area and the altitude of the low aircraft, it is extremely difficult to get a BVR shot off as you can detect the aircraft but due to moving around the terrain and obstacles you cannot maintain a track let alone a missile (including Amraam/Meteor) being able to maintain a lock. So as the situation requires... the CAP aircraft drop down behind the target and if not detected... score a kill, if detected... a dogfight ensues with the target going evasive and many times gaining altitude to be able to turn.

In this instance the "target" was a Typhoon T.1 (two seater) with a single crew member on board. He was bounced by a pair of F-15E's from the 48th FW, not only did the DASS detect their radars but also he caught site of them bouncing visually. The pilot responded immediately by pulling a hard climbing turn and came about behind the two F-15's which he promptly "killed". The witnesses (there were photographers in the mach loop at the time) claim from the moment the Typhoon realising he was being bounced to it all being over was 15 seconds. The event was published by EADs in one of their company newsletters which is on my hard-drive at home.

Unless an aircraft tells control (London Mil) or has a NOTAM to cover their operations and they are inside a LFA or OTA they are fair game for any other military aircraft in the area that wants to practice BVR or WVR combat.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 20:53
by dwightlooi
Pilotasso wrote:
You seem to know alot of classified figures that nobody else does. But let me put it this way. The typhoon has variable geometry intakes, F-35 has fixed. Typhoon has a delta wing, guess wich altitude it works best at. Dont be so absolutist.


Absolutist? No, I have always said that the Typhoon is slightly faster and somewhat more maneuverable than the F-35 or the F-16. I also said that the combination of a 100+ km missile (Meteor) with a radar which can support its employment at standoff ranges against 4th generation RCS targets, makes the Typhoon a competitive A2A platform all A2A threats of the 4th generation.

My points are that a slight performance increase does not amount to a significant tactical advantage, and maneuverability has been rendered more or less irrelevant not by stealth but by the advent of all-aspect HOBS missiles which eliminated the need and the opportunity to ever try to get on your opponent's tail. One has to ask oneself -- the F-16 is slightly faster than the F-18, has that ever been an important issue? An F-16 is drastically more agile than an F-4, but if both are carrying AIM-9Xes or IRIS-Ts, does it matter even in a dogfight? In addition, the Typhoon lacked the all important feature called stealth which -- unlike incremental kinematic and agility improvements -- is a game changing attribute. And, the Typhoon's sensors and other mission systems, while competitive, does not lead the pack either.

Hence, my conclusion (which you are free to disagree with or counter) is that the Typhoon does not represent a significant effectiveness or survivability leap -- if at all -- over all the other 4/4.5 generation fighters out there. While the Typhoon is competitive, I also fail to see how it is tangibly superior to an evolved SU, Fifteen or even lighter entries like the sixteen or Gripen. In fact, I see the possibility of advanced SU types out detecting the Typhoon with their 1000mm class radars and matching the Typhoon's weapon range whatever Russian ramjet derivative of the R77. And when it comes to a dogfight, with both aircrafts mounting HOBS all-aspect missiles both are as likely to get dead. This makes the Typhoon's future very worrisome to say the least.

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2007, 21:04
by dwightlooi
boff180 wrote:In this instance the "target" was a Typhoon T.1 (two seater) with a single crew member on board. He was bounced by a pair of F-15E's from the 48th FW, not only did the DASS detect their radars but also he caught site of them bouncing visually. The pilot responded immediately by pulling a hard climbing turn and came about behind the two F-15's which he promptly "killed". The witnesses (there were photographers in the mach loop at the time) claim from the moment the Typhoon realising he was being bounced to it all being over was 15 seconds. The event was published by EADs in one of their company newsletters which is on my hard-drive at home.


Thanks for the details. As I suspected its a "put the other guy in your sights under x range for y seconds" kind of sparing match. This is not really representative of actual combat. In a real fight, even if AMRAAMs were not used for a BVR or long WVR kill, AIM-9s would have been released at 5~20km. There will never been any opportunity for the Typhoon to maneuver out of the HUD of the Eagles astern which were "jumping it" at 30, 20, 10 or even 5 km, much less maneuver behind the Eagles. It really doesn't matter if the Typhoon can pull 50Gs or fly at Mach 5 while doing it. It would not have prevented a missile lock and launch -- although at that kind of ridiculous performance it can probably out fly the missile(s).

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2007, 01:09
by viper1234
Until countries give up the development of countermeasures there will always be a need for a level of performance that will allow you to get to a gun wez. HOBS is merely another trick in the bag and can and never will do away with the need for superior maneuverability.

While the report that a EF trounced a couple of Beagles is fun to talk about... I don't find it particularly surprising. A Viper will do likewise. This fact does not detract from the fact that Beagle is a truly awesome platform. I'd kill for their loadout and endurance.

I too feel that this comparison is an apples and oranges affair. Fun to address, but I think you'll find these two are competing for two separate (but slightly overlapping) portions of the fighter market.

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2007, 06:22
by dwightlooi
viper1234 wrote:Until countries give up the development of countermeasures there will always be a need for a level of performance that will allow you to get to a gun wez. HOBS is merely another trick in the bag and can and never will do away with the need for superior maneuverability.

While the report that a EF trounced a couple of Beagles is fun to talk about... I don't find it particularly surprising. A Viper will do likewise. This fact does not detract from the fact that Beagle is a truly awesome platform. I'd kill for their loadout and endurance.

I too feel that this comparison is an apples and oranges affair. Fun to address, but I think you'll find these two are competing for two separate (but slightly overlapping) portions of the fighter market.


I disagree.

(1) Nobody is saying that fighters can now fly like C-130s. But excceptional maneuverability is no longer a particularly important factor in A2A combat success. HOBS seekers, LOAL capability and the ability to fire regardless of the facing of the target are not just another trick in the bag. They are tricks which has completely transformed how WVR combat will play out. I say that based on the fact that you cannot out turn and avoid an AAM -- none of which currently have agility under 30Gs. Also, 99% of the time, even in a dogfight, shots are going to be taken in every manner but a dog tail at <1 km weapon release. In other words, it is not worthwhile to spend ANY resources or make compromises to optimize an airframe for extreme agility.

(2) The EF and the F-35 are not apples and oranges. They are both fighters. And, they are both fighters whose mission will include air superiority and A2A combat. Perhaps most importantly, the F-35 will be the primary air superiority fighter for many of the customers of the aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 01:18
by viper1234
1- DL- you might be exhibiting borderline irrational exhuberance for HOBS. I seem to recall there being similar arguments for different capabilities during Vietnam... and we know how that one played out. Let me put it this way- missiles fail. They fail for a variety of reasons. Fighters still need to be able to maneuver to the bandits six where, for sometime to come, they can exhist without being threatened. Without that capability you accept a high rate of mutual kills or worse yet. If an adversary can counter your missile with whatever countermeasure AND they can outmaneuver your aircraft- there will be little doubt of the outcome.

2. To my knowledge 8 countries have signed onto the F-35. Of these, only two (non-US)have operated dedicated air superiority platforms (ADV Tornado and until recently F104). They are the UK and Italy. Oddly enough they are the countries that will operate both fighters in question. The rest operate the -16 or -18 as a multirole fighter, not as dedicated air superiority platforms. In the event of a high intensity conlict it is EXTREMELY doubtful that the EF's of Italy or the UK would haul bombs on day one. Bottom line- even though they are both fighters; the difference in core competencies dictates that the two will never truly compete. In countries where a true multirole fighter is needed. the EF will be an also ran; and when an air superiority fighter is needed (and the F-22 isn't a player) the reverse will hold true.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 02:50
by dwightlooi
viper1234 wrote:1- DL- you might be exhibiting borderline irrational exhuberance for HOBS. I seem to recall there being similar arguments for different capabilities during Vietnam... and we know how that one played out. Let me put it this way- missiles fail. They fail for a variety of reasons. Fighters still need to be able to maneuver to the bandits six where, for sometime to come, they can exist without being threatened. Without that capability you accept a high rate of mutual kills or worse yet. If an adversary can counter your missile with whatever countermeasure AND they can outmaneuver your aircraft- there will be little doubt of the outcome.

2. To my knowledge 8 countries have signed onto the F-35. Of these, only two (non-US)have operated dedicated air superiority platforms (ADV Tornado and until recently F104). They are the UK and Italy. Oddly enough they are the countries that will operate both fighters in question. The rest operate the -16 or -18 as a multirole fighter, not as dedicated air superiority platforms. In the event of a high intensity conlict it is EXTREMELY doubtful that the EF's of Italy or the UK would haul bombs on day one. Bottom line- even though they are both fighters; the difference in core competencies dictates that the two will never truly compete. In countries where a true multirole fighter is needed. the EF will be an also ran; and when an air superiority fighter is needed (and the F-22 isn't a player) the reverse will hold true.


This argument is getting really old. In the Vietnam era, we know that WVR AAMs like the early AIM-9s were incapable of engaging targets without "seeing" their tail pipes. They also went off chasing the sun and lakes. We know that not to be true today. Thousands and thousands of shots had been taken and they work, period. That issue is beaten to death and buried. This and this alone means the overwhelming majority of WVR engagements will not result in a stern chase shot being made. HOBS merely expanded on that to the degree that you can shoot at targets way outside the field of view of your HUD and even to targets behind you. Hence, there is no reason to get behind your enemy (because he can still pop a missile backwards at you if he wants to) unless you need to gun him. In short building a jet for extreme agility saying that you can't count on modern weaponry is like saying, let's make sure that tank commanders also carry an anti-tank mine. Because, you cannot count on the main gun working, you cannot count on ATGMs working, you cannot even count on the engine working. There will be times when all of that will fail on BOTH SIDES, and the guy with a mine will be able to walk out to the enemy tank, put the mine under the hull, set it off with a detonator and win! Let's put it this way, if none of your weapons work then you have already lost unless your enemy's also do not work; extreme agility is completely irrelevant if anything at all on either side works. And even then -- even when it becomes a gun duel -- I won't put my money on out turning your opponent, but in making fast high energy passes instead of slowing down to commit to a turning fight. F-4s killed much more MIGs as an energy fighter event though it will never out turn one.

Countries who will operate the Typhoon as an air superiority platform while also having the F-35 in the inventory will be doing it not because the F-35 isn't superior at killing aircrafts over the Typhoon. They will be doing so because they already have the Typhoon and they need to use it for something! The Typhoon lacks the range and survivability of the F-35 for penetrative strikes. It also has much more limited ordnance delivery and targeting capabilities. At least as a defensive interceptor it is OK against 4th generation intruders. It really doesn't matter that the F-35 will post a kill ratio two to four times better than the Typhoon if you have Typhoons that are too new to be scrapped, you will still use them because they are there. And, you will give them the mission which they are at least capable of doing at decent job at; nevermind that it is nonetheless inferior at that job that the new jet! Let's put it this way, if you have 5 year old Tornado ADVs you will still fly them as air superiority fighters evenif you have Typhoons which are much better at the job.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 03:16
by viper1234
Well I guess we'll agree to disagree on these points. Unless you can show ample evidence that DIRCM and other directed energy technologies will have zero affect on missiles, I'll keep training my students to continue to manuever to the control zone until the enemy explodes.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 03:34
by Thumper3181
The scientific principals are the same regardless of the size of the vehicle.


Clueless are we. So is a vacuum tube and a transistor. Now once you get your vacuum tube to the transistor stage you then have to learn how to convert those transistors into integrated circuits. Then miniaturize it onto a chip so you can make lots of them into a small space that does not use much electricity and is fairly immune to shock. Do you get the point yet?

It does represent a major weakness against a IRST armed aircraft approaching from any angle the radar doesn't cover.


Ah IRST, the poor man's "radar". Lets see you can only use it effectively under certain conditions, you still have top turn on your radar to get a lock, you have to be pretty close to use it's like searching for an aircraft in the sky while looking through a straw. Why waste money on a warning system that may or may not work for a threat that is minimal.

Boffo you make me laugh.

you might be exhibiting borderline irrational exhuberance for HOBS. I seem to recall there being similar arguments for different capabilities during Vietnam..

I don't think so. Modern heaters are pretty reliable and lets face it even if yours goes TU the odds of your wingmans missile going TU are nil. Vietnam happened 40 years ago a lot has changed since then.

Going WVR is stupid and should be avoided as much as possible. Too much uncertainty. If one must do so I would think you use up all your slammers and knock out as many bad guys as possible before doing so.

Lastly what makes anyone think that the F-35 will not be a good dogfighter able to take on any modern high performance fighter on equal or superior terms.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 04:19
by viper1234
'Those who do not learn from mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them.'

The argument has little to do with the reliability of the ir missile. For almost every weapon that has been designed there has been a countermeasure designed to defeat it. This is a simple, unrefuteable fact. If your missile is defeated, the chance of your wingman's missile being defeated isn't nil. It is actually rather significant. That goes for radar and ir missiles.

I do agree that going into WVR is a perilous endeavor. Unfortunately it can also be unavoidable. Once forced there, an air superiority fighter MUST be able to obtain a positional advantage. You may disagree, fortunately the designers do (agree). Hence the maneuverability of the Raptor, EF, and MKI.

As far as F-35 vs. the EF... not touching it with a ten foot pole. Such a discussion involves delving into rather sensitive technical capes. I'll stick to talking overall philosophy.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 05:12
by dwightlooi
Here is how I look at it...

As an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is significantly superior to a Typhoon. I say this because while a Typhoon has certain marginal advantages in certain specific situations, the F-35 is much more likely to win air to air engagements than a Typhoon. The specific scenarios where the Typhoon as an edge are few, and I will name them.

One is that in interception, it (probably) has a slightly higher cruise and dash speed -- I say probably because we do not know the top cruise and dash speed of the F-35 at this point. This means that it can get to a fight a little faster under some circumstances. However, this advantage may not be absolute because one has to remember that the F-35 also has roughly twice as much fuel to burn which gives it higher afterburner dash persistence than a Typhoon (8400 kg vs 4500 kg of fuel). However, once either aircraft gets to the fight, the F-35 is more likely to win it.

The second scenario is when -- for some reason or a whole host of them -- BVR missiles and WVR missiles all stop working as they should on both sides of the engagement. If and when that happens, the Typhoon will have a slight advantage in a turning gun fight. However, betting on the Meteor, AMRAAM, AIM-9X, IRIS-T, MICA, R-73, R-77, AAM-4, PL-10, etc all being duds is a rather lousy bet. It is like saying let's play roulette -- if I hit any number I but "0" I win, if you hit "0" you win. Or, let's have a duel where we try to shoot each other with a cannon, then an assault rifle, then a pistol -- if both our cannons don't work, and both our rifles don't work, you have a better handgun than I do.

In every other scenario, the combination of all important VLO airframe, superb range, superior sensors, superior networking, much more advanced pilot interface and lower costs makes the F-35 a better fighter.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 06:02
by viper1234
Well I will agree that the JSF is the better overall fighter. It is a hell of a lot of capability for the price. It is too bad it will spell the end of sport bombing. Its awfully hard to beat a good day on the range.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 08:22
by boff180
Thumper: If you think other people that disagree with you are clueless, are you one of these people with their head so far up their **** they are always right?

Dwight:
One issue with the F-35 in the air superiority role is the amount of missiles it can carry. It is only completely confirmed (others "expect" or "guess in the future" there will be more) that internally, the F-35 will only carry 2 A2A missiles. With WVR missiles (apart from Asraam which is being cleared internal) being a on wing-end rails. The second you mount ordanance on external pylons, stealth becomes null and void as the RCS greatly increases.

The argument then is in stealthy condition loaded with 2 Amraam, in the air superiority role... you either need a "missile truck" about to back them up when they run out of missiles (like F-22 or Typhoon) or a hell of alot of aircraft to take on a defending force. In the interception role too, its a dangerous situation, strike packages contain multiple elements and multiple aircraft... current defensive conditions for smaller nations (such as the Netherlands) call for just 2 aircraft on alert at any one time. A scenario can be seen of a full strike package making a pre-emptive strike (ala Israel and the six day war) and the alert fighters only being capable of downing 4 of them... Ok they will never be seen but downing 4 aircraft of a strike package is a little ineffective.

Thats the main crux of the F-35 is poor internal carriage, in a stealthy form, the load-out is barely effective especially in the Air-Air role. In a non-stealthy load-out then it is an awesome machine but in stealthy, no thanks.

I know my example doesn't apply to nations with mixed types such as US, UK, Israel, Italy, Greece.etc however for nations planning single type fleets (such as Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands.etc) it applies very much so.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 11:36
by Neno
Dwight..
If maneuverability is not so important then i can't understand why YF23 loose..
And so F16 Vista, F15 S/MTD and then ACTIVE, F18 HARV, X31, X29, and others are been an incredible wast of money cause finally also NATO have HOBOS missiles !??

Ok, free to think what you want to.. but I hope Italian politicians can't read what you wrote, i fear they'd throw away Tiffys and F35's and they continue to use 104's with IRIS-T/9x and Meteors/120D whit some kind of AESA to economize.. no, please, wake me up from this nightmare !!!!!!

F22, Rafale, EF2000, SU35 S37 Mig29 Mig 1.44.. all this machines present and futures are super maneuverable types.. Designers are all wrong? Are they wasting time and money ??

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 15:41
by dwightlooi
One issue with the F-35 in the air superiority role is the amount of missiles it can carry. It is only completely confirmed (others "expect" or "guess in the future" there will be more) that internally, the F-35 will only carry 2 A2A missiles. With WVR missiles (apart from Asraam which is being cleared internal) being a on wing-end rails. The second you mount ordanance on external pylons, stealth becomes null and void as the RCS greatly increases.


Well, this is getting old. It is like saying that because nobody specifically drew or put on a chart the Typhoon carrying AMRAAMs on anything but the four conformal during pre-production brocures, hence it won’t be able to carry them on any of the pylons. It is not a “guess” that the bays are large enough for 4~6 AAMs – the bays are ~4.2x 0.9 m at the doors ( > 4.2x0.46 m at the roof; or the GBU-31 won’t fit) and the #4 & #8 hard points are rated for 2,500 lbs, that’s all we need to know to be sure that AAM carriage is more than amply accommodated. It is also not a “guess” that F-35 program documents specify 4 AAMs for offensive counter air and 6 AAMs for defensive counter air, both with survivability level being “green” meaning “have stealth”. The ONLY question is what stores will be cleared for which position(s) in which “block”, 1 thru 3 being pre-IOC 4-onwards being post IOC.

The F-35 will carry 4~6 AAMs internally because:-

(1) Physically it can accommodate them.
(2) As you guys have argued (correctly I should say) not doing so hampers its A2A capability
(3) Many clients of the aircraft (including the USAF and USN) expects to use it as an A2A platform and fly air superiority missions with it.
(4) It doesn’t cost much to put the F-22’s LAU-142/A AVEL in the bay or to develop a new single or dual ejector assembly*.

* Just to put things into perspective. The total contract awards for EDO Corp by L-M for the F-22 was $90 million through 2006. The only thing EDO made for the F-22 was the LAU-142/A AMRAAM Vertical Ejector Launcher (AVEL). This included the production of all LAU-142/As to date -- >600 units even if no spares were ever delivered which won't be the case. BTW, the entire development and initial LRIP of the universal BRU-61/A quad pneumatic ejector system for the carriage of four (4) Small Diameter Bombs in F-15/F-16/F-18/F-22/F-35/Gripen was $47 million to Boeing. If, as you guys have acknowledged, this is one thing which makes or breaks the F-35’s A2A role don’t you think that it is unreasonable to assume that the JSF people are morons and will try to save <$47 million out of the fightyer’s $40,000~45,000 million R&D budget (0.1%) and essentially delete most of its A2A capability?


If maneuverability is not so important then i can't understand why YF23 loose..
And so F16 Vista, F15 S/MTD and then ACTIVE, F18 HARV, X31, X29, and others are been an incredible wast of money cause finally also NATO have HOBOS missiles !??


The selection run downs are still classified. But what we know is that BOTH aircrafts exceeded the agility requirement of the ATF program. And there are plenty of ways to “understand” the decision. Amongst these, the three most prominent ones have to be a higher developmental risk associated with the YF-23, higher projected operation costs of a F-23 if produced (because of N-G’s use of higher maintenance stealth techniques that included the use of tape and space shuttle style tiles) and, perhaps most importantly, a higher level of confidence in the industrial performance of L-M over N-G (the ability to deliver on time and on budget).

As far as extreme agility R&D, haven't you noticed that NONE of these ever made put into production? And haven't you noticed that none of these have been done in the past 15 years as the world moved on?

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 19:21
by Thumper3181
Thumper: If you think other people that disagree with you are clueless, are you one of these people with their head so far up their **** they are always right?


My head may be up my **** but not for this reason. Anyone that says "well the science is the same" and thinking that in practice it is going to mean something in regards to AESA is either clutching at straws or clueless. The Chinese had solid fuel rockets over a thousand years ago. You could argue that the science is the same for the solid fuel boosters on the space shuttle. While that may be true you and I both know the Chinese could not have built those boosters now let alone a thousand years ago.

So if you want to debate at least use some common sense.

The argument has little to do with the reliability of the ir missile. For almost every weapon that has been designed there has been a countermeasure designed to defeat it. This is a simple, unrefuteable fact. If your missile is defeated, the chance of your wingman's missile being defeated isn't nil. It is actually rather significant.


Countermeasures, especially IR are not even close to infallible. You may get one with a flare or chaff but you are not going to get them all. That is one of the reasons why more than one missile is usually used per target.

Sure we have much to learn from history. Mainly that human nature does not change but technology progresses. We will still have tyrants and we will still have those who lust for power, that does not change but the weapons do. Consider how many bombers where sent to take out a target in WWII. That number declined in Vietnam, and declined again in GWI and continues to decline to the point where now a single AC can take out multiple targets. If AGMs have advanced so much don't you think AAMs have as well?

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2007, 21:02
by viper1234
Thumper- your points are all valid and there may someday come a day when you and DL are correct. Sometimes number crunching and engineering analysis can lead us to draw a slightly incorrect conclusion. Perhaps this is something that, while interesting to discuss, cannot be fully understood or appreciated without practical experience to draw from.

All and all an excellent back and forth though.

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2007, 18:50
by Thumper3181
Viper, I cannot speak for DL but I am not saying that performance is no longer relevant. It still is. Even with HOBS a Piper Cub is nothing more than a target. The point that I am trying to make is while Cobra maneuvers may be nice at an airshow that type of raw performance is not needed today.

Sure the Typhoon has great performance but what good is it when you have already shot down half of them before they even know you are there?. Once you get close all of it's extra performance will not do it a bit of good against another jet with HOBs like the F-18 or F-35. It then becomes a crap shoot. They both have sufficient performance to get off a heater. Even if they miss the first shot because of countermeasures what are the odds of the counter measures working again when their wingman takes a shot?

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2007, 16:50
by SpeakTheTruth
Thumper 3181 wrote:Sure the Typhoon has great performance but what good is it when you have already shot down half of them before they even know you are there?. Once you get close all of it's extra performance will not do it a bit of good against another jet with HOBs like the F-18 or F-35.


Who is to say the Typhoon would always come into BVR range head on with an F-35? What if the Typhoon approaches from the rear. Of all the various figures that seem to get quoted on here about the detection range of an F-35, they are always quoted from the front. To be honest no one here knows how stealth effective the F-35 really is from ALL angles let alone just the front. I'm not saying its ineffective, I'm just saying we do not know how effective it is.

Even you Thumper were very critical of the F-35 when it comes to agility and stealth effectiveness as shown by one of your posts below (from an earlier thread - 'Why again are we going with the JSF?')

Thumper 3181 wrote:Do we really need these bomb trucks? No one has yet been able to point out one thing other than some degree of stealth that the JSF has that is not or cannot be added to current AC. Lets remember at some time in the near future stealth will be compromise

To this day no one has been able to say what it is that the JSF can do that legacy AC cannot do just about as well now or with modification. Stealth is the only discriminator and you know what. One day stealth will be compromised. We can get everything else from upgraded legacy AC that we would get from the JSF. Leave the stealth to the Raptor and B-2.


So even you have big doubts about the F-35.

Thumper3181 wrote:My head may be up my **** but not for this reason. Anyone that says "well the science is the same" and thinking that in practice it is going to mean something in regards to AESA is either clutching at straws or clueless. The Chinese had solid fuel rockets over a thousand years ago. You could argue that the science is the same for the solid fuel boosters on the space shuttle. While that may be true you and I both know the Chinese could not have built those boosters now let alone a thousand years ago.

So if you want to debate at least use some common sense.


OK there was no need to be so rude there, and your example of rockets wasn't the greatest. Yes the Chinese were playing around with rockets many years ago, but the rocket is a simple concept really and hasn't changed a whole lot in that time. The technology advances with rockets have been mainly with fuel - gunpowder vs precisely made aluminium based fuels.

Really the example doesn't apply because the UK and Europe have made AESA radars before (Boff even quoted you some) and are experienced with Active Electronically Scanned Array technology.

Thumper3181 wrote:Countermeasures, especially IR are not even close to infallible. You may get one with a flare or chaff but you are not going to get them all. That is one of the reasons why more than one missile is usually used per target.


Yes I agree with you there, countermeasures have limited effectiveness. But you can't dismiss that advances are made with countermeasures and more importantly breakthroughs.

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2007, 17:08
by Neno
dwightlooi wrote:As far as extreme agility R&D, haven't you noticed that NONE of these ever made put into production? And haven't you noticed that none of these have been done in the past 15 years as the world moved on?


Russian have economical problem, all world knows that! Otherwise i'm sure they were flying today on Su37's S37's and Mig 1.44 (or whatever was it's correct name)..

F15 ACTIVE, F18 HARV, and F16 VISTA were test bed for technologies employed on ATF/JSF. I suspect that if they were applied to the current jet could have been politically dangerous for F22 and F35 (remember the end of RAH66 Comanche or A12 Avenger?).

X31 was produced in series whit 2 engine's variant and without thrust vector (at least until now). I'm sure that you still know it's name ! :wink:

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2007, 18:49
by Thumper3181
Who is to say the Typhoon would always come into BVR range head on with an F-35? What if the Typhoon approaches from the rear. Of all the various figures that seem to get quoted on here about the detection range of an F-35, they are always quoted from the front. To be honest no one here knows how stealth effective the F-35 really is from ALL angles let alone just the front. I'm not saying its ineffective, I'm just saying we do not know how effective it is.


I agree we don't know, but then we really don't know how good the radar is going to be on the Tiffy yet either. I would be willing to bet that the JSF is stealthy enough from the rear against the current tiffy radar. We don't know about the whatever AESA they plan to fit on it yet. However, the following:

1. How did the tiffy get behind the JSF in the first place? It did not just materialize. You need t know where they are in the first place. You then have to pass them at some angle without getting detected. All easier said than done.

2. In a high threat environment (one where air superiority is not yet achieved and there are modern 4.5gen enemy AC do you really think JSF will operate alone?

3. JSF has rear facing RWR.

4. While JSF design may be frozen incremental improvements to AC are planned. The JSF of 2018 will not be the same as that in 2014.

Even you Thumper were very critical of the F-35 when it comes to agility and stealth effectiveness as shown by one of your posts below (from an earlier thread - 'Why again are we going with the JSF?')


I freely admit and have elsewhere in previous posts that I have changed my mind about JSF. My positions can change if I see something that I had not considered before.
1. We need numbers
2. It is stealth
3. It carries a significant war load internally
4. We need something to sell to our allies
5. Even with external weapons it is a potent AC. That tactics that this plane will allow will be stunning.

Did you ever consider why mounting more than two missiles internally while possible has not been a priority? Why not one or two clean F-35s act as targeting AC and use the rest as missile carriers thats why. As each AC expends its missiles it flys closer to the remaining enemy in clean config and acts as fire control for them next missile carrier. Using this tactic (simplified) makes F-35 an excellent interceptor without resorting to additional internal missile carriage.

While stealth may one day be compromised I now think that that day is a long way off. Spare me links to infared images to B2s and Russian/French claims that they have stealth defeating technology. All of that tech is a long way off from production and the US continues to improve on LO techniques.

Really the example doesn't apply because the UK and Europe have made AESA radars before (Boff even quoted you some) and are experienced with Active Electronically Scanned Array technology.


Same reason as above. Now you have to make it small enough, powerful enough, rugged enough and cheap enough to fit in the nose of a fighter sized AC and stand up to the rigors of ACM, and or landing on carrier flight decks day after day. You then need to weaponise the system and integrate it with your FCS and other sensors. Once you do that you then need to develop the tactics to make it effective. Do you think the US will be sitting on its hands while you are doing all of this? Experience matters.

Yes I agree with you there, countermeasures have limited effectiveness. But you can't dismiss that advances are made with countermeasures and more importantly breakthroughs.


Radars get better, stealth gets better weapons get better. Right now it's a zero sum game. I would rather be in the jet firing the heaters than the one firing the flares.

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2007, 21:04
by Neotopia
Same reason as above. Now you have to make it small enough, powerful enough, rugged enough and cheap enough to fit in the nose of a fighter sized AC and stand up to the rigors of ACM, and or landing on carrier flight decks day after day. You then need to weaponise the system and integrate it with your FCS and other sensors. Once you do that you then need to develop the tactics to make it effective. Do you think the US will be sitting on its hands while you are doing all of this? Experience matters.


The US already has done this, a few times already, with the APG-77, APG-63v3, APG-79, APG-80 and APG-81.

Of course one thing neglected to mention is that the talked-about european shipbourne radars just coming online (SMART-L/APAR) are comparable to US designs that have already been in service for decades.... :? (1981: AEGIS/SPY)

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2007, 21:42
by Neotopia
Who is to say the Typhoon would always come into BVR range head on with an F-35? What if the Typhoon approaches from the rear. Of all the various figures that seem to get quoted on here about the detection range of an F-35, they are always quoted from the front. To be honest no one here knows how stealth effective the F-35 really is from ALL angles let alone just the front. I'm not saying its ineffective, I'm just saying we do not know how effective it is.


Because of the advantage the F-35 has in sensors and LO, the likelyhood of the tiffy getting a jump on the F-35 and approaching it from the rear is very low, especally since the Typhoon doesnt really have an LPI radar, RWR will alert it to it's presence behind it. The Typhoon will be seen first, easily, all things being equal.

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2007, 21:42
by dwightlooi
Who is to say the Typhoon would always come into BVR range head on with an F-35? What if the Typhoon approaches from the rear. Of all the various figures that seem to get quoted on here about the detection range of an F-35, they are always quoted from the front. To be honest no one here knows how stealth effective the F-35 really is from ALL angles let alone just the front. I'm not saying its ineffective, I'm just saying we do not know how effective it is.


This is rather independent of the platforms involved won't you say? I mean what about the scenario where a Typhoon is caught on the runway by an F86? Won't it be at a disadvantage?

But, having said that, the F-35 is less likely to be approached from the rear by a Typhoon than vice versa. Why? Because...

(1) With stealth the AWACs are much less likely to find it and send the Typhoon in.
(2) With stealth the ground based radars are less likely to find it and send the Typhoon in.
(3) Even from the rear, the F-35 is significantly less detectable than a Typhoon even if the difference may be less pronounced than from the forward hemisphere or from the sides.
(4) The F-35 has 360 degree precision ESM and IR based DAS, the later which the Typhoon lacks.
(5) The F-35 is much better connected to off board sensors than the Typhoon is capable of.

Now, let's say that we end up in an "approached from the rear situation". How is being in a Typhoon any better than being in an F-35? Chances are the attacking aircraft would have shot at BVR. Or even if it shot at WVR, it would have shot at 20, 10 or 5 km (rather than <1 km). And at all of these ranges, no amount of agility will get you out of the HUD of the shooter and currently given the 9~12G limit of the pilot, no aircraft is going to be able to out turn the AAM (30~65Gs). In otherwords, if the scenario happened then you are just as dead in a Typhoon as in an F-35.

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2007, 21:46
by boff180
Thumper3181 wrote:Did you ever consider why mounting more than two missiles internally while possible has not been a priority? Why not one or two clean F-35s act as targeting AC and use the rest as missile carriers thats why. As each AC expends its missiles it flys closer to the remaining enemy in clean config and acts as fire control for them next missile carrier. Using this tactic (simplified) makes F-35 an excellent interceptor without resorting to additional internal missile carriage.


Thats an excellent tactic for nations with a largish fleet of F-35s and is a good way of utilising its abilities. However, it isn't applicable to smaller nations operating a few F-35's as a sole aircraft of which alot of partner nations are. I have contacted LM press to get some clarification on the internal carriage of a2a weaponary as all information I can find still just says 2 internal.

Really the example doesn't apply because the UK and Europe have made AESA radars before (Boff even quoted you some) and are experienced with Active Electronically Scanned Array technology.


And whose to say airbourne radars are going to be applyable in the future. I saw at Uni, studies into the future that saw space based aerial surveillance systems that didn't utilise radar but lidar and air disturbance detection techniques to track an aircraft by its wake.

I would rather be in the jet firing the heaters than the one firing the flares.


Something we both agree on!

EDIT:
This makes a good read.
http://morisson.thomas.free.fr/Eurofigh ... bility.pdf

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2007, 21:48
by Neotopia
Lets face it, these thing always elvolve into "without stealth..." to make it fair.

But that is discounting the largest advantage in flight right now, its like saying "a Ju-Jitsu master would beat the Muay Thai master if he didnt also have an M-4 with a bayonet attached..."

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2007, 21:53
by Neotopia
dwightlooi wrote:
Who is to say the Typhoon would always come into BVR range head on with an F-35? What if the Typhoon approaches from the rear. Of all the various figures that seem to get quoted on here about the detection range of an F-35, they are always quoted from the front. To be honest no one here knows how stealth effective the F-35 really is from ALL angles let alone just the front. I'm not saying its ineffective, I'm just saying we do not know how effective it is.


This is rather independent of the platforms involved won't you say? I mean what about the scenario where a Typhoon is caught on the runway by an F86? Won't it be at a disadvantage?

But, having said that, the F-35 is less likely to be approached from the rear by a Typhoon than vice versa. Why? Because...

(1) With stealth the AWACs are much less likely to find it and send the Typhoon in.
(2) With stealth the ground based radars are less likely to find it and send the Typhoon in.
(3) Even from the rear, the F-35 is significantly less detectable than a Typhoon even if the difference may be less pronounced than from the forward hemisphere or from the sides.
(4) The F-35 has 360 degree precision ESM and IR based DAS, the later which the Typhoon lacks.
(5) The F-35 is much better connected to off board sensors than the Typhoon is capable of.

Now, let's say that we end up in an "approached from the rear situation". How is being in a Typhoon any better than being in an F-35? Chances are the attacking aircraft would have shot at BVR. Or even if it shot at WVR, it would have shot at 20, 10 or 5 km (rather than <1 km). And at all of these ranges, no amount of agility will get you out of the HUD of the shooter and currently given the 9~12G limit of the pilot, no aircraft is going to be able to out turn the AAM (30~65Gs). In otherwords, if the scenario happened then you are just as dead in a Typhoon as in an F-35.


Not to mention what I said earler, as the Tiffy's non-LPI mechanical array will also alert the F-35 to the Tiffy's presence behind it if it is pinging actively searching for it.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 05:06
by Thumper3181
Thats an excellent tactic for nations with a largish fleet of F-35s and is a good way of utilising its abilities. However, it isn't applicable to smaller nations operating a few F-35's as a sole aircraft of which alot of partner nations are.


The tactic is equally effective with 4 AC or 40. The spear carriers carry 8-10 missiles each. The one or two spotters only carry internal. A 12 plane squadron then has over 100 slammers to be used stealthily.

Enlighten me why doesn't that work for smaller airforces? It works as long as you have more than one AC.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 08:08
by dwightlooi
Not to mention what I said earler, as the Tiffy's non-LPI mechanical array will also alert the F-35 to the Tiffy's presence behind it if it is pinging actively searching for it.


To be fair, the CAPTOR does have some intercept probability reduction features such as frequency agility and pattern shifts. This also applies to radars like the mechanical AN/APG-73 or PS/05A for instance. However, yes, detectability will be hugher because an MSA simply cannot form hundreds of weak beams a second down multiple vectors while shifting frequency and pattern, hence they cannot use the technique of transmitting a few hundred near ambient noise level pulses down a single bearing while changing frequency and pattern. This is really the one thing that not even a PESA can do and it is the one technique which unless you are the transmitting radar -- with knowledge of the timing, freq and pattern of each pulse -- you cannot reconstitute the return. Also, MSAs have higher side lobe leakages and other issues as well.

Thats an excellent tactic for nations with a largish fleet of F-35s and is a good way of utilising its abilities. However, it isn't applicable to smaller nations operating a few F-35's as a sole aircraft of which alot of partner nations are.


The tactic is equally effective with 4 AC or 40. The spear carriers carry 8-10 missiles each. The one or two spotters only carry internal. A 12 plane squadron then has over 100 slammers to be used stealthily.

Enlighten me why doesn't that work for smaller airforces? It works as long as you have more than one AC.


This is really a non-issue, because it is an important part of making the F-35 fantastic A2A platform and it is at most a $40 million problem in a $40 billion development budget. Hence, there should be ZERO question that the F-35 WILL carry 4~6 AAMs internally. Besides, it is the operational intent according to JSF program documents to carry such a load. The only question is whether it'll make it in block I or a later block (up to block III being pre-IOC). Worse come to worse, if it is really that urgent to a client and they want to do it themselves or pay L-M to rush the process, the development and integration of an AVEL in the intermal "A2G station" is something that takes a few months and cost about half as much as ONE F-35A.

In fact, not doing it will be like saying I don't want to put in a passenger seat in my $40,000 sedan because I can save $40 if I leave it out.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 11:36
by Sundowner
dwightlooi wrote:And at all of these ranges, no amount of agility will get you out of the HUD of the shooter and currently given the 9~12G limit of the pilot, no aircraft is going to be able to out turn the AAM (30~65Gs). In otherwords, if the scenario happened then you are just as dead in a Typhoon as in an F-35.
Yes the AAM can go to high Gs... but they're flying very fast to, so a low G maneuver on fighter jet will need a very high G maneuver response on an AAM that is going 6 times faster. Next - the missile rocket motor burn out very quickly - only few seconds, so in tail chaise engagement that Typhoon would need to be nearly in visual contact with the escaping target to use its BVR weapons. And still the missile can run out of energy before it could reach its target. 9G maneuver capability is still enough to escape most of the A-A missiles, what you only need is good SA, and F-35 will give its pilot more information then Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 19:05
by CheckSix
dwightlooi wrote:
Who is to say the Typhoon would always come into BVR range head on with an F-35? What if the Typhoon approaches from the rear. Of all the various figures that seem to get quoted on here about the detection range of an F-35, they are always quoted from the front. To be honest no one here knows how stealth effective the F-35 really is from ALL angles let alone just the front. I'm not saying its ineffective, I'm just saying we do not know how effective it is.


This is rather independent of the platforms involved won't you say? I mean what about the scenario where a Typhoon is caught on the runway by an F86? Won't it be at a disadvantage?

But, having said that, the F-35 is less likely to be approached from the rear by a Typhoon than vice versa. Why? Because...

(1) With stealth the AWACs are much less likely to find it and send the Typhoon in.

Are you sure about the F-35 Stealth? Have a look at the prototype, losts of bulges which do not seem to be very stealthy

(3) Even from the rear, the F-35 is significantly less detectable than a Typhoon even if the difference may be less pronounced than from the forward hemisphere or from the sides.

What is more dedetctable, than an engine nozzle? I guess it will be detected some 80 miles away from the rear.

(4) The F-35 has 360 degree precision ESM and IR based DAS, the later which the Typhoon lacks.

Is this a real IRST like PIRATE or just an enhanced Night glass system?

(5) The F-35 is much better connected to off board sensors than the Typhoon is capable of.
Pure speculation.



I hope for the F-35 that it is as stealthy as advertised, otherwise it is very much a SuperHornet with even or worse performance.

P.s. Italian pilots claim, it Typhoon has more than twice the radar range as Tornados ADVs foxhounter radar, which is supposed to be a good radar.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 19:55
by checksixx
The problem here is that a lot of people are quoting or referencing things that they have no clue about. Your taking an aircraft that is not in production and vs. it against an aircraft that was rushed through production that is only operational with AIM-9 and AIM-120, not to mention lack of an AESA RADAR. I think it would be better all around to compare the two when both are fully operational with all required testing is done. It would present a much more accurate picture of the two.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 19:56
by Neno
Bah, don't pay too much attention to what Italians say: They're good guys but they also love drinking red wine and beers :wink: :mrgreen:

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 20:26
by fox100
Sundowner wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:And at all of these ranges, no amount of agility will get you out of the HUD of the shooter and currently given the 9~12G limit of the pilot, no aircraft is going to be able to out turn the AAM (30~65Gs). In otherwords, if the scenario happened then you are just as dead in a Typhoon as in an F-35.
Yes the AAM can go to high Gs... but they're flying very fast to, so a low G maneuver on fighter jet will need a very high G maneuver response on an AAM that is going 6 times faster. Next - the missile rocket motor burn out very quickly - only few seconds, so in tail chaise engagement that Typhoon would need to be nearly in visual contact with the escaping target to use its BVR weapons. And still the missile can run out of energy before it could reach its target. 9G maneuver capability is still enough to escape most of the A-A missiles, what you only need is good SA, and F-35 will give its pilot more information then Typhoon.


If you're talking heat seakers, then JSF is outfitted (damn well could be) with some nifty ionizing tech to confuse a heat seaker, even in a tail chase.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 20:43
by snypa777
On Tiffy radar, the Captor, formerly ECR-90, it is a direct descendant of the Blue Vixen set in the Sea Harrier, a sort of "super" Blue Vixen.

The Blue Vixen was used by NATO as a mini-AWACS over the Balkaans it was that effective.
The CAPTOR can detect fighter sized targets at 160km, larger aircraft to double that range it is claimed. CAPTOR can also interleave modes due to exceptionally high scanning rates. Ok, we know the CAPTOR is no AESA but it would be unwise to underestimate. As Dwight said, CAPTOR does have some level of LPI incorporated, but it would be a good assumption it is a much more "visible" radar than say, the APG-77

The DASS suite is also a smart bit of kit. The MAW (Missile Approach Warner) gives 360* coverage, is an active system however, so that isn`t good for EMCON. This could be cured if PIMAWS is introduced. This is a German passive IR system that can detect missile plumes in the boost phase, but the funds are not available to acquire that system.

It has been said that BAE has been working hard for YEARS on developing RWR systems that specialize in detecting LPI radars. Remember, it`s Low probability of intercept, not NO possibility..

Also, these fighters like the F-35 would, to remain stealthy, at least in some portion of a defensive or offensive plan, be emissions quiet, using datalinked signals from other platforms like other F-35s and AWACS to cue and guide say, an AMRAAM.

Datalinks can be detected, so these very signals seem to risk "giving the game up". The Typhoon can also use data this way from other Typhoons through it`s MIDS interface or off-board platforms but the Typhoon faces the same difficulty regarding detected datalink signals.

On HOBS and HMS, Dozer over on Fencecheck (I think) mentioned that going up against a HOBS equipped aircraft was daunting, but there are established tactics which can be used to defeat those systems. Interesting but obviously classified.

All in all, the F-35 systems are, and SHOULD be more advanced than the Typhoons. I hope all this fancy kit works as advertised, on-board both the Typhoon and the F-35. Sometimes kit disappoints and pilots end up switching it off!!

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 20:49
by boff180
One thing I want to know how good it works in Typhoon is a feature of its DASS.... when a missile is detected, it tells the pilot what to do... which way to turn, when to turn, how hard to turn. Which I do find pretty awesome.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 21:09
by snypa777
Andy, I wonder if that is a bit of kit the pilots will end up "Switching off!".

A useful feature of DASS is also it`s ability to detect IR misiles launched at it from the ground, something the F-35s designers have added with the aid of the distributed aperture system...

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 22:11
by dwightlooi
<i>Yes the AAM can go to high Gs... but they're flying very fast to, so a low G maneuver on fighter jet will need a very high G maneuver response on an AAM that is going 6 times faster. Next - the missile rocket motor burn out very quickly - only few seconds, so in tail chaise engagement that Typhoon would need to be nearly in visual contact with the escaping target to use its BVR weapons. And still the missile can run out of energy before it could reach its target. 9G maneuver capability is still enough to escape most of the A-A missiles, what you only need is good SA, and F-35 will give its pilot more information then Typhoon.</i>

That is so blatantly untrue and misguided. 9Gs is definitely not enough to escape most AAMs. And it those scenarios where an aircraft can successfully escape one it is because the aircraft has regained the kinematic advantage by outlasting the burn time of the missile's motor. In that case, it really doesn't matter very much whether the aircraft is capable of 6Gs, 9Gs or 12Gs.

(1) A missile that is 4 times faster only has to turn 1/4 as much to match the lateral translation of the target. Even though pulling a 1/4 as much a turn at 4 times the speed is going to yield essentially the same centrifugal deceleration (Gs) as turning at the same rate at the same speed.

(2) Basically, you cannot out turn a 30~65G missile in a 7~12G aircraft. Period. In otherwords, you cannot dodge a missile -- ever -- by beating it in a turning contest. Period.

(3) The ONLY advantage an aircraft has over an AAM is that the aircraft (in the context of a missile engagement) has practically unlimited fuel and hence the ability to "add" energy back when it is lost in maneuvering. A missile on the other hand is unable to do that once the sustainer burns out. However, if the missile is shot within its no escape zone for a particular set of engagement parameters it means that the missile will have enough fuel to reach the target and is hence "cannot be escaped" via physical maneuvering. In such instances, a kill can be avoided only if the missile is decoyed, jammed, shot down or malfunctions.

(4) The no escape envelope varies depending on altitude differences, target speed differences, target performance, etc. But it is safe to say that the no escape envelope for an AMRAAM class missile is in the several tens of kilometers magnitiude and that of a WVR AAM missile like the AIM-9X is probably in the greater than 10 km.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2007, 22:38
by checksixx
+1 on what Dwight said.

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2007, 12:32
by Pilotasso
dwightlooi wrote:
Pilotasso wrote:
You seem to know alot of classified figures that nobody else does. But let me put it this way. The typhoon has variable geometry intakes, F-35 has fixed. Typhoon has a delta wing, guess wich altitude it works best at. Dont be so absolutist.


My points are that a slight performance increase does not amount to a significant tactical advantage, and maneuverability has been rendered more or less irrelevant not by stealth but by the advent of all-aspect HOBS missiles which eliminated the need and the opportunity to ever try to get on your opponent's tail.


Aspect seekers are only part of the equation. The thrust vectoring missiles when in extremes of the envelope will have severely degraded range. If you fire in other aspects than rear or frontaly there will be an inportant part of the missiles enveleope an evading plane can use like out running the missile by forcing it to turn the most. Acceleration and T/W ratio plays a fundamental role in this and if you are flying an updated F4 phantom doesnt mean it will be as efficient as a typhoon because you will be unable defend yourself. Thrust vectorin is an emergency resource you can use to shoot someone you cant aim your nose at any given time, but by no means it will be a miraculous anti everything end of all countermeasures feature.

dwightlooi wrote:Hence, my conclusion (which you are free to disagree with or counter) is that the Typhoon does not represent a significant effectiveness or survivability leap -- if at all -- over all the other 4/4.5 generation fighters out there. While the Typhoon is competitive, I also fail to see how it is tangibly superior to an evolved SU, Fifteen or even lighter entries like the sixteen or Gripen. In fact, I see the possibility of advanced SU types out detecting the Typhoon with their 1000mm class radars and matching the Typhoon's weapon range whatever Russian ramjet derivative of the R77. And when it comes to a dogfight, with both aircrafts mounting HOBS all-aspect missiles both are as likely to get dead. This makes the Typhoon's future very worrisome to say the least.


You would conclude wrong, by that token the F-15 your nation uses would be beaten by now VS the Flanker. The ramjet version of the R-77 is far from being a Typhoon nulifier as the russians have been having a series of missile reliability problems in all their BVR designs over the years. Since the meteor is based on technology experience with a history of successfull designs in the past, and that its already in integration trials it will have a significant head start in development and reliability not to mention upgreadability. Flanker series end with the Su-35 and it remains to be seen if it will have any custumers. And untill then its main weapon will be R-27 series misisles with less than 10% of PK and the unproven and disapointing (to the russians themselves) perfoming R-77.

Between that and the AIM-120 and Meteor, take your pick. I know I had mine. ;)

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2007, 20:10
by dwightlooi
Pilotasso wrote:Aspect seekers are only part of the equation. The thrust vectoring missiles when in extremes of the envelope will have severely degraded range. If you fire in other aspects than rear or frontaly there will be an inportant part of the missiles enveleope an evading plane can use like out running the missile by forcing it to turn the most. Acceleration and T/W ratio plays a fundamental role in this and if you are flying an updated F4 phantom doesnt mean it will be as efficient as a typhoon because you will be unable defend yourself. Thrust vectorin is an emergency resource you can use to shoot someone you cant aim your nose at any given time, but by no means it will be a miraculous anti everything end of all countermeasures feature.


There are only two kinds of maneuvers possible in general when if comes to dealing with AAMs. In general the rough rule of thumb is that if the missile has at least 3 times as energetic as the aircraft (MV^2/M; or simply V^2) by the time it enters the end game, it cannot be evaded. 3x the KE quotient is roughly 1.73x the speed. There are maneuvers which are done at relatively long distances -- such as a course or altitude change -- to cause the missile to waste kinetic energy. This kind of maneuvers are almost never taken at high Gs because it doesn't help at all and in fact hurts the aircraft by slowing it down. The second kind of maneuver is taken at the last seconds hoping that the missile will miss because it cannot match the turn rate of the aircraft. This is futile the overwhelming majority of the time because the aircraft CANNOT out turn the missile and unless the missile is right on the hairline between meeting or failing to meet the kinetic energy of the aircraft just prior to impact it wouldn't have made a difference. If the missile is already below the kinetic threshold, it will miss even if the aircraft doesn't turn as hard. If it is even 5% above what it needs it will hit regardless of whether you pull a 6G turn or a 12G one. For instance, if the no escape envelope of an AIM-9X in a particular situation vs a particular aircraft is 15km. Having 12G agility vs 6G will matter only if the shot was taken at maybe 14.5~15.5km. It won't matter if it was taken at a closer distance because 12Gs or not it'll hit, and it won't matter at longer distances because 6Gs or not it'll miss. If you are asking why? Well, let's put it this way... at 1km even the most aggressive maneuver to put the aircraft at 90 degrees to the vector of the missile will only require an ~25 degree per second course change. At 5km no matter how you maneuver (even if you do it at 20Gs) and put yourself on a perpendicular course, the missile only needs to barely twitch and post a turn rate of 4.7 degrees per second to keep up. In otherwords, hard maneuvering on the part of the target is practically irrelevant for 90~95% of the missile's flight and in the last 5~10% it is also irrelevant unless it is a borderline, edge of the envelope situation.

The above is true because:-

(1) A 9G platform cannot EVER match the turn rate of a 30~65G missile. Period.

(2) Extreme maneuvering on the part of the aircraft will result in very gentle maneuvering on the part of the missile for over 90% of the flight time of the missile.


You would conclude wrong, by that token the F-15 your nation uses would be beaten by now VS the Flanker. The ramjet version of the R-77 is far from being a Typhoon nulifier as the russians have been having a series of missile reliability problems in all their BVR designs over the years. Since the meteor is based on technology experience with a history of successfull designs in the past, and that its already in integration trials it will have a significant head start in development and reliability not to mention upgreadability. Flanker series end with the Su-35 and it remains to be seen if it will have any custumers. And untill then its main weapon will be R-27 series misisles with less than 10% of PK and the unproven and disapointing (to the russians themselves) perfoming R-77.

Between that and the AIM-120 and Meteor, take your pick. I know I had mine. ;)


It goes back to the same point I made earlier. The Meteor is not the Typhoon or vice versa. You can put a Meteor on an F-15 and benefit from it similarly. The reason VFDR propulsion is not being put on an AMRAAM is because there is currently no need for it. The rocket propelled AMRAAM has more than enough performance for US 4th generation aircraft to engage 2nd rate threats successfully and the 5th generation types are able to remain undetectable way into the AMRAAMs no escape envelope when engaging he most advanced aircraft currently in existence. There is hence no desire to waste money on a VFDR AMRAAM when that money can be spent to one other endeavors -- such as bring the F-35 to service or meeting operational tempo needs in Iraq.

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2007, 20:21
by Neno
dwightlooi wrote:(MV^2/M; or simply V^2)


What is this formula ?? :?:

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2007, 20:47
by boff180
Just received this off LM re: weapon carriage. Thought you guys would be interested.

Per your query, we will be able to carry up to 4 internal AIM-120C
AMRAAM's or 4 internal AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles in an Air-to-Air load.
We will certify the 4 AMRAAM loadout during SDD. Our primary
Air-to-Ground loadout is 2 bombs with 2 missiles.

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2007, 22:13
by SkunkWorksPlayboy
Neno wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:(MV^2/M; or simply V^2)


What is this formula ?? :?:


mass times velocity squared?

/m maybe that m is meters?.... lol I don't know

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2007, 02:33
by dwightlooi
SkunkWorksPlayboy wrote:
Neno wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:(MV^2/M; or simply V^2)


What is this formula ?? :?:


mass times velocity squared?

/m maybe that m is meters?.... lol I don't know


Its kinetic energy over mass. Since 1/2 is also a constant on both sides you can drop it. Hence simply Velocity Squared. If my velocity is ~1.7 times higher than yours, I am ~3 times more energetic per unit mass than you are.

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2007, 08:19
by Neno
Ah ok, in parity of mass the only that matters is velocity, yes of course, now i understand.. :wink:
But now i still don't know why you don't take in consideration mass.. there's a huge difference between an A/C and a missile..

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2007, 10:16
by Pilotasso
dwightlooi wrote:There are only two kinds of maneuvers possible in general when if comes to dealing with AAMs. In general the rough rule of thumb is that if the missile has at least 3 times as energetic as the aircraft (MV^2/M; or simply V^2) by the time it enters the end game, it cannot be evaded. 3x the KE quotient is roughly 1.73x the speed. There are maneuvers which are done at relatively long distances -- such as a course or altitude change -- to cause the missile to waste kinetic energy. This kind of maneuvers are almost never taken at high Gs because it doesn't help at all and in fact hurts the aircraft by slowing it down. The second kind of maneuver is taken at the last seconds hoping that the missile will miss because it cannot match the turn rate of the aircraft. This is futile the overwhelming majority of the time because the aircraft CANNOT out turn the missile and unless the missile is right on the hairline between meeting or failing to meet the kinetic energy of the aircraft just prior to impact it wouldn't have made a difference. If the missile is already below the kinetic threshold, it will miss even if the aircraft doesn't turn as hard. If it is even 5% above what it needs it will hit regardless of whether you pull a 6G turn or a 12G one. For instance, if the no escape envelope of an AIM-9X in a particular situation vs a particular aircraft is 15km. Having 12G agility vs 6G will matter only if the shot was taken at maybe 14.5~15.5km. It won't matter if it was taken at a closer distance because 12Gs or not it'll hit, and it won't matter at longer distances because 6Gs or not it'll miss. If you are asking why? Well, let's put it this way... at 1km even the most aggressive maneuver to put the aircraft at 90 degrees to the vector of the missile will only require an ~25 degree per second course change. At 5km no matter how you maneuver (even if you do it at 20Gs) and put yourself on a perpendicular course, the missile only needs to barely twitch and post a turn rate of 4.7 degrees per second to keep up. In otherwords, hard maneuvering on the part of the target is practically irrelevant for 90~95% of the missile's flight and in the last 5~10% it is also irrelevant unless it is a borderline, edge of the envelope situation.

The above is true because:-

(1) A 9G platform cannot EVER match the turn rate of a 30~65G missile. Period.

(2) Extreme maneuvering on the part of the aircraft will result in very gentle maneuvering on the part of the missile for over 90% of the flight time of the missile.


Thanks for lecturing me :D (I have an engineering degree)

(1) A MIg-15 that cannot sustain even 6G's but will outturn the f-16 any time of the day in its own turf of the envelope. Max G's will not tell you wich flying object will be the most manueverable one.
Aviation enthusiasts should end this mith about usuing G capability alone to benchmark agility. While I dont expect any plane to out turn a heat seeker in its best envelope theres alot to it than just that.

(2) As you explain later on your post theres a thing called No escape zone, one of the things that fighter pilots are taught to, are to stay away from the no escape zone. For heat seekers its about 3 miles, much less than that if they have to turn hard, worse if its off boresight shot. For AMRAAM its about 10 miles. If both sides have competent missiles and pilots you will not expect them to fire only when the DLZ reaches the no escape zone because then both will be killed. what will hapen is that launches will leikely be donne outside, but as close as the pilots judge they can get away with it. As long as this happens, the target still remains in a defendable position. 3 miles is about the range to begin a knife fight, 10 miles will also feel quite close, so as you can see the fight will be on much further away from that.

dwightlooi wrote:
If the missile is already below the kinetic threshold, it will miss even if the aircraft doesn't turn as hard. If it is even 5% above what it needs it will hit regardless of whether you pull a 6G turn or a 12G one. For instance, if the no escape envelope of an AIM-9X in a particular situation vs a particular aircraft is 15km. Having 12G agility vs 6G will matter only if the shot was taken at maybe 14.5~15.5km. It won't matter if it was taken at a closer distance because 12Gs or not it'll hit, and it won't matter at longer distances because 6Gs or not it'll miss. If you are asking why? Well, let's put it this way... at 1km even the most aggressive maneuver to put the aircraft at 90 degrees to the vector of the missile will only require an ~25 degree per second course change. At 5km no matter how you maneuver (even if you do it at 20Gs) and put yourself on a perpendicular course, the missile only needs to barely twitch and post a turn rate of 4.7 degrees per second to keep up. In otherwords, hard maneuvering on the part of the target is practically irrelevant for 90~95% of the missile's flight and in the last 5~10% it is also irrelevant unless it is a borderline, edge of the envelope situation.


Several things mistakenly overrated here: Missile burn time is 4 secs for the AIM-9 and 7-8s for the AMRAAM. On average AMRAAM can spend up to 30s of usefull flight time while guiding. A similar percentage of time is spent for sidwinders, the vast majority of that 15km range will be spent on gliding flight, no way this can be its NOEZ unless your talking about the AMRAAM.
After that every turn you force the missile to do, its max G capability and the ability to match the target gets down REAL fast, not to a mush but enough to be defendable. This is of course not assuming any countermeasures.

Puting it short and taking in consideration all the above, no the typhoon is not obsolete and Aircraft perfomance--STILL-- does matter, Thrust vectoring is not the thunderbolt of death you think it is by seeing some cute test shots in videos. If you think otherwise, IMHo then you commiting the same mistake that has been made before about missiles be the end of fighters and aereal combat as we know it.

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2007, 20:40
by dwightlooi
A few things...

(1) I think you are WAY under-rating the no-escape envelope of both BVR and WVR AAMs. No offense intended, but those numbers and perceptions may be from 1950s era AIM-9Bs. The AIM-9X has a maximum range in excess of 40km and a no escape envelope against typical high performance fighters probably at least 1/3 of that. The AIM-120C/D is a 75~100+ km range missile with a no escape zone that is a few scores of km at the minimum -- that is why it is called a BVR AAM.

(2) IMHO, you are also way short on the burn time of AAM motors. 4 seconds may be true of the boost grain of some missiles, but it is definitely not true of the sustainer grain. An AMRAAM -- from the live fire videos -- shows an active motor about 30 seconds into the flight (assuming an average speed of 3500 km/h (Mach 3.3) is about 29 km out. In a high speed high altitude launch the latest AMRAAMs like the C7 or D will most likely be faster than Mach 3.5 even at distances in excess of 75~100km. There isn't an AIM-9X video that tracked a single missile that long, but there are multiple clips showing an active motor for over 10 seconds -- including one during which the missile turned ~180 degrees in a maneuver that started about ~1.5 seconds post launch and took about 2 seconds to complete after which the missile accelerated in the reversed vector.

(3) I think it is safe to say that at 10km or more for an AIM-9X and probably at least 25 km for an AMRAAM, the motor will be active and the missile will be very close to its maximum velocity. At those ranges, and probably a considerable distance beyond that, it will be impossible to out maneuver the AAM. To put things into perspective, a bullet leaving the muzzle at 3000 fps (about 3270 km/h) will lose about 1/3 of its velocity at about 500 m. Now, in the thinner air of higher altitudes and with the long pencil like shape of the AAM, velocity loss will not be as pronounced, but even if it takes ten times as long to lose 1/3 of its velocity (I am being generous here) a missile going Mach 4 will be Mach 2.6 about 5 km after burnout and Mach Mach 1.7 10 km after burnout. This is also why there is a sustainer! In other words, if your assertions are true, then the numbers do not support the existence of missile with effective ranges of over 50 or even 100km.

(4) It is a little beyond the scope of this post, but let me briefly say that the specific impulse of the typical missile grade PBAN, HTPE, and HTPB motor is 200~235 seconds at sea level and about 260~290 seconds near vacuum. What this means is that an AAM which is say 50% fuel by mass (again I am being conservative) will have no problems sustaining a thrust level equivalent to its own launch weight for at least 120 seconds or twice its launch weight for at least 60 seconds. In other words, a 300 lbs AAM will be able to keep make 600 lbs of thrust for 1 minute if it has a propellant fraction of 50% and there is no boost grain. Even if 2/3 of the fuel is expended to generate 20 times the missile's mass in thrust (~6000 lbs thrust for a 300 lbs missile) to get it to speed explosively, there is still enough fuel for 600 lbs thrust for another 20 seconds for a total burn time of 24 seconds. And as I have said, my assumptions as to the fuel fraction are very conservative and many AAMs will exceed them and just about every evolution of an existing design adds to sustainer mass to extend range. while keeping the boost grain pretty much the same since the missile is not heavier overall.

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2007, 21:04
by elp
I agree that combat performance of R-27 sux (ethiopia v eritrea ) some years back. And before anyone thinks that was total bush-league, you had some Ru and Uk fliers on each side that knew stuff.

So yeah R-27 in it's newer forms either is improved on QC or it is not. Who knows? Add to that all the spin-off variants.

I wouldn't be quick to poo poo R-77. India holds Ru-tech vendors to task these days if they don't like stuff. And of course you have the Chicom cousins that use some of this technology. An intel briefer talking to aircrew would error big time on the side of caution. Hoping that R-77 was junk years ago would be foolish but you might get by. Thinking that R-77 can't do the job today, would be down right dumb.

-----

Re: weapons integration for the RAF F-35 one should first consider this:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8148.html

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 02:58
by snypa777
elp wrote: Re: weapons integration for the RAF F-35 one should first consider this:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8148.html


Requirements change... Typhoon wasn`t supposed to be equipped with a gun and ammunition. Afghanistan has changed that thinking, the prospect of Typhoon going operational in that theatre next year has focused minds. The troops on the ground want CAS with cannon fire. The aircraft will go with a fully operational gun if it gets there due almost entirely to pressure applied by the guys fighting over there. Don`t bet that weapons requirements won`t change, they change with new governments and shifting foreign/domestic policy.

A decision to equip UK F-35s with a weapons fit in 2005 may not hold water when the first RAF F-35s go into action over a desert near you..!
Generally, and this holds true for most forces, when the RAF needs a particular system, they get it and integrate FAST, along with the appearance of funding.

If the RN needs Meteor (It will already fit into F-35 bays, MBDA have ALREADY done the re-design) that`s what the navy will get...eventually. During the Falklands conflict, some VERY quick weapons/pylon/wiring integration was carried out at Ascension Island to enable Vulcans to carry SHRIKES on the old (Canceled) SKYBOLT positions.

A reactive policy usually leads to tragedy before victory and is certainly no way to run your military. I certainly wouldn`t say there is anything definite about an aircraft that hasn`t even entered production or is being delivered,
especially in the MODs mad , mad world!

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 12:51
by dwightlooi
snypa777 wrote:If the RN needs Meteor (It will already fit into F-35 bays, MBDA have ALREADY done the re-design) that`s what the navy will get...eventually. During the Falklands conflict, some VERY quick weapons/pylon/wiring integration was carried out at Ascension Island to enable Vulcans to carry SHRIKES on the old (Canceled) SKYBOLT positions.


There won't be any rewiring. The physical wiring for the Meteor will be the same between the Meteor and the AIM-120. The physical interface is also the same so the missile will go on the same rails and ejectors. This is actually designed into the Meteor, quite independently of the F-35, so it;ll go on the same rails and conformal ejectors currently used for the AMRAAM on a wide variety of platforms. Integration will be a software affair to get the weapon profile onto the F-35's fire control systems.

There won't be an F-35 version of the Meteor either. Instead, MBDA has made small changes to the Meteor missile such that all Meteors will fit the F-35. Basically, the changes amounted to sizing the upper fin span to be the same as the AIM-120.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 13:26
by snypa777
Yeah, Dwight`, I used the Vulcan as an example of quick field craft and rapid procurement really. I also know that all it would require is software integration to field Meteor in the F-35, and MBDA have shortened the fins to enable fit.

My point was that policy/procurement changes happen almost daily within the MOD. The order for the number of Meteor rounds for the Typhoon was cut back last year, that doesn`t bode well for a RN Meteor. This decision can of course be easily revised if the Navy need the weapon. More likely, the Navy will be asked to make do without.
The UK military is waiting with baited breath on whether the prime minister in waiting Gordon Brown will be more "armed forces friendly". With a new Prime Minister, invariably a new defence white paper arrives in service chiefs in-trays.
The military are waiting for the upturned or down-turned thumb!

A Brimstone anti-armour weapon will really spoil a stealthy F-35 profile, the GR-4 carries 12 of them.
Typhoon will field Brimstone and Storm-Shadow anyway, so why integrate them on the F-35? Storm Shadow is a stand off weapon and I don`t really see the need for Storm Shadow to be launched from a stealthy aircraft, tactically. The UK won`t be using Typhoon as an air dominance platform exclusively, it`s going multi-role in the RAF.

I see a good case tactically for Meteor armed Navy F-35s, Brimstone and Storm Shadow make less sense. I think the RAF wants the F-35 as it`s J-DAM carrying silver bullet force, why buy a stealthy aircraft to hang munitions off it? We might as well have bought more Typhoons.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 14:05
by dwightlooi
snypa777 wrote:A Brimstone anti-armour weapon will really spoil a stealthy F-35 profile, the GR-4 carries 12 of them.
Typhoon will field Brimstone and Storm-Shadow anyway, so why integrate them on the F-35? Storm Shadow is a stand off weapon and I don`t really see the need for Storm Shadow to be launched from a stealthy aircraft, tactically. The UK won`t be using Typhoon as an air dominance platform exclusively, it`s going multi-role in the RAF.

I see a good case tactically for Meteor armed Navy F-35s, Brimstone and Storm Shadow make less sense. I think the RAF wants the F-35 as it`s J-DAM carrying silver bullet force, why buy a stealthy aircraft to hang munitions off it? We might as well have bought more Typhoons.


Actually, the Brimstone would have been integrated for BOTH internal and external carriage. The Brimstone rack would have been similar to the BRU-61/A used for the 285 lb GBU-39 small diameter bombs in that it would carry 4 Brimstone missiles on each of the two internal bulky ordnance stations for a total of eight internal weapons. The same rack can also be used externally -- again similar to the BRU-61/A.

What happened was that the Brimstone is supposed to share the same ejector with the US JCM (Joint Common Missile) -- another Hellfire development with an extended motor and a tri-band seeker (millimeter wave radar, Imaging IR and laser). The JCM was cancelled by the Rumsfeld DOD. It was "rescued" by congress and given continued but reduced development funding, but is now pretty much in limbo in that it is still "alive" but with no definitive schedule for service entry dates or development milestones.

Because the JCM was "cancelled" the rack that would have been part of its program was also defunded. There goes Brmstone's free ride to internal carriage on the F-35. My guess is that, the UK then decided that it makes no sense fund a "rush" to complete Brimstone integration for the F-35's internal bay during the SDD phase (prior to 2012) because the RN will not receive F-35Bs prior to that anyway! Instead, they do a wait and see. If the JCM or derivative comes back, the Brimstone gets a free ride. If not, then the integration can come in the second decade of the millenium when the UK will actually get F-35Bs on RN decks.

The following shows the list of weapons to be integrated (internally and/or externally) for the F-35 during the SDD phase of the program (Block I thru III)

Image
Right click "View Image" or folllow the link below for larger picture. As you can see, the plate is quite full!
From recent developments, you can add the Meteor to that chart.
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/9446/f35weaponsiz3.jpg

The Storm Shadow will not fit internally, and it is a stand off weapon whose employment will not require the F-35 to penetrate enemy airspace anyway. The idea to have the aircraft carry it is so that the RN has something to shoot the Storm Shadow from since it cannot have Typhoons or Tornados on deck.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 14:37
by boff180
Dwight: A launcher is already developed for the brimstone and is said to "stealthy" can't they just clear that for carriage externally? And maybe modify for internal.. being as its a rail launcher it would need modifying to "drop" the weapon prior to the rocket firing.

Image

Andy

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 15:20
by dwightlooi
boff180 wrote:Dwight: A launcher is already developed for the brimstone and is said to "stealthy" can't they just clear that for carriage externally? And maybe modify for internal.. being as its a rail launcher it would need modifying to "drop" the weapon prior to the rocket firing.

Image

Andy


(1) I am pretty sure putting these triple racks on one of the F-35's external hard points is no more difficult than hanging a bomb rack on them. Which is to say it is no problem at all and will most likely be done.

(2) I don't think that rack is stealthy at all in the context of a VLO aircraft like the F-35 which is likely to be stealthier than a single missile itself.

(3) This rack will definitely not fit internally for two reasons. The first being that the Brimstone is about 9" wide inclusive of the wings. Three of them is about 27" wide without any clearance between them. The maximum width the F-35's internal rack can have is about 18~23" depending on how high in the bay the store as to occupy -- larger single stores need to be narrower, smaller stores hung lower can be wider. The bay will accommodate an 18" box right to the roof (eg. 2000 lbs JDAM is 18x18"), but widens lower down. It is about 35" wide at the mouth, but that includes allowances for the 12.5" box section of the door AMRAAM. The second reason is that this is a rail launcher and will launch the Brimstone straight into the F-35's fuselage. The internal rack has to be an "ejector" style dispenser which ejects the missiles vertically downwards.

(4) The JCM/Brimstone rack was to have been a quad rack with 2x2 missiles in tandem. It is somewhat similar to the BRU-61/A shown here which carries four of the 285 lb SDBs.

BRU-61/A in F-22's internal bay.
Image

BRU-61/A on what looks like an F-15
Image

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 17:49
by fox100
You know the F-35 may be a truly stealthy airframe after all. What with fiberous layers underneath the paint which 'screen' em energy reflections...
Along with frequency shifting on the top coatings for the IR wavelengths and 'special' stuff shot out of the exhaust to confound IR seakers; but the plane is still a turkey; even with its massive programs which coupled with sensors to detect missile launches and then appropriately 'launch' countermeasures without the pilot pushing a button. I doubt that it can fire internal aams while at high supersonic airspeeds, and looking at the surface area of the aircraft, coupled with weight/loadings, and looking at how much of the weight distribution is spread out from the centerline.... This plane with its massive thrust is likely to only marginally better at turning. because of its vectoring nozzel. And the plane does not take into account the advances in supercruise ability ('m positive it cant touch the 22s top end cruise of M2.3; don't anyone tell me supercruise is a waste for a2a and/or a2g. With the 35 its almost as if we discovered we could break the sound barrier and developed a plane to take advantage of that ability, and then with our next fighter we go out and devleope a plane prior to the advancement in airspeed. Too much emphasis on a2g and not a2a; we're fielding a plane which fights the last two (or three) wars in which the enemy never came up to fight. This is a mistake. This is a mistake to limit our top of the line worlds best fighter to 183 airframes to protect some ~1000 (we're not getting the full force planed for the F-35). If there's ever a 'real' war with a real enemy there's going to be parity on the fighter plane scenario.... Lots of electronic soup, radars turned off, an F-35 will be on stealthy parity with whatever the Russians/Chi-Coms are rolling out soon.... and the 35 may be at a disadvantage in the turing fight as well - time will tell, and the time is fast approaching. Keep in mind you guys are also talking about the white world information on these other airplanes, and not the black world stuff which you aint gonna find on Google.

Best of luck to my Air Force and our boys in nomex.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 17:57
by viper1234
Dwight- Please tell me that you are retired and therefore have an abundance of free time to do the research and write your posts... ;) Seriously my compliments on your posts. I may disagree from time to time but I appreciate your ferver and dedication.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 20:04
by dwightlooi
viper1234 wrote:Dwight- Please tell me that you are retired and therefore have an abundance of free time to do the research and write your posts... ;) Seriously my compliments on your posts. I may disagree from time to time but I appreciate your ferver and dedication.


No I am not. But my job right now involves a lot sitting around a lot waiting for a crisis to happen.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 20:34
by dwightlooi
fox100 wrote:You know the F-35 may be a truly stealthy airframe after all. What with fiberous layers underneath the paint which 'screen' em energy reflections...
Along with frequency shifting on the top coatings for the IR wavelengths and 'special' stuff shot out of the exhaust to confound IR seakers; but the plane is still a turkey; even with its massive programs which coupled with sensors to detect missile launches and then appropriately 'launch' countermeasures without the pilot pushing a button. I doubt that it can fire internal aams while at high supersonic airspeeds, and looking at the surface area of the aircraft, coupled with weight/loadings, and looking at how much of the weight distribution is spread out from the centerline.... This plane with its massive thrust is likely to only marginally better at turning. because of its vectoring nozzel. And the plane does not take into account the advances in supercruise ability ('m positive it cant touch the 22s top end cruise of M2.3; don't anyone tell me supercruise is a waste for a2a and/or a2g. With the 35 its almost as if we discovered we could break the sound barrier and developed a plane to take advantage of that ability, and then with our next fighter we go out and devleope a plane prior to the advancement in airspeed. Too much emphasis on a2g and not a2a; we're fielding a plane which fights the last two (or three) wars in which the enemy never came up to fight. This is a mistake. This is a mistake to limit our top of the line worlds best fighter to 183 airframes to protect some ~1000 (we're not getting the full force planed for the F-35). If there's ever a 'real' war with a real enemy there's going to be parity on the fighter plane scenario.... Lots of electronic soup, radars turned off, an F-35 will be on stealthy parity with whatever the Russians/Chi-Coms are rolling out soon.... and the 35 may be at a disadvantage in the turing fight as well - time will tell, and the time is fast approaching. Keep in mind you guys are also talking about the white world information on these other airplanes, and not the black world stuff which you aint gonna find on Google.

Best of luck to my Air Force and our boys in nomex.


A few things...

(1) The thrust to weight ratio of the F-35A is actually similar to that of the SU-27/30 (in fact very slightly better). So it is no performance slouch. It is also much more likely to realize its full "clean aircraft" performance than any 4th generation fighter because of internal weapon and fuel stowage.

(2) The F-35 does not have thrust vectoring to aid maneuverability at all. Period.

(3) I think that your insistent "estimate" of Mach 2.3 supercruise for the F-22 is unsubstantiated and quite honestly rather unrealistic.

(4) The purpose of the F-35 is to reate a fighter at a lower cost than the F-22 -- which is unaffordable at the quantities needed to fill ranks of US fighter aviation. The recipe is to combine equivalent or slightly better performance to current 4th generation jets, while incorporating VLO, tomorrow's sensors and superior range. In addition, it is required to be available as a CTOL, CV and STOVL aircraft. It is IMHO a great recipe and possibly the greatest engineering achievement in modern fighter aviation to date.

(5) The alternatives to the F-35 design -- such as building to match F-22 performance without VLO stealth or building 2000 F-22s -- are either far less survivable than the F-35 for all missions, or is unaffordable like the F-22.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 21:46
by fox100
dwightlooi wrote:
fox100 wrote:You know the F-35 may be a truly stealthy airframe after all. What with fiberous layers underneath the paint which 'screen' em energy reflections...
Along with frequency shifting on the top coatings for the IR wavelengths and 'special' stuff shot out of the exhaust to confound IR seakers; but the plane is still a turkey; even with its massive programs which coupled with sensors to detect missile launches and then appropriately 'launch' countermeasures without the pilot pushing a button. I doubt that it can fire internal aams while at high supersonic airspeeds, and looking at the surface area of the aircraft, coupled with weight/loadings, and looking at how much of the weight distribution is spread out from the centerline.... This plane with its massive thrust is likely to only marginally better at turning. because of its vectoring nozzel. And the plane does not take into account the advances in supercruise ability ('m positive it cant touch the 22s top end cruise of M2.3; don't anyone tell me supercruise is a waste for a2a and/or a2g. With the 35 its almost as if we discovered we could break the sound barrier and developed a plane to take advantage of that ability, and then with our next fighter we go out and devleope a plane prior to the advancement in airspeed. Too much emphasis on a2g and not a2a; we're fielding a plane which fights the last two (or three) wars in which the enemy never came up to fight. This is a mistake. This is a mistake to limit our top of the line worlds best fighter to 183 airframes to protect some ~1000 (we're not getting the full force planed for the F-35). If there's ever a 'real' war with a real enemy there's going to be parity on the fighter plane scenario.... Lots of electronic soup, radars turned off, an F-35 will be on stealthy parity with whatever the Russians/Chi-Coms are rolling out soon.... and the 35 may be at a disadvantage in the turing fight as well - time will tell, and the time is fast approaching. Keep in mind you guys are also talking about the white world information on these other airplanes, and not the black world stuff which you aint gonna find on Google.

Best of luck to my Air Force and our boys in nomex.


A few things...

(1) The thrust to weight ratio of the F-35A is actually similar to that of the SU-27/30 (in fact very slightly better). So it is no performance slouch. It is also much more likely to realize its full "clean aircraft" performance than any 4th generation fighter because of internal weapon and fuel stowage.

(2) The F-35 does not have thrust vectoring to aid maneuverability at all. Period.

(3) I think that your insistent "estimate" of Mach 2.3 supercruise for the F-22 is unsubstantiated and quite honestly rather unrealistic.

(4) The purpose of the F-35 is to reate a fighter at a lower cost than the F-22 -- which is unaffordable at the quantities needed to fill ranks of US fighter aviation. The recipe is to combine equivalent or slightly better performance to current 4th generation jets, while incorporating VLO, tomorrow's sensors and superior range. In addition, it is required to be available as a CTOL, CV and STOVL aircraft. It is IMHO a great recipe and possibly the greatest engineering achievement in modern fighter aviation to date.

(5) The alternatives to the F-35 design -- such as building to match F-22 performance without VLO stealth or building 2000 F-22s -- are either far less survivable than the F-35 for all missions, or is unaffordable like the F-22.


Well keep in mind that the Goodyear blimp is a clean, very clean, design. "Clean" designs mean crap depending on the design; I'd like to hear someone refute that. A 747 has a clean design and it aint breaking no records either... What else do you guys want me to quote in "clean" designs that are not breath takeningly hot performers?

I had always assumed that the AF would not be so stupid as to NOT give the F-35 a serpentine tv nozzel... That someone is saying that the 35 does not have that is extremely dissapointing to say the least... to say the VERY least.
Aye aye aye... who's in charge of this damned monstronsity? The guy who wrote "Fighter Planes for Dummies"?

T/W ratios mean crap as well when you take into account that an airframe is short, stubby, and fat. Gas Dynamics 101 covers this, I believe.

The F-22 is not unaffordable. Good god, don't no one understand the concepts of tooling up for 750 airframes and building only 183... Give us at least 600 airframes and watch the price drop like the dow jones on a bad day. This economics 101 my friends.

Massive weight, large surface areas, large wing areas... all contribute to making things go slow. The 35'swing design aint meant for speed, lets be honest. You can put a Saturn V on the USS Regan and it gonna break any speed records... Again, size, weight, ect ect...

I am even MORE dismayed that our brilliant leaders left off a TV nozzel from the 35... So we've thrown away supercruise, thrust vectoring, and designed a fat cat with a LARGE surface area. Wow, sounds like a real hot rod we're buying. Look at the surface area, and ie the weight distribution from the centerline.... This is so OBVIOUS, the more weight you add to an outter diameter of an object that the more energy it takes to turn... Considering the weight of this beast, plus wingspan, it ain't gonna be any tighter turning than anything else already in service, on both sides of the ocean. Physics 101.

I also bet my bottom dollar that the 22 cruises above 2.0 with ease (maybe not at sea level, but....). That should be obvious to all. It aint built from polypropelene plastic on the leading edges for god's sake. I don't care about it's inlet design... and there's no need to go into classified engine tech on a stupid airplane forum. I'm also very familiar with designs which act as "heat sinks" for lack of a proper word at the moment, which don't require an airplane to be built from carbon-carbon to cruise all the live long day above Mach 2 (to quote a low mach number).

Probably before most or some of you were born it was decided to scrap that (and other) technology when the Space Shuttle was being drawn up out of fear of starting a space warfare race with the Ruskies. You don't need heat tiles and fuel in the leading edges to absorb heat energy to avoid melting...
Ok, off tangent sort of, but the point is what the point is.

Happy Holidays to All

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 22:57
by snypa777
dwightlooi wrote: There goes Brmstone's free ride to internal carriage on the F-35. My guess is that, the UK then decided that it makes no sense fund a "rush" to complete Brimstone integration for the F-35's internal bay during the SDD phase (prior to 2012) because the RN will not receive F-35Bs prior to that anyway! Instead, they do a wait and see. If the JCM or derivative comes back, the Brimstone gets a free ride. If not, then the integration can come in the second decade of the millenium when the UK will actually get F-35Bs on RN decks.


The Storm Shadow will not fit internally, and it is a stand off weapon whose employment will not require the F-35 to penetrate enemy airspace anyway. The idea to have the aircraft carry it is so that the RN has something to shoot the Storm Shadow from since it cannot have Typhoons or Tornados on
deck.


Good info` there Dwight`, thanks. :wink:

The RN just won`t, in my view get Brimstone OR Storm-Shadow on F-35 for purely tactical reasons...

1) The anti-armour role is seen as a traditionally air-force and army preserve, the other arms won`t let that happen, RN aircraft have NEVER had anti-armour specialist weapons AFAIK.

2) Storm Shadow isn`t needed, the RN has sub` launched TLAM. I read a piece on the possibility on retro-fitting the standard USN VLS system onto the Type 45 destroyers, which can launch TLAM and possibly be adapted to launch Storm Shadow if the Navy favoured the missile over TLAM. The present Sylver launchers are quite limited.

Now, the RAF are a different matter, I could eventually see the need for Brimstone on an RAF F-35, but because this role will be taken on by Typhoon, at the moment, it`s a non-starter, but things can change.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 23:43
by dwightlooi
fox100 wrote:Well keep in mind that the Goodyear blimp is a clean, very clean, design. "Clean" designs mean crap depending on the design; I'd like to hear someone refute that. A 747 has a clean design and it aint breaking no records either... What else do you guys want me to quote in "clean" designs that are not breath takeningly hot performers?

I had always assumed that the AF would not be so stupid as to NOT give the F-35 a serpentine tv nozzel... That someone is saying that the 35 does not have that is extremely dissapointing to say the least... to say the VERY least.
Aye aye aye... who's in charge of this damned monstronsity? The guy who wrote "Fighter Planes for Dummies"?

T/W ratios mean crap as well when you take into account that an airframe is short, stubby, and fat. Gas Dynamics 101 covers this, I believe.

Massive weight, large surface areas, large wing areas... all contribute to making things go slow. The 35'swing design aint meant for speed, lets be honest. You can put a Saturn V on the USS Regan and it gonna break any speed records... Again, size, weight, ect ect...


(1) The F-35B has a 3-bearing Nozzle. The only purpose of that is to turn the nozzle downwards to provide veritcal thrust. The nozzle has no ability to deflect upwards or side-to-side in normal flight and hence does not aid maneuverability. The F-35A and C does not even have this nozzle.

(2) Since when is the F-35 a "bad" aerodynamic design? The F-35 is roughly 2/3 as much airplane as the F-22 with roughly 3/5 as much thrust. Thats very good. If you compare the F-35 to an F-18E it has no more frontal area, less skin area, cleaner shaping and practically the same thrust. In fact the F-35 has more wing sweep than the eighteen.

(3) I think you are very uninformed as to the F-35's weight. This is practically the lightest airframe ever built -- which was part of the enginnering challenge. Think about it. Take an F-18E/F, put about 2.5~3 tons more internal fuel capacity in it, put two large internal weapon bays in it, put in twice as much sensors and equipment as a Superhornet, then make it all weigh 1 ton less and you have the F-35A. This is on top of saying you need it to also accomodate a STOVL variant with space for all kinds of doors and a massive lift fan. Oh, and BTW, make it a VLO stealth. Its an engineering marvel which in many ways exceed the achievements of the F-22.

(4) As for supercruise, no the F-35 won't pull M1.7+ on dry thrust like the F-22. But it has a very good chance of making Mach 1.2~1.4 without burners. We don't know for sure yet, but the installed thrust, airframe shaping and weights definitely suggests that sort of performance level.

fox100 wrote:The F-22 is not unaffordable. Good god, don't no one understand the concepts of tooling up for 750 airframes and building only 183... Give us at least 600 airframes and watch the price drop like the dow jones on a bad day. This economics 101 my friends.


Yes, the F-22 is cheaper if more are built. But it doesn't change the fact that the projected construction costs at maximum economy is about 2.5 times higher than that projected for the F-35. And, we do not need just 750 Raptors. We need 2000+ fighters and 750 Raptors just doesn't cut it. The current plan calls for about 1760 F-35As, about 680 F-35B/Cs for the USA alone. That is over 2400 planes. If you trade the USAF buy of 1760 for Raptors you'll get about 600 Raptors for a total of ~783. That is a much less airframe numbers than is sufficient.

fox100 wrote:I also bet my bottom dollar that the 22 cruises above 2.0 with ease (maybe not at sea level, but....). That should be obvious to all. It aint built from polypropelene plastic on the leading edges for god's sake. I don't care about it's inlet design... and there's no need to go into classified engine tech on a stupid airplane forum. I'm also very familiar with designs which act as "heat sinks" for lack of a proper word at the moment, which don't require an airplane to be built from carbon-carbon to cruise all the live long day above Mach 2 (to quote a low mach number).


You can believe that if you want. But the highest number ever to come out of a reputable source is Mach 1.72 and "officially" it is still Mach 1.5.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2007, 23:51
by dwightlooi
snypa777 wrote:Good info` there Dwight`, thanks. :wink:

The RN just won`t, in my view get Brimstone OR Storm-Shadow on F-35 for purely tactical reasons...

1) The anti-armour role is seen as a traditionally air-force and army preserve, the other arms won`t let that happen, RN aircraft have NEVER had anti-armour specialist weapons AFAIK.

2) Storm Shadow isn`t needed, the RN has sub` launched TLAM. I read a piece on the possibility on retro-fitting the standard USN VLS system onto the Type 45 destroyers, which can launch TLAM and possibly be adapted to launch Storm Shadow if the Navy favoured the missile over TLAM. The present Sylver launchers are quite limited.

Now, the RAF are a different matter, I could eventually see the need for Brimstone on an RAF F-35, but because this role will be taken on by Typhoon, at the moment, it`s a non-starter, but things can change.


The Brimstone is more than an anti-armor weapon. It is a MMW guided missile with a 12+km range and low supersonic speed. It is useful for the RN in many roles including maritime strike against small, low value targets. I mean, you really do not want to pop a Harpoon or Exocet on an Iranian speedboat do you? And these, small mobile targets are relatively difficult to bomb. The range also gives you the ability to kill these things beyond the range of guns or MANPADs. That it goes relatively briskly at Mach 1.3 doesn't hurt either.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 00:40
by fox100
dwightlooi wrote:
fox100 wrote:Well keep in mind that the Goodyear blimp is a clean, very clean, design. "Clean" designs mean crap depending on the design; I'd like to hear someone refute that. A 747 has a clean design and it aint breaking no records either... What else do you guys want me to quote in "clean" designs that are not breath takeningly hot performers?

I had always assumed that the AF would not be so stupid as to NOT give the F-35 a serpentine tv nozzel... That someone is saying that the 35 does not have that is extremely dissapointing to say the least... to say the VERY least.
Aye aye aye... who's in charge of this damned monstronsity? The guy who wrote "Fighter Planes for Dummies"?

T/W ratios mean crap as well when you take into account that an airframe is short, stubby, and fat. Gas Dynamics 101 covers this, I believe.

Massive weight, large surface areas, large wing areas... all contribute to making things go slow. The 35'swing design aint meant for speed, lets be honest. You can put a Saturn V on the USS Regan and it gonna break any speed records... Again, size, weight, ect ect...


(1) The F-35B has a 3-bearing Nozzle. The only purpose of that is to turn the nozzle downwards to provide veritcal thrust. The nozzle has no ability to deflect upwards or side-to-side in normal flight and hence does not aid maneuverability. The F-35A and C does not even have this nozzle.

(2) Since when is the F-35 a "bad" aerodynamic design? The F-35 is roughly 2/3 as much airplane as the F-22 with roughly 3/5 as much thrust. Thats very good. If you compare the F-35 to an F-18E it has no more frontal area, less skin area, cleaner shaping and practically the same thrust. In fact the F-35 has more wing sweep than the eighteen.

(3) I think you are very uninformed as to the F-35's weight. This is practically the lightest airframe ever built -- which was part of the enginnering challenge. Think about it. Take an F-18E/F, put about 2.5~3 tons more internal fuel capacity in it, put two large internal weapon bays in it, put in twice as much sensors and equipment as a Superhornet, then make it all weigh 1 ton less and you have the F-35A. This is on top of saying you need it to also accomodate a STOVL variant with space for all kinds of doors and a massive lift fan. Oh, and BTW, make it a VLO stealth. Its an engineering marvel which in many ways exceed the achievements of the F-22.

(4) As for supercruise, no the F-35 won't pull M1.7+ on dry thrust like the F-22. But it has a very good chance of making Mach 1.2~1.4 without burners. We don't know for sure yet, but the installed thrust, airframe shaping and weights definitely suggests that sort of performance level.

fox100 wrote:The F-22 is not unaffordable. Good god, don't no one understand the concepts of tooling up for 750 airframes and building only 183... Give us at least 600 airframes and watch the price drop like the dow jones on a bad day. This economics 101 my friends.


Yes, the F-22 is cheaper if more are built. But it doesn't change the fact that the projected construction costs at maximum economy is about 2.5 times higher than that projected for the F-35. And, we do not need just 750 Raptors. We need 2000+ fighters and 750 Raptors just doesn't cut it. The current plan calls for about 1760 F-35As, about 680 F-35B/Cs for the USA alone. That is over 2400 planes. If you trade the USAF buy of 1760 for Raptors you'll get about 600 Raptors for a total of ~783. That is a much less airframe numbers than is sufficient.

fox100 wrote:I also bet my bottom dollar that the 22 cruises above 2.0 with ease (maybe not at sea level, but....). That should be obvious to all. It aint built from polypropelene plastic on the leading edges for god's sake. I don't care about it's inlet design... and there's no need to go into classified engine tech on a stupid airplane forum. I'm also very familiar with designs which act as "heat sinks" for lack of a proper word at the moment, which don't require an airplane to be built from carbon-carbon to cruise all the live long day above Mach 2 (to quote a low mach number).


You can believe that if you want. But the highest number ever to come out of a reputable source is Mach 1.72 and "officially" it is still Mach 1.5.


Oh, so now we have to compare a 21ST CENTURY FIGHTER PLANE with a plane designed 30 frickin years AGO? HUH??? Excuse me, but that is totally nuts. You want to compare 21st century technology with 1970's technology?

I honestly cannot believe anyone would try and pull that.

To quote the god of fighter pilots (regarding the F-18), "It's a god damned grape."

Its a crying shame "they" left off thrust vectoring from the 35. What the hell was the point in throwing it onto the F-22? Turning ability. That was 20 years ago. You mean to tell me that 20 years later we lost that ability? Turning ability, post stall characteristics, suddenly don't matter with what we're doing 20 years later in fighters? Thats not a step backwards, thats a god damned idiotic f*ck up. I'd be willing to bet they left it off for weight considerations (plus building a cheapo product and maximizing profit to Lockmart). Since day one on the program, the X-35/32 had massive weight problems... They get out of it by building bulkheads and skins as humanly possible without the f*ckers falling apart in 5 years. Now you're saying its the lightest airframe... yeah build it out of wood and fabric and you'd have a light airframe too that aint no good for anything other than airshows... I highly suspect our USAF has placed so much emphasis on stealth that they do no envision turning fights (in quantity) and are willing to live with a weaker airframe to achieve your much coveted low(er) weights.

Considering the Weight Watchers diet that the 35 has been on, I find it HIGHLY doubtful that its got any abilities at all to jet around at supersonic speeds more so than any F-15/16 series jet that we whipped up 30+ years ago... Everywhere you look there's a god damned bulge sticking out of the fat cat like its got the mumps. Doubt that airframe can sustain the heat for very long at supersonic speeds... Again, we broke the "supercruise barrier" and said, "Nah, lets go back to the old days." Morons.

Considering fuel consumption to target, refueling, weapons load, the weight of that airframe, and the PLACEMENT of so much weight outside the centerline of that airframe, its going to take much more force to simple roll the airframe than your average F-16... Thats in a turning fight. Anyone with a brain knows this. And i.e. the F-35 aint optimized for a2a turning.... Everone needs to stop pretending otherwise.

By cramming so much electron consuming goodies inside that space, there is next to no room for growth potential since as we all know flowing electrons equal heat.... and this plane is supposed to be invisibe.... That heat's gotta go someplace, and first choice is the fuel tanks, and after those are running low its got to vent that heat into the atmosphere. This plane aint all some are claiming it to be.

You ask me to prove the aerodynamics are bad on the JSF. Prove they are good. I can see the wing planform, tail section, weight distribution, its case of the mumps.... And yes, its HUGE surface area. They all VERY obviously add up to low altitude strike missions.

All you people who say its got "xyz" more thrust than a F-16 and "123" times more wing area than a F-16..... Anyone of you want to take a guess on how much more surface area that plane has over the F-16. You guys never, ever, mention anything about that.

The 35's wings are optimizied (obviously) for subsonic cruise, and its engine is optimized for low altitiude performance. It's got a huge surface area... you want to compare a single engined plane to a twin engined plane from 30 years ago.....

That extra thrust aint a 1:1 increase in performance over the old F-16s as you're not looking at its surface area. Yeah, its "clean", but its got the mumps, and the surface area has skyrocketed. Name me a single engined fighter with as much surface area as the F-35? Do you know what that does at high AoA stuff?? Anyone at all?? Take a guess what it does to performance.

Come on, even the god damned chi-coms can do simple math (they damned near invented it after all) and see the 22 can cruise much faster than Mach 1.7x. There's a white elephant in the room and everyone's saying it aint there. Bullsh*t to that line of thinking. Yeah and Buff's topped out at 60K. Sure.

So we gotta single engined plane 2/3 the size of a twin engine? Thats suppsoed to make me go, "Ahhh..... wow!" With 3/5 the trust? Believe it or not 3/5 is less than 2/3, plus that 2/3 airplane is fat and optimized for low and slow. That aint much of an argument.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 00:40
by fox100
dwightlooi wrote:
fox100 wrote:Well keep in mind that the Goodyear blimp is a clean, very clean, design. "Clean" designs mean crap depending on the design; I'd like to hear someone refute that. A 747 has a clean design and it aint breaking no records either... What else do you guys want me to quote in "clean" designs that are not breath takeningly hot performers?

I had always assumed that the AF would not be so stupid as to NOT give the F-35 a serpentine tv nozzel... That someone is saying that the 35 does not have that is extremely dissapointing to say the least... to say the VERY least.
Aye aye aye... who's in charge of this damned monstronsity? The guy who wrote "Fighter Planes for Dummies"?

T/W ratios mean crap as well when you take into account that an airframe is short, stubby, and fat. Gas Dynamics 101 covers this, I believe.

Massive weight, large surface areas, large wing areas... all contribute to making things go slow. The 35'swing design aint meant for speed, lets be honest. You can put a Saturn V on the USS Regan and it gonna break any speed records... Again, size, weight, ect ect...


(1) The F-35B has a 3-bearing Nozzle. The only purpose of that is to turn the nozzle downwards to provide veritcal thrust. The nozzle has no ability to deflect upwards or side-to-side in normal flight and hence does not aid maneuverability. The F-35A and C does not even have this nozzle.

(2) Since when is the F-35 a "bad" aerodynamic design? The F-35 is roughly 2/3 as much airplane as the F-22 with roughly 3/5 as much thrust. Thats very good. If you compare the F-35 to an F-18E it has no more frontal area, less skin area, cleaner shaping and practically the same thrust. In fact the F-35 has more wing sweep than the eighteen.

(3) I think you are very uninformed as to the F-35's weight. This is practically the lightest airframe ever built -- which was part of the enginnering challenge. Think about it. Take an F-18E/F, put about 2.5~3 tons more internal fuel capacity in it, put two large internal weapon bays in it, put in twice as much sensors and equipment as a Superhornet, then make it all weigh 1 ton less and you have the F-35A. This is on top of saying you need it to also accomodate a STOVL variant with space for all kinds of doors and a massive lift fan. Oh, and BTW, make it a VLO stealth. Its an engineering marvel which in many ways exceed the achievements of the F-22.

(4) As for supercruise, no the F-35 won't pull M1.7+ on dry thrust like the F-22. But it has a very good chance of making Mach 1.2~1.4 without burners. We don't know for sure yet, but the installed thrust, airframe shaping and weights definitely suggests that sort of performance level.

fox100 wrote:The F-22 is not unaffordable. Good god, don't no one understand the concepts of tooling up for 750 airframes and building only 183... Give us at least 600 airframes and watch the price drop like the dow jones on a bad day. This economics 101 my friends.


Yes, the F-22 is cheaper if more are built. But it doesn't change the fact that the projected construction costs at maximum economy is about 2.5 times higher than that projected for the F-35. And, we do not need just 750 Raptors. We need 2000+ fighters and 750 Raptors just doesn't cut it. The current plan calls for about 1760 F-35As, about 680 F-35B/Cs for the USA alone. That is over 2400 planes. If you trade the USAF buy of 1760 for Raptors you'll get about 600 Raptors for a total of ~783. That is a much less airframe numbers than is sufficient.

fox100 wrote:I also bet my bottom dollar that the 22 cruises above 2.0 with ease (maybe not at sea level, but....). That should be obvious to all. It aint built from polypropelene plastic on the leading edges for god's sake. I don't care about it's inlet design... and there's no need to go into classified engine tech on a stupid airplane forum. I'm also very familiar with designs which act as "heat sinks" for lack of a proper word at the moment, which don't require an airplane to be built from carbon-carbon to cruise all the live long day above Mach 2 (to quote a low mach number).


You can believe that if you want. But the highest number ever to come out of a reputable source is Mach 1.72 and "officially" it is still Mach 1.5.


Oh, so now we have to compare a 21ST CENTURY FIGHTER PLANE with a plane designed 30 frickin years AGO? HUH??? Excuse me, but that is totally nuts. You want to compare 21st century technology with 1970's technology?

I honestly cannot believe anyone would try and pull that.

To quote the god of fighter pilots (regarding the F-18), "It's a god damned grape."

Its a crying shame "they" left off thrust vectoring from the 35. What the hell was the point in throwing it onto the F-22? Turning ability. That was 20 years ago. You mean to tell me that 20 years later we lost that ability? Turning ability, post stall characteristics, suddenly don't matter with what we're doing 20 years later in fighters? Thats not a step backwards, thats a god damned idiotic f*ck up. I'd be willing to bet they left it off for weight considerations (plus building a cheapo product and maximizing profit to Lockmart). Since day one on the program, the X-35/32 had massive weight problems... They get out of it by building bulkheads and skins as humanly possible without the f*ckers falling apart in 5 years. Now you're saying its the lightest airframe... yeah build it out of wood and fabric and you'd have a light airframe too that aint no good for anything other than airshows... I highly suspect our USAF has placed so much emphasis on stealth that they do no envision turning fights (in quantity) and are willing to live with a weaker airframe to achieve your much coveted low(er) weights.

Considering the Weight Watchers diet that the 35 has been on, I find it HIGHLY doubtful that its got any abilities at all to jet around at supersonic speeds more so than any F-15/16 series jet that we whipped up 30+ years ago... Everywhere you look there's a god damned bulge sticking out of the fat cat like its got the mumps. Doubt that airframe can sustain the heat for very long at supersonic speeds... Again, we broke the "supercruise barrier" and said, "Nah, lets go back to the old days." Morons.

Considering fuel consumption to target, refueling, weapons load, the weight of that airframe, and the PLACEMENT of so much weight outside the centerline of that airframe, its going to take much more force to simple roll the airframe than your average F-16... Thats in a turning fight. Anyone with a brain knows this. And i.e. the F-35 aint optimized for a2a turning.... Everone needs to stop pretending otherwise.

By cramming so much electron consuming goodies inside that space, there is next to no room for growth potential since as we all know flowing electrons equal heat.... and this plane is supposed to be invisibe.... That heat's gotta go someplace, and first choice is the fuel tanks, and after those are running low its got to vent that heat into the atmosphere. This plane aint all some are claiming it to be.

You ask me to prove the aerodynamics are bad on the JSF. Prove they are good. I can see the wing planform, tail section, weight distribution, its case of the mumps.... And yes, its HUGE surface area. They all VERY obviously add up to low altitude strike missions.

All you people who say its got "xyz" more thrust than a F-16 and "123" times more wing area than a F-16..... Anyone of you want to take a guess on how much more surface area that plane has over the F-16. You guys never, ever, mention anything about that.

The 35's wings are optimizied (obviously) for subsonic cruise, and its engine is optimized for low altitiude performance. It's got a huge surface area... you want to compare a single engined plane to a twin engined plane from 30 years ago.....

That extra thrust aint a 1:1 increase in performance over the old F-16s as you're not looking at its surface area. Yeah, its "clean", but its got the mumps, and the surface area has skyrocketed. Name me a single engined fighter with as much surface area as the F-35? Do you know what that does at high AoA stuff?? Anyone at all?? Take a guess what it does to performance.

Come on, even the god damned chi-coms can do simple math (they damned near invented it after all) and see the 22 can cruise much faster than Mach 1.7x. There's a white elephant in the room and everyone's saying it aint there. Bullsh*t to that line of thinking. Yeah and Buff's topped out at 60K. Sure.

So we gotta single engined plane 2/3 the size of a twin engine? Thats suppsoed to make me go, "Ahhh..... wow!" With 3/5 the thrust? Believe it or not 3/5 is less than 2/3, plus that 2/3 airplane is fat and optimized for low and slow. That aint much of an argument.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 00:48
by fox100
No, wait. It does have one hell of a cockpit and a helmet. And it does have some nifty software coupled to the sensors in turn coupled to decoy systems to confound aam's. So there are 3 good things I actually think were done right.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 01:06
by SpeakTheTruth
Fox100, your facts seem to be somewhat incorrect in places and contradicting in others.

Fox100 wrote:T/W ratios mean crap as well when you take into account that an airframe is short, stubby, and fat. Gas Dynamics 101 covers this, I believe.


Off course T/W rations mean something, acceleration and climb rate are affected by it.

Fox100 wrote:Oh, so now we have to compare a 21ST CENTURY FIGHTER PLANE with a plane designed 30 frickin years AGO? HUH??? Excuse me, but that is totally nuts. You want to compare 21st century technology with 1970's technology?


Well no, you were claiming the F-35 is too heavy etc and Dwight provided you with comparisons of the CURRENT aircraft in US service.

By cramming so much electron consuming goodies inside that space, there is next to no room for growth potential since as we all know flowing electrons equal heat.... and this plane is supposed to be invisibe.... That heat's gotta go someplace, and first choice is the fuel tanks, and after those are running low its got to vent that heat into the atmosphere. This plane aint all some are claiming it to be.


Well I'm sure that the exhaust gases from that little ol' gas turbine the plane is built around will be venting a lot more heat than extra electronics.

Fox100 wrote:Its a crying shame "they" left off thrust vectoring from the 35. What the hell was the point in throwing it onto the F-22? Turning ability. That was 20 years ago. You mean to tell me that 20 years later we lost that ability? Turning ability, post stall characteristics, suddenly don't matter with what we're doing 20 years later in fighters? Thats not a step backwards, thats a god damned idiotic f*ck up. I'd be willing to bet they left it off for weight considerations (plus building a cheapo product and maximizing profit to Lockmart)


There was no specification for thrust vectoring and to be honest, does it need it?

Fox100 wrote:All you people who say its got "xyz" more thrust than a F-16 and "123" times more wing area than a F-16..... Anyone of you want to take a guess on how much more surface area that plane has over the F-16. You guys never, ever, mention anything about that.


Yes ok it will have more surface area, but then it hasn't got external tanks and ordnance hanging off the plane.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 02:09
by snypa777
dwightlooi wrote:The Brimstone is more than an anti-armor weapon. It is a MMW guided missile with a 12+km range and low supersonic speed. It is useful for the RN in many roles including maritime strike against small, low value targets. I mean, you really do not want to pop a Harpoon or Exocet on an Iranian speedboat do you? And these, small mobile targets are relatively difficult to bomb. The range also gives you the ability to kill these things beyond the range of guns or MANPADs. That it goes relatively briskly at Mach 1.3 doesn't hurt either.


The RN already has Sea Skua to take care of small patrol boats, it is a much smaller missile than either Harpoon or Exocet, that kind of attack is well within the missiles attack envelope and is helicopter launched, (Lynx). There are also 30mm Oerlikons for small speedboats that have impressive range for those suicide attack moments! It has been suggested that even (VLS) Seawolf has some capability against small surface targets, it`s a tiny missile and very agile with extended range over the earlier GWS-25 versions.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 08:19
by boff180
Yup Sea Skua has been combat proven in the first Gulf War where the Lynx successfully defended the battle group from a PT boat attack. They are currently developing the Sea Skua mk2 which looks a hell of alot like a maverick for the Future Lynx.
Sea Skua Mk.1:
Image

Sea Skua Mk.2:
Image

Sea Wolf has intercepted a cannon shell in flight so should not have a problem against small boats.

Brimstone is also designed to replace the BLU-755 cluster bomb in UK service, so not just anti-armour... pretty much anti-anything :). My favourite feature is the swarm attack. Using GPS, set a "box" where anything detected is enemy (preventing blue on blue) then let fly as many of your Brimstones as you like... they then actively hunt targets within that box, detect, lock and attack. If they don't detect one, the detonate to prevent flying into friendly forces.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 08:51
by dwightlooi
Even though the 7" Brimstone is not a big missile (its basically a Longbow Hellfire), it should be sufficient to ruin the day of a PT boat crew should their vessel take one. I don't think they'll be going anywhere much less making a torpedo run after taking a hit. Trying not to sink or die from shrapnel wounds will probably be all they care about. I mean, tandem-shaped-charge or not, its 20 lbs of high explosive or roughly like 20 hand grenades going off at once in the boat's hull. Thats a lot of hurt for a PT boat.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 10:26
by Pilotasso
dwightlooi wrote:A few things...

(1) I think you are WAY under-rating the no-escape envelope of both BVR and WVR AAMs. No offense intended, but those numbers and perceptions may be from 1950s era AIM-9Bs. The AIM-9X has a maximum range in excess of 40km and a no escape envelope against typical high performance fighters probably at least 1/3 of that. The AIM-120C/D is a 75~100+ km range missile with a no escape zone that is a few scores of km at the minimum -- that is why it is called a BVR AAM.

(2) IMHO, you are also way short on the burn time of AAM motors. 4 seconds may be true of the boost grain of some missiles, but it is definitely not true of the sustainer grain. An AMRAAM -- from the live fire videos -- shows an active motor about 30 seconds into the flight (assuming an average speed of 3500 km/h (Mach 3.3) is about 29 km out. In a high speed high altitude launch the latest AMRAAMs like the C7 or D will most likely be faster than Mach 3.5 even at distances in excess of 75~100km. There isn't an AIM-9X video that tracked a single missile that long, but there are multiple clips showing an active motor for over 10 seconds -- including one during which the missile turned ~180 degrees in a maneuver that started about ~1.5 seconds post launch and took about 2 seconds to complete after which the missile accelerated in the reversed vector.

(3) I think it is safe to say that at 10km or more for an AIM-9X and probably at least 25 km for an AMRAAM, the motor will be active and the missile will be very close to its maximum velocity. At those ranges, and probably a considerable distance beyond that, it will be impossible to out maneuver the AAM. To put things into perspective, a bullet leaving the muzzle at 3000 fps (about 3270 km/h) will lose about 1/3 of its velocity at about 500 m. Now, in the thinner air of higher altitudes and with the long pencil like shape of the AAM, velocity loss will not be as pronounced, but even if it takes ten times as long to lose 1/3 of its velocity (I am being generous here) a missile going Mach 4 will be Mach 2.6 about 5 km after burnout and Mach Mach 1.7 10 km after burnout. This is also why there is a sustainer! In other words, if your assertions are true, then the numbers do not support the existence of missile with effective ranges of over 50 or even 100km.

(4) It is a little beyond the scope of this post, but let me briefly say that the specific impulse of the typical missile grade PBAN, HTPE, and HTPB motor is 200~235 seconds at sea level and about 260~290 seconds near vacuum. What this means is that an AAM which is say 50% fuel by mass (again I am being conservative) will have no problems sustaining a thrust level equivalent to its own launch weight for at least 120 seconds or twice its launch weight for at least 60 seconds. In other words, a 300 lbs AAM will be able to keep make 600 lbs of thrust for 1 minute if it has a propellant fraction of 50% and there is no boost grain. Even if 2/3 of the fuel is expended to generate 20 times the missile's mass in thrust (~6000 lbs thrust for a 300 lbs missile) to get it to speed explosively, there is still enough fuel for 600 lbs thrust for another 20 seconds for a total burn time of 24 seconds. And as I have said, my assumptions as to the fuel fraction are very conservative and many AAMs will exceed them and just about every evolution of an existing design adds to sustainer mass to extend range. while keeping the boost grain pretty much the same since the missile is not heavier overall.


I take no offense at all, dont worry. :)

1) AIM-9B required to be fired always from rear aspect no further away from 2-3 miles at targets wich typicaly were either afterburning very high or fighters down low during tail chases, but this mostly you must know already.
The 40Km range for the AIM-9X must be referred to the seekers head, I cant imagine how it could travel that long if it is to have the same rocket motor as the M. Even if you argue that the M had larger fins and higher drag it cant account for doubling the range because than it makes the M look like it has been a flying airbrake all these years.

2) Believe me, the sidewinder burns for no longer than 4-5s (I think the exact actual figure is still classified though) Heat seekers usualy dont have sustained motor phase, just pure boost. AMRAAM versions have different motors, being the B on pure boost also, thats why it has a shorter range than C and D models. These last have slightly lengthened motors due to compacted electronics but Im talking about just a few secs more. AIM-54 Phoenix had a burn time estimated by some press sources to be about 25 secs, no way AMRAAM burns for 30 secs. Everything I read about (including non published papers and other sensitive docs) AMRAAM variants have always burned between 7-10 seconds. This seems awfully little to you but its the hard truth. Range figures are always estimated at high altitude in straight line VS a target head on wich is extremely favourable and optimistic scenario. From the rear in chases VS a manuvering target it gets drasticaly reduced. Thats because rocket fuel is highly explosive for providing tremendous acceleration, and that cuases solid fuels to deplete REAL fast. The motors provide boost for only part of the trajectory, the rest is flight by inertia. 30 secs is an ethernity, many engagements end before that time period elapses.

3) Pilot practice has been very different. To secure a hit most AMRAAM's were fired between 10-12 miles against targets in tatctical disavantage.
A mig 29 was engaged in youguslavia at 30 miles range but it required a total of 4 AMRAAM's to bring it down. Also theres a viodeo I have (I believe it was classified and was removed from a certain online forum) showing the AMRAAM NEZ at about 8 miles when the launcher aircraft was 15000 feet.

4) :shock: Sorry but I cant take your estimations not only because they are just that but because I have sources saying otherwise.

I dont like to say this because it sounds BS and I dont any proof of that but I do have a brother who flies real F-16's (block 15's soon to be MLU), and I started to work on the aviation industry 3 months ago, futhermore I am a menber of LOCKON MODERN AIR COMBAT SIM community where people have been collecting various declassified -1 manuals of Fighters and missiles supporting my claims (this SIM needs some corrections as we figured out pretty soon). If thats possible for aviation enthusiasts imagine what I didnt read that I cant speak about. ;)

Speaking of wich and out of curiosisty... are you a heavy duty falconeer (Falcon 4)?

EDIT:
Here some of the material found in those forums:
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1979/PV1979_91.pdf
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid= ... &gID=66202
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lom ... 9lperf.jpg
http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t ... sidewinder

The Pic file is pretty enlightning. ;) at 4secs AIM-9 motor boost decreases steeply untill it is 0 at 6 secs.


At 18s flight time maximum G perfomance is about the same as an F-16, wow heh?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 20:01
by checksixx
Funny...all the AIM-9 and AIM-9X shots I've seen, the motor is rocking all out for at least 7-8 seconds.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 20:12
by dwightlooi
2) Believe me, the sidewinder burns for no longer than 4-5s


Unfortunately, I do not. Here's why.

(1) The AIM-9X is roughly 60% motor by length.

(2) Let's say that the rocket motor weighs the same as the rest of the missile per unit volume.

(3) So we have about 60% worth of motor. A rough rule of thumb for solid rocket motors is that it is roughly 85% fuel, 15% structural mass. I think you'll find this to be true within +- 5%, I am taking the average. Hence, we have about 104 lbs of fuel -- a 51% fuel fraction. Quite shabby actually and I think it is actually higher, but lets assume that for now (hey the F-35 is ~40% fuel fraction fully fueled).

(4) We can expect a specific impulse of about 220 to 260 seconds depending on altitude and motor technology. Let's say 240 seconds.

(5) With a 51% fuel fraction and 240 second IpSec, the approximate uncorrected delta V (change in velocity) is 1679 m/s or 6044 km/h! Thats Mach 5.7!

OK, what that means is that in the absence of drag and gravity and everything else that is how much velocity change you can expect. In space launch scenarios where the rocket is working against gravity in a vertical climb, but has relatively low drag (no fins and rapid altitude gain), the typical Delta V correction for the first stage is about 70% -- this roughly correct of the Shuttle's SRB for instance or the Castor 120 in a Athena rocket. Let it suffice to say that the AIM-9X is not posting a velocity change of Mach 4 over launch speed. In fact, it probably only post a delta V of ~Mach 2.4 over launch speed.

A Delta V of ~2.4 at 0.70 correction can be achieved using a 35% propellant fraction at 240 IpSec. What it means is that only ~69% of the fuel is needed to get it to Mach 2.4 delta V. The remaining 31% can be sustainer grain. It really doesn't matter how quickly the boost grain burns -- for the most parts, that'll affect acceleration rate but not final velocity.

Hence, my conclusion based on the above analysis is that:-

(a) If the AIM-9X is all boost, it'll post a velocity change >M4 over release speed. This is not true, a commonly estimated velocity change is ~Mach 2.4 over release speed.

(b) If so, then there is plenty of fuel dedicated as sustainer grain. How much? Well, if the boost grain is 4s long, and the sustainer is roughly 31% of the motor's fuel and produce say 1/5 as much thrust then the approximate sustainer burn time is 4/69*31*5 = ~ 9 seconds. based on this we have a total motor time of ~13 seconds.

(c) Let's put the percentages into numbers shall we? We have 51% of 188 lbs in fuel = ~96 lbs. At launch, we expend 69% of that in 4 seconds. With a Specific impulse of 240 seconds, thats 0.69*96*240/4 = ~3974 lbs thrust for 4 seconds. This is followed by burning the remaining 31% of fuel in ~9 seconds. That's 0.31*96*240/9 = ~794 lbs thrust for 9 seconds. Makes sense?

AMRAAM versions have different motors, being the B on pure boost also, thats why it has a shorter range than C and D models.


Anyway... pertaining to your later comment about the AM-120B being all-boost, that is totally untrue. From the first AIM-120A, the AMRAAM has used a dual thrust rocket motor. In fact, in a BVR missile where rapid acceleration is not needed, the motor can be mostly sustainer grain. The following is from ATK Thiokol, the motor's manufacturer (it's rather old; circa 1998 and pertains to the old 74" motors). If the diagram is accurate, only about 1/4 of the fuel is star cored boost grain.

http://www.atk.com/datasheet_PDFs/AMRAAM.pdf

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 20:35
by Pilotasso
Dude...AIM-9X has the SAME motor as the AIM-9X. It has been determined so to cut on development costs.

checksixx wrote:Funny...all the AIM-9 and AIM-9X shots I've seen, the motor is rocking all out for at least 7-8 seconds.

Not on mine (where did you see this?), the flame goes out 4 secs flat. even if its still on its rapidely extinguishing. Check the graph on my last post.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 21:55
by checksixx
Pilotasso wrote:Dude...AIM-9X has the SAME motor as the AIM-9X. It has been determined so to cut on development costs.

checksixx wrote:Funny...all the AIM-9 and AIM-9X shots I've seen, the motor is rocking all out for at least 7-8 seconds.

Not on mine (where did you see this?), the flame goes out 4 secs flat. even if its still on its rapidely extinguishing. Check the graph on my last post.


Yes, I'm aware they have the same motor. That info is available on the manufacturer's website. Where have I seen it? On every AIM-9/AIM-9X video I've seen as I stated before.

-Check

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 22:18
by checksixx
I'll just take a look at my munitions guide when I get home and post the official figure.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2007, 23:57
by OPIT
dwightlooi wrote:Hence, we have about 104 lbs of fuel

60 lbs would be more accurate.

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 00:02
by snypa777
From HUD tapes I have seen of Harrier combat against A-4 Skyhawks, re- AIM9-L, the rocket motor seemed to burn for a lot longer than 4 seconds, ....that was circa 1982.

Anyway, I can link to 3 PDF files of the presentations for Typhoon, JSF, Gripen to the Norwegian government. The Typhoon presentation is an eye-opener, some of the quoted figures seem to contradict what is generally espoused on forums like this although it is worth remembering they are trying to sell jets...

The JSF presentation by Tom Burbage isn`t very revealing technically, try to scroll past all the geo-political clap-trap first.

The Gripen is a fine machine, I didn`t know that the Swedish airforce have more experience with data-links than ANY other airforce, they used them extensively with the Drakken in the 60`s.

If you have time, take a look-see. I have only skimmed them. 3 very different styles of presentation here by LM, EADS and SAAB.

With thanks to JWCOOK.

http://morisson.thomas.free.fr/Eurofigh ... bility.pdf
http://morisson.thomas.free.fr/JSF_Capability.pdf
http://morisson.thomas.free.fr/Gripen_Capability.pdf

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 00:58
by dwightlooi
OPIT wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:Hence, we have about 104 lbs of fuel

60 lbs would be more accurate.


If that is true, it means that the AIM-9X has a fuel fraction of ~31.5%. In otherwords, it carries scarcely more than 3/4 as much fuel as a fraction of its initial weight than an F-35A (~40% fuel fraction) -- an aircraft with all kinds of other "stuff" in it not just a tube packed with a warhead, a motor and some guidance hardware.

Oh, and BTW, the specific gravity of solid rocket propellant is about 1.5 vs about 0.8 for kerosene, so an equivalent volume of solid propellant weighs almost twice as much as jet fuel. Simple math, (31.5/40)/(1.5/0.8 ) = 0.42, shows that in order for the above to be true, the AIM-9X must have roughly 42% as much internal volume dedicated to solid fuel as the F-35A has space dedicated to jet fuel.

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 10:54
by OPIT
dwightlooi wrote:
OPIT wrote:60 lbs would be more accurate.


If that is true (...)

That is true. Sorry.

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 15:14
by dwightlooi
OPIT wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:
OPIT wrote:60 lbs would be more accurate.


If that is true (...)

That is true. Sorry.


Says YOU! Which counts for nothing.

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 15:31
by flighthawk
Various AIM-9x launches - One shot clearly stops burning after 4-5 secs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 16:36
by checksixx
Do you all REALLY care that much on how long an AIM-9 motor burns for????????

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 16:55
by OPIT
dwightlooi wrote:Says YOU! Which counts for nothing.

Do you infer that what you say is of better value, even when that's my job to deal with weapons as an active duty weapons specialist ?

Like it or not, there's no way an AIM-9 can have 100 lbs worth of propellant. The real value is in the 60 lbs ballpark.
As for the burning time, the delay after wich the fuze is armed should give you a clue.

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 18:47
by dwightlooi
OPIT wrote:...As for the burning time, the delay after wich the fuze is armed should give you a clue.


Actually it is no clue at all. The missile should be able to hit, blow up and kill an enemy even while the motor is boosting or on sustain. It is practically irrelevant. The fuse activation delay gives no indication of burn time. In fact, in several AIM-9X videos of tests against close in targets, the motor is still going on full boost when the missile hits the target and detonated the warhead.

The AIM-9X uses a regrained Mk36 motor which shares the casing but not the propellant grain with the AIM-9M. The point isn't that the boost grain appears to be 4~ 5seconds long. The point is that there is sufficient propellant volume and mass to get the missile to ~Mach 2~2.5 over release speed in a 4~5 second boost and still provide a sustain burn for an extended duration of an additional ~10 seconds. This will be consistent with the missile's estimated 40km maximum range and give it an effective range against high performance targets in the 10~20 km bracket. It will also be consistent the desire to have the thrust vectoring control be effective over a larger portion of the missile's flight time than 4~5 seconds. Even a minimal amount of sustain thrust will make the vectoring vanes functional, this is something the AIM-9X can benefit from because it is clearly not a missile designed around massive wings like the Python 5 or to a lesser degree the MICA.

Image

As you can see from the illustration, the missile is about 60% motor. If your assertion is correct, then basically 60% of the missile contains fuel which weighs roughly 30% of the launch weight, whereas the remaining 40% of the missile contains stuff which accounts for 70% of the launch weight. The warhead we know is 22 lbs (~11%), meaning somehow most of the weight is in the remaining 30% of the missile!

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 20:52
by Pilotasso
checksixx wrote:Do you all REALLY care that much on how long an AIM-9 motor burns for????????


Yes, the whole point of this slight deviation to the thread is to try to point that Eurofighter is NOT obsolete and Missiles wont swat it out of the sky because they will catch it everytime without stealth. dwightlooi argues that IR missiles have 15km no escape zone and burn for 20 secs, BVR with 40km no secape zone burning for 30 wich is ludricous.

All these missiles are defendable provided you have range and kinetic power to do so. 30sec burning rocket boosted thunderbolts of death are still in the domain of science fiction.

flighthawk wrote:Various AIM-9x launches - One shot clearly stops burning after 4-5 secs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA


Precisely, so why are we arguing over motor length and wrongly estimated chemical burn speed if we have footage to prove it?

Heres another:
Count the seconds of an AMRAAM launched from ground at 1:13 into this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD2KAte3Mjw
my count is 7 secs FLAT

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 21:11
by Thumper3181
A non AESA, non Meteor equiped Typhoon is obsolete. There is nothing but BAE BS that says otherwise. A tranche (we called it batch by the way) 3 tiffy will be useful as a 2nd tier interceptor for nations that cannot get JSF and can afford the cost. Unfortunately there will be other less expensive AC that can do the job as well and can also perform the strike and CAS so much better than tiffy.

A shame. The plane really was a waste of European taxpayer dollars.

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 21:15
by Pilotasso
What a strange concept of obselescence^^^^name 10 fighters with AESA and ramjet missiles in service TODAY.

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 21:29
by Thumper3181
Zero. But what about 2015 or there about when this wonderful radar and missile will finally be in service.

AIM-120D and it's sucessor
American Airborne fighter AESA on JSF is 3rd generation LPI
JSF carries weapons internal
JSF has all the same avionic goodies as Typhoon and Super Hornet
JSF is LO.

All this = Obsolete tiffy.

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 22:06
by OPIT
dwightlooi wrote:Actually it is no clue at all. The missile should be able to hit, blow up and kill an enemy even while the motor is boosting or on sustain. It is practically irrelevant. The fuse activation delay gives no indication of burn time.

From public sources, you can see the fuse of some AIM-9 requires 5 seconds at 20 G acceleration to arm itself (allow the missile to detonate). In this case, the motor has to burn for at least 5 seconds, otherwise you end up with a dead round.
And despite what you think, this delay really prevents the missile from detonating too close from its launching platform.

Now, my personal opinion is that this delay is actually significantly shorter (short enough to close the gap with the guns firing envelope). The principle still remain, though.

dwightlooi wrote:The AIM-9X uses a regrained Mk36 motor which shares the casing but not the propellant grain with the AIM-9M. The point isn't that the boost grain appears to be 4~ 5seconds long. The point is that there is sufficient propellant volume and mass to get the missile to ~Mach 2~2.5 over release speed in a 4~5 second boost and still provide a sustain burn for an extended duration of an additional ~10 seconds.

You're speculating the Mk36 motor is a dual stage propeller.

dwightlooi wrote:As you can see from the illustration, the missile is about 60% motor. If your assertion is correct, then basically 60% of the missile contains fuel which weighs roughly 30% of the launch weight, whereas the remaining 40% of the missile contains stuff which accounts for 70% of the launch weight.

You're just wrong when you assume that 60% of the missile is the motor. The actual motor length is actually about 40%, the remaining 20% being taken by the exhaust.

BTW, it turns out a document posted earlier confirms the 60 lbs figure :
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1979/PV1979_91.pdf

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 23:35
by Pilotasso
Opit your theories are even stranger than dwightlooi's. good grief! 5s arm time only on 20G tunr?!

It means that everybody flying straight within 2 miles is going to be imune to missiles.

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 23:55
by dwightlooi
Pilotasso wrote:Yes, the whole point of this slight deviation to the thread is to try to point that Eurofighter is NOT obsolete and Missiles wont swat it out of the sky because they will catch it everytime without stealth. dwightlooi argues that IR missiles have 15km no escape zone and burn for 20 secs, BVR with 40km no secape zone burning for 30 wich is ludricous.

All these missiles are defendable provided you have range and kinetic power to do so. 30sec burning rocket boosted thunderbolts of death are still in the domain of science fiction.

Precisely, so why are we arguing over motor length and wrongly estimated chemical burn speed if we have footage to prove it?

Heres another:
Count the seconds of an AMRAAM launched from ground at 1:13 into this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD2KAte3Mjw
my count is 7 secs FLAT


Actually, no it is not ludicrous even if the "its all about dogfighting where you can see your enemy with a sharp eye crowd" will like to believe.

Today's WVR AAMs are typically capable of reaching out to targets near BVR (30~40km) and BVR AAMs are typically capable of reaching 75~100km with some examples going further than that. That is their maximum range -- not where they fall to the ground but where they are still say Mach 1.5 and capable of hitting say a C-130 or an unsuspecting fighter caught in a low energy state. Their effective range*, the range at which they are still near maximum speed and capable of effectively engaging high performance (9G) maneuvering targets, should be about 30km short of their maximum range -- roughly the endurance of their sustainer and perhaps a little beyond where despite rapid velocity drop off after sustainer burn out they are still about 1.7 times faster than the target (~Mach 2.6 for a target averaging Mach 1.5) where they are about 3 times as energetic.

Large SAMs with 1,500~4,500 lb missiles reach even further because of their higher fuel fractions; the electronics and warheads of the missile can be smaller relative to the missile's size than in smaller AAMs. Missile like the SM-2 ER and the S400 reach out to almost 400km with an effective range about half of that against fighter class targets.

For anyone who doubts the energy content of solid rockets, lets just say that typical solid booster with a fuel fraction of 85% (the Shuttle's SRB is about 85.5%; the newer ones like the Castor 120 derived from the Peacemaker's 1st stage or the GEM 60 strap-ons are actually 90~92% fuel fraction; Mk72 AEGIS-ER 1st stage is about 80%) and a specific impulse of 240 seconds will reach about Mach 16 without payload uncorrected for gravity or drag. Even when corrected for these they reach about Mach 11. Stack two in tandem and you can reach orbit (~Mach 28 ) without any payload. Stack three in series and you can put a satellite in orbit to the tune of about 1.2% payload fraction. That should give you an upper bound on chemical solid rocket potency. And that will be what a missile will pull if only about 10~15% of it is structure, guidance and warhead.

In reality this is impossible and modern AAMs are between only 45~65% motor with the rest being everything else it takes to make it a guided missile with a warhead. Even so it should be possible to push about Mach 4 above release speed. Nonetheless, these AAMs typically reach "only" about Mach 2~3 above release speed. In most cases they can go faster, but the designers typically prefer to trade the last Mach 0.5~1 or so of speed for extended endurance at a slightly lower maximum speed by converting some of the fuel grain to a sustainer making about 1/5 as much thrust as the booster but burning 5 times longer per unit fuel. Hence, a missile may for instance "boost" for about 7 seconds then turn to sustainer thrust for about 17.5 seconds then burn out. In doing so it uses about 2/3 of its fuel for boost and about 1/3 as sustainer. For a rather average BVR AAM, assuming an average speed of 3700km/h (M3.5) from launch to motor out this 24.5 second burn will mean that the missile retains its prime energy content until its motor burns out at ~25km out and about 24.5 seconds into the flight. This will be consistent with an effective range of about 25~35km against high performance targets and 55~65km maximum range. Thats about right for an AIM-120A or similar missile of the 1990 vintage.

Over the years, electronics get smaller and more compact, motors get longer and denser. Assuming we are not increasing the maximum speed achieved by the booster it means that practically every motor gain is in the sustainer. This extends range to the current typical performance in the 40~50/70~80 km league. Going beyond that is possible by further increasing the propellant fraction and through flight path optimization -- the AIM-120D is reportedly going to be a 100+ km missile with an effective range of about 70+ km. Or alternatively, we can put on a sustainer with a very high specific impulse by eliminating the need to carry all the oxygen needed for combustion in the solid fuel -- solid fuel is typically about 20% fuel (usually powdered metal), 80% oxidizer (usually ammonium perchlorate) and binder (usually PBAN, HTPB or HTPE). The VFDR employed by the Meteor is one such air breathing solution. With combustion in large part supported by ram air, the sustainer can be very fuel rich (up to about 60% fuel). The missile should be able to burn a similar amount of fuel about three times as long as a typical rocket sustainer of the same thrust. However, some of the missile's volume and mass will be taken up by the VFDR hardware -- intake flaps, duct work, valving for the boron sustainer, additional bulkheads, etc. Nonetheless we can expect a missile with significantly improved kinematics without going to extreme fuel fractions. The Meteor will likely be able to keep its sustainer lit to support an effective range of ~100km (about 90 sec total burn time @ 4000km/h avg speed) and have a maximum range well in excess of 100km.

As far as the video is concerned, you are probably witnessing the burn time of the boost grain which, at about 6~8 seconds, is about right for an AIM-120A/B. That is the period of time where the missile trails a big a$$ exhaust plume and shock diamonds almost as long as the missile itself. When that disappears it is when the boost grain is expended and the sustainer grain takes over.


* By effective range I mean the distance the missile will fly and still be about 1.7 times faster than the target it intends to kill. In otherwords, the range at which the missile is still Mach 2.5~3.4 and hence faster than a Mach 1.5~2 target.

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2007, 00:19
by dwightlooi
From public sources, you can see the fuse of some AIM-9 requires 5 seconds at 20 G acceleration to arm itself (allow the missile to detonate). In this case, the motor has to burn for at least 5 seconds, otherwise you end up with a dead round.
And despite what you think, this delay really prevents the missile from detonating too close from its launching platform.


I am sorry, but you are not making any sense. For someone who claims to be a "weapon specialist" I am amazed at your illogical reasonings pertaining to "weapons".

(1) 5 seconds is eternity when the missile is averaging say about 2100km/h (Mach 2) faster than the aircraft for that 5 seconds. At 5 seconds, the missile will be at least about 3km away -- that is if it is going straight ahead and the aircraft stays on the straight course. It'll be further away if the vectors diverge. A 20 lb fragmentation warhead has a lethal range measured in meters and is practically harmless if it goes off a football field's length away (~100m). It doesn't need to be kept "safe" for 3000 meters! Thats unreasonable and will make the weapon literally useless in a close-in dogfight.

(2) The arming distance has nothing (zero) to do with the motor burn time. The missile can be designed to arm its warhead 1 second into the boost phase or 1 hour after it ends. It is completely irrelevant and is not tied to how long the motor burns!

You're speculating the Mk36 motor is a dual stage propeller.


Thats is the ONLY plausible explanation for the AIM-9X being described with a 40km maximum range vs an AIM-9M's 18.5km.

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2007, 01:09
by OPIT
dwightlooi wrote:
From public sources, you can see the fuse of some AIM-9 requires 5 seconds at 20 G acceleration to arm itself (allow the missile to detonate).


I am sorry, but you are not making any sense. For someone who claims to be a "weapon specialist" I am amazed at your illogical reasonings pertaining to "weapons".

First of all, this 5 seconds delay is stated by a public source, and not even an official one. Second, I made clear I believe the real value is significantly lower because 5 seconds is obviously too much.
I admit it's rather convenient to discard the later when you quote me. That makes it easier to take on the poster, isn't it ?

dwightlooi wrote:(2) The arming distance has nothing (zero) to do with the motor burn time. The missile can be designed to arm its warhead 1 second into the boost phase or 1 hour after it ends. It is completely irrelevant and is not tied to how long the motor burns!

It's clear you can't understand how the whole thing works. The motor shall produce an acceleration higher than X g for more than Y seconds for the fuse to be armed. So the motor burns for at least Y seconds, and that can be relevant if the arming delay is significant enough to dismiss low burn time estimates.

dwightlooi wrote:Thats is the ONLY plausible explanation for the AIM-9X being described with a 40km maximum range vs an AIM-9M's 18.5km.

A longer seeker acquisition range may explains that too.
Anyway, you already got one part of the answer. Now that you know the average Isp of solid propellants, maybe you could try to determine how much thrust is required to increase the momentum of the AIM-9X with an acceleration greater than 25 to 30 g (remember how the fuse is armed). That in turns will give you for how long the motor burns, and you'll end up in the 4 to 7 seconds ballpark with nothing left for sustained cruise.

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2007, 02:55
by dwightlooi
A longer seeker acquisition range may explains that too.
Anyway, you already got one part of the answer. Now that you know the average Isp of solid propellants, maybe you could try to determine how much thrust is required to increase the momentum of the AIM-9X with an acceleration greater than 25 to 30 g (remember how the fuse is armed). That in turns will give you for how long the motor burns, and you'll end up in the 4 to 7 seconds ballpark with nothing left for sustained cruise.


OK... thats easy, but your assumption that acceleration will be 25~30G is flawed. I'll tell you why... 25Gs = 25 x 9.81m/s^2 = 245.25 m/s^2. In about 5 seconds your missile will have accelerated from zero to ~1226 m/s over initial speed. Thats 4,414 km/h (Mach 4.16) over launch speed uncorrected. I don't think that is true of the AIM-9X or any WVR AAM for that matter.

I'll base my calculations on an assumed uncorrected acceleration to 900 m/s (3240km/h; Mach 3.05) over launch speed by the boost grain. Corrected for losses this is roughly about Mach 2~2.5 over launch speed depending on altitude (air drag) and trajectory angle (gravity). At this delta V, you'll get the missile to about Mach 2~2.5 on a zero-zero shot, Mach 3~3.5 on a Mach 1 release, or a little faster if the aircraft is supersonic, which is about right for an AIM-9X type missile. This is delta V translates to roughly 18.4Gs for 5 seconds or 22.9Gs for 4 seconds.

(1) Contemporary HTPB/HTPE rocket motors have an IpSec of ~230 secs at sea level and up to about 290 secs in vacuum. Let's say 240 secs for medium altitudes.

(2) The AIM-9X is about 86 kg of which 10 kg is the warhead.

(3) I am assuming that no less than 40% of that is fuel (that's being conservative for fuel fraction of the missile). Thats 34.5 kg in fuel.

(4) Force = Mass x Acceleration:-

Force = 86kg x 23Gs = 1978 kg at launch for 23Gs
Force = (86-34.5)kg x 23Gs = 1185 kg at burn out for 23Gs

To keep things simple, lets just say we need an average of about 1581 kg of thrust for four seconds Thats 3,483 lbs of thrust. Sounds about right for a 200 lb class AAM boost thrust.

(5) 34.5 kg of fuel will make 1581 kg of thrust for 34.5kg x 240s / 1581kg = 5.24 seconds.

(6) Since we only need 1581 kg for 4 seconds to get to Mach 2~2.5 over launch speed (Mach 3.05 over uncorrected). We have enough fuel for another 6.2 seconds of sustainer thrust at 1/5 the boost thrust.

(7) This is roughly 10.2 seconds of total motor time. Taking into rough account the acceleration period, let's say that the missile starts at Mach 1, accelerates lineraly to Mach 3.25 after 4 seconds, and stays at Mach 3.25 for 6.2 seconds. The missile will average 0.83 km/s (Mach 2.81 or ~2984km/h). After 10.2 seconds it will be ~8.5 km downrange, going Mach 3.25 and experience sustainer cut out. The missile will remain extremely lethal to a high performance fighter going ~Mach 1.5 to for a good few kms after that or at whatever distance it is no longer about 1.7 times faster than the target.

All the numbers makes sense. And again, I am being rather conservative on most assumptions there. The performance can probably be better but not worse. If it is better, the boost time and acceleration rate it takes to get to Mach 2~2.5 over launch speed is going to be the same and ALL of the gains are going to the sustainer. This will extend the range to which the missile retains its kinetic energy prime and increase the effective range.

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2007, 11:22
by OPIT
dwightlooi wrote:(3) I am assuming that no less than 40% of that is fuel (that's being conservative for fuel fraction of the missile). Thats 34.5 kg in fuel.

That's a bit more than 60 lbs, you know... So instead of taking your own estimate as granted, why don't you start with the 60.9 lbs figure stated here ?
dwightlooi wrote:(4) Force = Mass x Acceleration:-

Force = 86kg x 23Gs = 1978 kg at launch for 23Gs
Force = (86-34.5)kg x 23Gs = 1185 kg at burn out for 23Gs

Force = (86-28)kg * 23Gs = 1334 kg at burn out
dwightlooi wrote:To keep things simple, lets just say we need an average of about 1581 kg of thrust for four seconds

(1978+1334)/2 = 1656 kg of thrus on average.
dwightlooi wrote:(5) 34.5 kg of fuel will make 1581 kg of thrust for 34.5kg x 240s / 1581kg = 5.24 seconds.

28 kg * 240s / 1656 = 4,05 seconds.

So what ?

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2007, 16:39
by dwightlooi
OPIT wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:(3) I am assuming that no less than 40% of that is fuel (that's being conservative for fuel fraction of the missile). Thats 34.5 kg in fuel.

That's a bit more than 60 lbs, you know... So instead of taking your own estimate as granted, why don't you start with the 60.9 lbs figure stated here ?


Because the document is from 1979 and can only pertain to Sidewinders from the mid-70s at the latest. Or, it could pertain to sidewinders from an even earlier period which is declassified by 1979.

From the Vietnam war to present, the typical given maximum range of the Sidewinder has growth from about 4.2km to 40km. In the last 30~40 years there have been about 6 evolutions of the AIM-9.

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2007, 21:47
by Pilotasso
All my books say 18km high altitude launch with both launcher and target coming at mach 0.9 head to head.

40km must be the balistic range. Its too ludricous. Vietnam era Sidwinders had 2 mile range BTW so yes their range did increase since, but not to 40km, your living in a dream world. I would like to see your sources on that.

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2007, 09:00
by dwightlooi
Pilotasso wrote:All my books say 18km high altitude launch with both launcher and target coming at mach 0.9 head to head.

40km must be the balistic range. Its too ludricous. Vietnam era Sidwinders had 2 mile range BTW so yes their range did increase since, but not to 40km, your living in a dream world. I would like to see your sources on that.


Nobody is saying 40km is the effective range against high performance targets. That is frequently cited as the Maximum Range. This probably means that you may be able to hit a C-130 10,000 feet below you and cruising along unaware at that range. BTW, 18km is typically cited as the "range" on the AIM-9M, not the AIM-9X. We'll never know the exact performance parameters of the 9X for many years.

Based on my analysis on how much of the missile is the motor and the specific impulse of contemporary motors, I believe that the AIM-9X should be at roughly Mach 3~3.5 on a Mach 1 release at 8~10km downrange. How effective that'll be against what will depend on many factors. Altitude difference being one, release speed being another. The target's initial speed and acceleration capability being yet more variables. Target agility probably doesn't matter much except right at the borderline of the missile's effective envelope. This is so because at 10km or 5km or even 2km no matter how violently you maneuver the missile doesn't need to maneuver violently at all. And at the last few hunderd meters you still can never out turn the missile in a 9G fighter -- the missile can pull 6 times as many Gs. The only thing you can hope for is that your maneuvering will cause the missile to lose enough kinetic energy that it can no longer catch you before it hits. Up to 10km it should be extremely lethal in the overwhelming majority of scenarios. I also believe that it can effective up to twice that range in certain scenarios where the target is at an inferior energy state.

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2007, 16:22
by johnwill
I am not a missile guy, but 54g seems hard to believe. But, assuming that 54g is possible, a 9g airplane at .9 mach has a shorter turn radius than a 54g missile at 3.5 mach (less than half). So if airplane starts its 9g pull in the "last few hundred meters", it is possible (but not likely) to avoid the missile. The problem is that is takes time to build up to 9g; it is not instantaneous.

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2007, 17:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
many modern fights have g onset rates exceeding 9g/sec, so effectively as long as it takes you to pull back on the stick is how long it takes to build the G.

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2007, 18:21
by dwightlooi
johnwill wrote:I am not a missile guy, but 54g seems hard to believe. But, assuming that 54g is possible, a 9g airplane at .9 mach has a shorter turn radius than a 54g missile at 3.5 mach (less than half). So if airplane starts its 9g pull in the "last few hundred meters", it is possible (but not likely) to avoid the missile. The problem is that is takes time to build up to 9g; it is not instantaneous.


It takes time for the missile to build Gs too. While it may be faster than a guy pulling on a stick and a winged aircraft loading up on a turn it is not instantaneous either.

(1) The typical maximum G loading of the latest WVR AAM is 50~65Gs. That of BVR AAMs is typically 30~35Gs.

(2) Assuming the same turn radius, an object at Mach 3 will post 9 times as many Gs as one at Mach 1. (cA = V^2/R). In otherwords, the same turn radius that costs 9Gs to pull on an aircraft at Mach 1 will take 81Gs to pull on a missile doing Mach 3.

(3) However, because the missile is faster, it also posts proportionally more lateral translation per unit angular deflection than the aircraft. If the missile is 3 times faster, it also needs to turn only 1/3 as much in order to have roughly the same lateral translation as the aircraft simply because it covers 3 times as much distance over the same period of time. And remember, that is at ZERO distance and represents the MAXIMUM lateral translation required maybe at the last microsecond before impact. When the distance is large then the angular deflection becomes very small. At say 10km, an aircraft going 2000km/h suddenly going 90 degrees to the side only requires a course change of 3.18 degrees on the part of the missile. When the distance approaches infinity, the angular deflection needed approaches zero.

(4) In otherwords, if an aircraft at Mach 1 turns at a turn radius of X, the missile at Mach 3 only needs to turn with a radius ~X/3 to stay on a collision course. If the aircraft is turning at 9Gs, the missile needs to turn at (9^2)/3 * 9Gs = 27Gs to match the lateral translation to stay on course to hit the target.

(5) What if the missile is "only" twice as fast? Well, then it only needs to turn with 2 times as many Gs to match the target. Mach 1 aircraft @ 9Gs will mean that a Mach 2 missile needs to turn at "only" (2^2/2)*9Gs = 18Gs. Naturally, at the same speed, the missile needs to turn at the same G load.

This is why a BVR missile is typically rated for about 30~35Gs. That of WVR AAMs is almost twice as high, but that is not to allow it to "out turn" the target. The reason it is that high is to support high off bore sight shots where you want to complete your course change after launch as quickly as possible so you waste the minimum amount of rocket motor boost time accelerating on the wrong vector! This maximizes the velocity and hence kinetic energy of the missile in the direction the target is at.

The range at which a missile practically cannot be "escaped" from through physical maneuvering is roughly the range at which it is still 1.7 times faster than the target. This is so because the kinetic quotient will be roughly 3 times higher at 1.7 times the speed difference. And this is when it is practically impossible -- no matter how you try gain at energy advantage over the missile through maneuvering -- to get it to 1:1 before the missile reaches you.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2007, 17:52
by Schmendrick
dwightlooi wrote:(3) However, because the missile is faster, it also posts proportionally more lateral translation per unit angular deflection than the aircraft. If the missile is 3 times faster, it also needs to turn only 1/3 as much in order to have roughly the same lateral translation as the aircraft simply because it covers 3 times as much distance over the same period of time. And remember, that is at ZERO distance and represents the MAXIMUM lateral translation required maybe at the last microsecond before impact. When the distance is large then the angular deflection becomes very small. At say 10km, an aircraft going 2000km/h suddenly going 90 degrees to the side only requires a course change of 3.18 degrees on the part of the missile. When the distance approaches infinity, the angular deflection needed approaches zero.

(4) In otherwords, if an aircraft at Mach 1 turns at a turn radius of X, the missile at Mach 3 only needs to turn with a radius ~X/3 to stay on a collision course. If the aircraft is turning at 9Gs, the missile needs to turn at (9^2)/3 * 9Gs = 27Gs to match the lateral translation to stay on course to hit the target.

(5) What if the missile is "only" twice as fast? Well, then it only needs to turn with 2 times as many Gs to match the target. Mach 1 aircraft @ 9Gs will mean that a Mach 2 missile needs to turn at "only" (2^2/2)*9Gs = 18Gs. Naturally, at the same speed, the missile needs to turn at the same G load.


I get it. Next time I have to turn a corner in my car, I'll make sure to go twice as fast but only turn the wheel half as hard. I wonder where I'll end up.

Sounds right.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2007, 19:14
by dwightlooi
Schmendrick wrote:I get it. Next time I have to turn a corner in my car, I'll make sure to go twice as fast but only turn the wheel half as hard. I wonder where I'll end up.

Sounds right.


LOL, please don't. I don't want you wind up in a ditch.

I don't think you get it at all. A car turning a corner as to follow the exactly same path as the road. A missile trying to hit an aircraft doesn't have to follow the same path as the aircraft.

Imagine this. You are trying to crash a motorcycle into a bus in a huge parking lot. The bus is going 40 km/h, the motorcycle is going 120 km/h. At 120 km/h the motorcycle covers three times as much distance per unit time. Hence, a course change of ANY amount on the part of the bus only requires ~1/3 as much course change on the part of the motorcycle for the two to remain on an intersecting course.

Here...
Image
The red arrow is three times as long as the purple one denoting an object three times faster and hence covering three times as much distance per unit time. Note that Theta prime is ~1/3 as obtuse as Theta?

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2007, 19:39
by Schmendrick
The way I understand it is that the turn rate is mere function of the objects speed and displacing force.

If we have a fighter at M1 on 9g and a missile at M3, then the missile needs to take 81g to match the fighter's turning radius. Doing this, the missile would have three times the rate of turn.

So, yes, the missile would only need a third of the used turn rate to match the fighter's turn rate, but then its circle's radius would be three times the fighter's circle radius.

The bigger the missile's turning radius in relation to the fighter's turning radius the less close he needs to let the missile come before jinking.


I think your approach misses to either use integrals or think in terms of circles and their intersections.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2007, 20:09
by checksixx
Folks...I think for sake of argument, that out-turning a AtA missile is very difficult and technically impossible. The combination of sheer luck, contributing factors such as speed, weather, altitude, and countermeasures is the only solution to getting out intact.

-Check

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2007, 20:17
by dwightlooi
Schmendrick wrote:The way I understand it is that the turn rate is mere function of the objects speed and displacing force.

If we have a fighter at M1 on 9g and a missile at M3, then the missile needs to take 81g to match the fighter's turning radius. Doing this, the missile would have three times the rate of turn.

So, yes, the missile would only need a third of the used turn rate to match the fighter's turn rate, but then its circle's radius would be three times the fighter's circle radius.

The bigger the missile's turning radius in relation to the fighter's turning radius the less close he needs to let the missile come before jinking.


What you are missing is the point that the missile NEVER has to match the turn radius of the aircraft it is trying to hit because it is not trying to follow its path through the sky. What it is trying to do it intersect its course.

When target turns at a certain given radius, it is carving a fraction of the circumference of a circle dictated by that radius through the air. The length of this curved path is determined by the speed and the time elapse. If the missile is moving three times faster, the length of its curved path is three times longer per unit time. As such the radius of that path is also roughly MUCH larger. Let me give you an example... a TANK has a much smaller turn radius than a HELLFIRE missile, however because it is much much slower the missile needs to turn but a tiny bit to hit the tank, and trying to dodge a HELLFIRE by maneuvering a tank to a smaller turn radius that it is utterly futile.

Image
Time Elapsed = t1 - t0; distance covered by the two paths are not the same and hence the radius is very different but the paths intersect.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2007, 20:34
by Schmendrick
And what you are missing is that the larger the missile's radius, the more time there is towards the point of impact where when both start the turn the fighter crosses the point of intersection before the missile, staying within the missile's radius and in safety.

What do you want to take as performance parameters so I crunch the numbers?

Fighter: M1, 9g, 30k feet -- Missile: M3, 35g (BVRAAM) or 27g (your recommendation) or 65g (WVRAAM) or 81g, 30k feet -- 0° tail aspect pursuit by the missile and assuming sustained speed to make it easier to calculate?

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2007, 00:04
by dwightlooi
Schmendrick wrote:And what you are missing is that the larger the missile's radius, the more time there is towards the point of impact where when both start the turn the fighter crosses the point of intersection before the missile, staying within the missile's radius and in safety.

What do you want to take as performance parameters so I crunch the numbers?

Fighter: M1, 9g, 30k feet -- Missile: M3, 35g (BVRAAM) or 27g (your recommendation) or 65g (WVRAAM) or 81g, 30k feet -- 0° tail aspect pursuit by the missile and assuming sustained speed to make it easier to calculate?


The point is that there is NOT more time towards the point of impact. That's the key issue here! Because A is three times faster than B, after the same amount of time has elapsed, A has covered three times as much distance as B. Therefore, A can turn at a hell of a lot wider radius and still have its path cross B which is turning a hell of a lot tighter.

You see, turning to face a certain direction in and of itself does nothing. If you are stationary you can turn all you want and I'll run into you without changing my collision course at all! What matters is the speed at which you are heading in your new direction after you turn. When you are really slow, you are not going anywhere in your new direction any time soon and I only need to turn very little to hit you match your translation and hit you.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2007, 07:16
by Tinito_16
hmmmm.... seems to me just from looking at the F-35 vs. the F-16, that the F-16 is more maneuverable and a better fighter WVR (all things equal). How much better remains to be seen. However, when the 35 gets the AIM-9X the JMHCS, and you combine that with stealth, there you have an advantage. But I can't imagine that ungainly thing beating a 16 in pure A2A. Just no way.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2007, 09:44
by Pilotasso
Your actualy wrong. Despite the uncomplicated an unelaborated apearence of the F-35 compared to the F-16's lines the F-35 is actualy significantly better. It has a more advanced controll FBW software, and a much more powerfull engine. People often make the mistake of comparing T/W ratio with the F-35's tanks full but thats a misconception since the fuel fraction of the F-35 is much higher, if you place the same fuel proportion in them both the F35 will surely outperform the Falcon by a handsome margin.

The published numbers are misleading as people make this mistake you made, plus some other yet classified figures. It couldnt be taken lighly a fighter that replaces another fighter without increases in perfomance.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2007, 09:53
by Tintin
You make a good point Tinito 16, but as AIM-9X will not be fitted in the bay a wing mounted solution will only increase the RCS. AIM-9X also has no lock-after-launch (as far as I know) so again quite a limitation. So I guess you are right, F-35 vs. F-16 in WVR, both with AIM-9X and I think the F-16 would probably win. But on a ground attack mission F-35 vs. F-16, both with JDAM or SDB and I think F-35 would survive.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2007, 14:23
by PhillyGuy
Both points are incorrect, the F-35 can and most likely will carry the AIM-9X internally and the AIM-9X is also LOAL capable.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2007, 16:11
by Tinito_16
To be fair, the F-35 does have bigger control surfaces than the F-16, it's just the requirement for VTOL impairs it somewhat in A2A. I would agree that A2G there's no question it's better than the Viper because it can attack targets the F-16 could not, it is more survivable and therefore more practical for that purpose. And it's definitely a technological marvel; it's just a pity the engineers couldn't fit more capability in it! As an engineer in training, I always want to fit as much capability into something as is possible - even disregarding cost :twisted: but I guess you can't always do that, and the F-35 was designed to be cheaper than it's big brother so :shrug: Whatever happens I hope the AF doesn't begin standing down F-16C squadrons....

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2007, 17:27
by dwightlooi
PhillyGuy wrote:Both points are incorrect, the F-35 can and most likely will carry the AIM-9X internally and the AIM-9X is also LOAL capable.


Actually, its like this...

(1) The AIM-9X was designed from its inception to have LOAL capability. This WAS NOT a requirement but was nonetheless implemented by Raytheon as part of the feature set. This is not just to support internal bay carriage, but rather to support its use in scenarios where the seeker head cannot see the target because it is outside of its 180 degree hemispheric vision envelope, obstructed by the airframe or simply out of range of the seeker. The AIM-9X block I has demonstrated LOAL capability, but current USAF/USN doctrine does not to utilize it use due to blue-on-blue concerns.

(2) The AIM-9X WILL NOT be integrated for internal release during the SDD phase (thru 2011) of the F-35 program. This is because it is not a priority. An additional issue is that the AIM-9X (or any AIM-9 for that matter) has not been intended for ejector launch. And, the door position on the F-35 is an ejector not a rail. However, the AIM-9X will fit physically and future integration is a possibility if not a likelihood.

(3) The ASRAAM (AIM-132) will be the only WVR AAM that will be qualified for F-35 internal carriage during SDD.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2007, 18:00
by snypa777
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro ... eb+6,+2006

Above is a Raytheon press release from last year, it details a simulated test launch from a submarine, demonstrating LOAL capability on the `9X. This test was done for the USN.
It`s interesting that the USAF/USN has decided not to use this feature when the RAF maintains the option on ASRAAM. Of course, I would suppose that the feature can be selected or de-selected. I can see where the feature would be very useful, for example attacking low flying cruise missiles where the attacking aircraft is unable to get an initial lock... The Israeli`s demonstrated this with the Python.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2007, 18:23
by dwightlooi
snypa777 wrote:It`s interesting that the USAF/USN has decided not to use this feature when the RAF maintains the option on ASRAAM. Of course, I would suppose that the feature can be selected or de-selected. I can see where the feature would be very useful, for example attacking low flying cruise missiles where the attacking aircraft is unable to get an initial lock... The Israeli`s demonstrated this with the Python.


I do not believe the option is hard "deleted". I believe it is more of a doctrinal issue. I mean, for example, just because soldiers were given clear instructions NOT to shoot their rifles around a corner without looking through the sights, does not mean the rifles cannot be fired in that manner. Of course, the operator can always ignore doctrine, but this is unlikely in live fire exercises or simulated combat in peacetime simply because they'll get yell at if not worse.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 06:47
by Thumper3181
Just as there may be unintended issues about shooting around corners without looking there are also issues about a lock on leave IR missile. What is to stop the missile from unintentionally locking on to a friendly?

I am not sure whether it matters (other than for discussion purposes) if AIM-9X will be carries internally or not. It seems to me that if you have F-35s in a situation where they are fighting WVR you have given up the advantage of stealth and the battle may have already been lost. I do believe (correct me if I am wrong) current USAF doctrine is to fight the A2A battle BVR so as to take advantage of AWACS, stealth, etc.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 07:22
by dwightlooi
Thumper3181 wrote:Just as there may be unintended issues about shooting around corners without looking there are also issues about a lock on leave IR missile. What is to stop the missile from unintentionally locking on to a friendly?

I am not sure whether it matters (other than for discussion purposes) if AIM-9X will be carries internally or not. It seems to me that if you have F-35s in a situation where they are fighting WVR you have given up the advantage of stealth and the battle may have already been lost. I do believe (correct me if I am wrong) current USAF doctrine is to fight the A2A battle BVR so as to take advantage of AWACS, stealth, etc.


The "solution" is to build in image recognition into the missile's internal processors. That is, if the aircraft's computer knows (or at least thinks) that it is shooting at a MIG-29 for instance, this knowledge is passed on to the missile. The friendlies types currently in the fight is also passed. The missile "knows" what a MIG-29 looks like based on its database of 3D models and multiple 2D images. It intelligently matches the image it sees on the focal plane array to its expectations of the appearance of a MIG-29 through advanced image recognition processing. If it sees a MIG-29 it goes for the kill. If its sees an F-18, it aborts.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 21:49
by Thumper3181
Do you really want to be flying around and hitting your afterburners when the circuits to that logic malfunctions?

Is it possible to write the code to be able to have the seeker discern an F-18 from a Mig-29 at all angles?

How do you test this?

I think the devil would be in the details on this one DL.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 22:43
by boff180
Its possible and I believe it has been done. I know Python 5 is supposed to be able to ID targets by their signature at all angles by analysing the intensity and distribution of heat signatures coupled with direct of travel (to obtain a perspective).

Who said it needs to have a Mig-29s signature loaded... if the system is loaded with the signatures of all friendly aircraft therefore if it isn't in the database... then its a legit target. IR seekers are of a high enough resolution now for it to be possible, images ive seen from the Aim-9x/asraam seeker head show this very well.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 22:51
by dwightlooi
The idea is not for the system to be fool proof. The idea is that if it even has the potential to significantly reduce Blue-on-blue kills in LOAL shots then it is valuable. The pilot is always aware that in a messy situation where blues and reds are all mixed up, taking a LOAL shot is risky. But once that decision is taken and a missile is off, having an ability to discern -- even if it is imperfect -- is a big plus.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2007, 23:00
by Thumper3181
if the system is loaded with the signatures of all friendly aircraft therefore if it isn't in the database... then its a legit target. IR seekers are of a high enough resolution now for it to be possible, images ive seen from the Aim-9x/asraam seeker head show this very well.


No doubt under ideal conditions and in theory it works. From a systems standpoint I would argue that you have it backwards. Your algorithm would not require positive identification, merely that the seeker not get a match in it's database. That is inherently more risky than positive identification of being able to identify a known enemy AC. "IF target image in seeker not in database then lock on" is much less discriminate than "If target image is matched in enemy database then lock on". What happens when I fire off a flare? What happens if my AC is damaged but still flying? It's image will not match. Close is not good enough here. If that where the case BVR targeting decisions based entirely on IFF would be the norm.

The pilot is always aware that in a messy situation where blues and reds are all mixed up, taking a LOAL shot is risky.


The first blue on blue kill will end the practice.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 01:36
by snypa777
I believe that certain airforces will put the pilot in a position to decide when it is safe to use LOAL. It seems the USAF/USN has taken the decision for them. A procedural or cultural matter?

If an enemy fighter is on your "6" I can see where this function could come in very handy, this is why some SU`s have rear firing Archer`s.

The ASRAAM uses edge detection to pick out an aircrafts shape and attack hotspots within that shape. In the UK, DERA were working on an automatic target recognition system for air to air missiles in the 1990`s but that work went "black" ie, there is no public info` on the program now. At least mil` researchers were thinking of this before us on the forum :wink: The issue then was having fast enough processors small enough to fit inside an air to air missile....with the right algorithms of course. Back then a "fast" processor was a 486! There was also a plan to fit Hellfire with the same kind of system and LOAL, I don`t know the status of the Hellfire research.

It is not a stretch to imagine processors small enough and fast enough now to recognize particular aircraft but I am with Thumper, would you trust it to not fly up your tail-pipe?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 02:39
by dwightlooi
snypa777 wrote:I believe that certain airforces will put the pilot in a position to decide when it is safe to use LOAL. It seems the USAF/USN has taken the decision for them. A procedural or cultural matter?

If an enemy fighter is on your "6" I can see where this function could come in very handy, this is why some SU`s have rear firing Archer`s.

The ASRAAM uses edge detection to pick out an aircrafts shape and attack hotspots within that shape. In the UK, DERA were working on an automatic target recognition system for air to air missiles in the 1990`s but that work went "black" ie, there is no public info` on the program now. At least mil` researchers were thinking of this before us on the forum :wink: The issue then was having fast enough processors small enough to fit inside an air to air missile....with the right algorithms of course. Back then a "fast" processor was a 486! There was also a plan to fit Hellfire with the same kind of system and LOAL, I don`t know the status of the Hellfire research.

It is not a stretch to imagine processors small enough and fast enough now to recognize particular aircraft but I am with Thumper, would you trust it to not fly up your tail-pipe?


Well, it works to some degree. The Javelin for instance is not just an IR homing missile. It is an IR image recognition missile. Basically, the launcher captures the IR imagery of the target and gives it to the missile. An appropriate climb and dive profile is decided based on range and target movement. The missile leaves the launcher blind to the target. It opens its eyes in a dive and it can tell the target from other stationary, moving or background objects my matching the prelaunch image to what it sees in a 20~70 degree dive using image processing and geometrical analysis. This has proven to work despite the differences in how the target looks from the ground and in a steep dive from above. It homes in on the target, moving or not, and attacks from above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZAnYYj9orQ

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 06:10
by Corsair1963
idesof wrote:
Driver wrote:For bombing a city, choose the F-35 JSF.

For bombing a city, defending your airspace, escort transport planes etc., choose the EFA.

Really the EFA is better on all fronts except range which can be dealt with. The JSF does have stealth though but very little and there are nations that are well on their way to make stealth useless.


I realize this is a discussion board and therefore, obviously, topics are up for debate and as such, different views may be proffered. However, I have been reading the posts on this board for the past several weeks with a great deal of interest regarding the views expressed herein and few posts have struck me as completely off the mark as the one quoted above. Firstly, the claim that the F-35 (JSF) possesses "very little" in the way of stealth is an outlandish claim without any sort of evidence to back it up. Indeed, while it has been argued the F-35 will not achieve the same degree of all-angle stealth as the F-22, not even the F-35's most vehement detractors claim it is in possession of "very little" stealth. While the stealth properties of the F-22 and F-35 are distinguishable by a matter of degree, the qualitative difference between the F-35's stealth capabilities and those of the Typhoon is separated by several orders of magnitude. Secondly, Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The assertion made above, that "nations" are "well on their way" to making stealth "useless" is an extraordinary claim for which evidence is neither offered by the writer nor proven by another known, reliable source, let alone sources. All else is conjecture until proven otherwise.

Therefore, on the merits of its advantage conferred by stealth alone, in air combat the F-35 will see an enemy, and shoot that enemy, much earlier than will the Typhoon, even after the latter is given an updated AESA radar later in the century. In a hypothetical and unlikely head-to-head match-up, all else being equal (support elements, pilot skill, etc.), the Typhoon will be terminated more than likely before its pilot is even aware he or she is under attack. It is important to note that at this stage of its development, when the USAF is trying to secure funding for additional F-22s, the F-35's air-to-air capabilities, which are not significantly lesser than its larger cousin's, are being purposely down-played so as not to alert Congress that the F-35 will be significantly cheaper, but not significantly less capable, than the F-22. Indeed, it is very much like the F-15 vs. F-16 debate the USAF was engaged in during the 1970s and 80s. As has been widely acknowledged, the F-15 is not an inherently superior air-superiority fighter vis-a-vis the F-16. Had the USAF optimized the F-16 from early on for the air-superiority role, the USAF would have never needed to buy the F-15, period. See Pierre Sprey and John Boyd. An F-35, optimized for the air-to-air role, would not be inferior to the F-22. However, even when its air-to-air performance is compromised by its need to be a bomb truck, when the F-35 enters service it will be second only to the F-22 in the air-dominance mission. The evidence of this are all the countries--which must use the F-35 in both air-to-ground and air dominance roles--that are opting to wait several years for the arrival of the F-35 instead of procuring the Typhoon, despite the makers of the latter practically paying other nations to purchase their already obsolete design. Indeed, the capability gap between the F-35 and the Typhoon at all levels in favor of the former is greater yet than that between a late-model F-16 and an early-model Mig-23 (again, of course, in favor of the former).

Sadly for the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia and whoever else has made the disastrous mistake to purchase this relic of a by-gone era, the Typhoon will soon be almost, but not quite, as irrelevant as the so-called Super Hornet. The F-35 will exceed the Typhoon at all levels, including maneuverability. Despite the latter's canards, I am astounded by how very little people on this board understand the very peculiar yet very unbeatable aerodynamic configuration common to both the F-22 and F-35. The enormous control surfaces, set far behind the axis of gravity in both as well as far behind the engine, provide a degree of maneuverability unmatched by any comers. Again, the USAF is being coy about the F-35 in this regard, but this aircraft will not be beaten by any aircraft now flying except for the F-22. Were the F-35 to be fitted with thrust-vectoring, however, it would be more maneuverable yet than the F-22.


I would agree.........many want to compare a clean 4th or 4.5 Generation Fighter with a F-35 and/or F-22. Take the Typhoon for example......how is its performance effected by carrying 2-3 External Fuel Tanks and 4-6 AAM's vs a clean F-35 or F-22? Of course that goes across the whole gamit! From RCS, Turn Performance, Acceleration, Time to Climb, Super Cruise, etc. etc.

Really, the 5th Generation F-22 and F-35 are going to be a revolution in military aviation. Just like the the Jet did to piston powered aircraft during the mid to late 40's...........its going to be that big. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 07:57
by dwightlooi
Sadly for the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia and whoever else has made the disastrous mistake to purchase this relic of a by-gone era, the Typhoon will soon be almost, but not quite, as irrelevant as the so-called Super Hornet. The F-35 will exceed the Typhoon at all levels, including maneuverability. Despite the latter's canards, I am astounded by how very little people on this board understand the very peculiar yet very unbeatable aerodynamic configuration common to both the F-22 and F-35. The enormous control surfaces, set far behind the axis of gravity in both as well as far behind the engine, provide a degree of maneuverability unmatched by any comers. Again, the USAF is being coy about the F-35 in this regard, but this aircraft will not be beaten by any aircraft now flying except for the F-22. Were the F-35 to be fitted with thrust-vectoring, however, it would be more maneuverable yet than the F-22.


I don't think this statement is necessarily accurate.

(1) I don't not believe that the Canard Configuration is superior, but the Typhoon does have an ~1.7 ton weight advantage and it does have a 17% larger Wing Area. It also has slightly better power to weight ratios (40500 lbs thurst/24,250 lbs airframe vs 43,000 lbs thrust/28,000 lbs airframe). I believe that the Typhoon probably have slightly better sustained turn performance.

(2) On the other note, the F-35 probably performs better at high altitudes -- mainly because it ought to handle better and with greater control authority. This is because the massive horizontal tails are at least 3 times larger than the Typhoon's moving canards.

(3) The classic advantages of the canard delta is three fold. The canards can act as defacto vortex generators for the main wing. The canards and wing both provide lift increasing efficiency. And lastly, the larger span wing is aft of the shorter span canard allowing the entire arrangement to be tucked into a smaller cone reducing wave drag at high supersonic speeds.

(4) Of these three characteristics, two are completely irrelevant today. Aircrafts use either leading edge extensions or advanced blended body shaping to achieve equal or better vortex lift than is afforded by canards. These tend to work better than canards for this purpose because they can create vortexes much closer to the top surface of the main wing than is possible with the tip vortexes from canards that MUST in general be rather high above the wing. With unstable designs the canard is actually a disadvantage for efficiency. This is so because being unstable means that the center of gravity is either behind or very close to the center of lift of the aircraft minus the canards or tails. In an unstable canard, the canards tend to provide downforce not lift whereas in an unstable wing-tail aircraft the tails provide positive lift not downforce. This leaves the last attribute -- lower drag at high mach speeds. However, the key word here is high. Even a relatively normal wing-tail design like the F-35 keeps all of its wings and tails within the primary nose shock cone up to about Mach 2.14. And wing-tails can be designed to push this even higher if that is a design goal. Of course, if you are trying to build a Mach 3 aircraft that becomes a problem -- which is probably why the XB-70 was a canard.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 14:15
by elp
Even fixed canards helped early Kfirs (deltas) in the IDF. The big improvement here over the Mirage was that on hot days with a full bomb load, the canard helped reduce take off roll by a sizable amount.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2007, 20:22
by dwightlooi
elp wrote:Even fixed canards helped early Kfirs (deltas) in the IDF. The big improvement here over the Mirage was that on hot days with a full bomb load, the canard helped reduce take off roll by a sizable amount.


Right, they act as vortex generators. But the LEX on say an F-16 is a better vortex generator than canards. The reason is that they are on the same plane as the wing and their generated vortice are closer to the upper wing surface. The F-22 doesn't even use the traditional LEX. The airframe itself is designed in such a way that the nose, intake lips and the wing itself creates three vortexes which interwined into a massive one which snakes across the upper fuselage, and the wing before exploding well outboard of the tails to minimize buffeting issues while maximizing airflow energy over the lifting body and wing. The F-35 follows suit with a similar arrangement.

RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2007, 07:51
by avon1944
In the debate about the F-35 versus Typhoon, I just found this on Jane’s Air Forces News Briefs / 20 July 2007;
Italian Typhoons will not be multirole, says air force chief
Italy has no plans to field its Eurofighter Typhoons as true multirole fighters and will not acquire air-to-surface weapons to equip its fleet, according to General Vincenzo Camporini, Italy's chief of the air staff. The general told Jane's that the Typhoons would be restricted to the air-to-air role while attack missions would be handled by Tornado and AMX aircraft, as well as their coming replacement, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The RAF also plans to purchase F-35's and Typhoons. They like the Italian AF will use the Typhoon for aerial combat and the F-35 for attack.

I think this makes a statement about which aircraft has the best air to air capability and which one is the better attack aircraft.

Adrian

RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2007, 08:00
by boff180
Adrian where are you getting "RAFs plan" for A2A only from. The RAF fully intend to use Typhoon in the multirole configuration. The first front line squadron is A2A only due to them not having block 5 (first A2G block) aircraft in the near future they will begin multirole operations. Hence why it is only being used A2A at the moment.

The second front line squadron (11) is currently ramping up, they are the first multirole Typhoon squadron and will deploy to Afganistan in late 2008 in the precision CAS role using LGB, ELGB and gun.

The RAF's doctrine with the Typhoon is to have three types of multirole squadon.
1) Air-Air - this squadrons roll is primarily air defence, however they will maintain their multirole air-ground capability and training as a secondary mission.
2) Air-Ground - this squadrons roll is primarily attack, however they will maintain their air-air capability and training as a secondary mission.
3) Multirole - this squadron will not specialise in one doctrine but will be a jack of all trades and will train to do everything at once.

Andy

Re: RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2007, 14:06
by checksixx
avon1944 wrote:The RAF also plans to purchase F-35's and Typhoons. They like the Italian AF will use the Typhoon for aerial combat and the F-35 for attack.

I think this makes a statement about which aircraft has the best air to air capability and which one is the better attack aircraft.

Adrian


Well the most amazing thing is that you even need to post that comparison...the F-35 from the outset was designed to be a strike jet, not a dog fighter. So the comparison is pointless to me.

Re: RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2007, 15:28
by Pilotasso
avon1944 wrote:In the debate about the F-35 versus Typhoon, I just found this on Jane’s Air Forces News Briefs / 20 July 2007;
Italian Typhoons will not be multirole, says air force chief
Italy has no plans to field its Eurofighter Typhoons as true multirole fighters and will not acquire air-to-surface weapons to equip its fleet, according to General Vincenzo Camporini, Italy's chief of the air staff. The general told Jane's that the Typhoons would be restricted to the air-to-air role while attack missions would be handled by Tornado and AMX aircraft, as well as their coming replacement, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The RAF also plans to purchase F-35's and Typhoons. They like the Italian AF will use the Typhoon for aerial combat and the F-35 for attack.

I think this makes a statement about which aircraft has the best air to air capability and which one is the better attack aircraft.

Adrian


I dont know about Italy but I always heard the UK was going to use Typhoons with AG capability and they will eventualy phase the tornados out in the medium to long term.

Re: RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2007, 17:22
by Corsair1963
avon1944 wrote:In the debate about the F-35 versus Typhoon, I just found this on Jane’s Air Forces News Briefs / 20 July 2007;
Italian Typhoons will not be multirole, says air force chief
Italy has no plans to field its Eurofighter Typhoons as true multirole fighters and will not acquire air-to-surface weapons to equip its fleet, according to General Vincenzo Camporini, Italy's chief of the air staff. The general told Jane's that the Typhoons would be restricted to the air-to-air role while attack missions would be handled by Tornado and AMX aircraft, as well as their coming replacement, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The RAF also plans to purchase F-35's and Typhoons. They like the Italian AF will use the Typhoon for aerial combat and the F-35 for attack.

I think this makes a statement about which aircraft ha

So, as the best air to air capability and which one is the better attack aircraft.

Adrian



So, are RAF Typhoon's going to provide Air Defense for the Royal Navy's forthcoming CVF Aircraft Carriers? Also, what of countries that currently operate F-16's or F/A-18's in the Air Defense Role? Are they second rate..... :? Sorry, but you logic escapes me....... :shock:

RE: Re: RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2007, 23:19
by snypa777
CORSAIR, I would think the Italian decision is based on current funding strategy than an admission the Typhoon sucks at A2G...

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2007, 01:29
by dwightlooi
snypa777 wrote:CORSAIR, I would think the Italian decision is based on current funding strategy than an admission the Typhoon sucks at A2G...


I believe that the F-35 is going to be superior to the Typhoon in both A2A and A2G effectiveness even though the Typhoon will be slightly better in certain physical attributes such as speed and agility. By effectiveness, I mean the ability to kill and not get killed.

The important thing to remember however is that the Typhoon is in service NOW. The F-35 is going to be an aircraft that comes online 7~10 years after the Typhoon. The entire argument that if the F-35 is better the customers won't be buying Typhoons are vice versa is simply ridiculous. It'll be like saying why the F-4 is bought instead of the F-15 or vice versa. The specifics of the platform is far secondary to the TIMELINE! The Typhoon customers by and large supported and committed to the EFA program in the late-80s to early 90s. The F-35 didn't exist then, and asking why nobody places their bet on an non-existent program 10~12 years before it is even talked about is ridiculous.

Re: RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2007, 03:32
by checksixx
Corsair1963 wrote:Also, what of countries that currently operate F-16's or F/A-18's in the Air Defense Role? Are they second rate..... :? Sorry, but you logic escapes me....... :shock:


Are you kidding me? F-16's and F-15's...United States...assigned to NORAD sectors.

Re: RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2007, 08:10
by Corsair1963
checksixx wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Also, what of countries that currently operate F-16's or F/A-18's in the Air Defense Role? Are they second rate..... :? Sorry, but you logic escapes me....... :shock:


Are you kidding me? F-16's and F-15's...United States...assigned to NORAD sectors.


So, is anybody stating that types like the F-16 and F/A-18. Can't be effective in a Air Defense Role???? :?

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2007, 08:12
by Corsair1963
snypa777 wrote:CORSAIR, I would think the Italian decision is based on current funding strategy than an admission the Typhoon sucks at A2G...




Its not that I don't believe the Typhoon can't be effective in the A2G Role. I just believe the F-35 will be Superior in both the A2A Role and A2G Roles.......(i.e. Superior Overall to the Typhoon) :wink:

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2009, 23:15
by atc1089sqn
i would say that the typhoon would be better in air to air combat due to the fact that it was designed for ait to air .
the joint strikefighter is used for steath strikes, therfore the efa will bring it down
even if it has to use its cannon due to the steth, or radar malfunctions

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2009, 23:31
by spazsinbad
A Blast from the Past?

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 00:44
by sextusempiricus
atc1089sqn wrote:i would say that the typhoon would be better in air to air combat due to the fact that it was designed for ait to air .
the joint strikefighter is used for steath strikes, therfore the efa will bring it down
even if it has to use its cannon due to the steth, or radar malfunctions


You can't spell, you can't punctuate, your grammar is atrocious and you dare opine on a subject about which you know nothing? Exactly how are you contributing to the discussion? Come back when you've achieved a reasonable degree of literacy.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 02:05
by Corsair1963
atc1089sqn wrote:i would say that the typhoon would be better in air to air combat due to the fact that it was designed for ait to air .
the joint strikefighter is used for steath strikes, therfore the efa will bring it down
even if it has to use its cannon due to the steth, or radar malfunctions



Do a little research and try again......... :)


BTW DON"T TAKE SOME MEMBERS COMMENTS PERSONALLY!

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 05:39
by bjr1028
atc1089sqn wrote:i would say that the typhoon would be better in air to air combat due to the fact that it was designed for ait to air .
the joint strikefighter is used for steath strikes, therfore the efa will bring it down
even if it has to use its cannon due to the steth, or radar malfunctions


Where do I begin here. Where did you get the impression that the F-35 wasn't designed for air to air combat? The Typhoon has an advantage in performance. However, it has has a severe disadvantages in both observability and sensors. The fight is akin to a commando blindfolded and wearing day glo orange and armed with a pistol vs a regular soldier with sniper rifle with a night scope. Would the Typhoon win in a knife fight? Probably, but the chances of it getting to that are slim. Its going to be an AMRAAM victim before the pilot even knows he's in a fight.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 10:28
by sextusempiricus
bjr1028 wrote:
atc1089sqn wrote:i would say that the typhoon would be better in air to air combat due to the fact that it was designed for ait to air .
the joint strikefighter is used for steath strikes, therfore the efa will bring it down
even if it has to use its cannon due to the steth, or radar malfunctions


Where do I begin here. Where did you get the impression that the F-35 wasn't designed for air to air combat? The Typhoon has an advantage in performance. However, it has has a severe disadvantages in both observability and sensors. The fight is akin to a commando blindfolded and wearing day glo orange and armed with a pistol vs a regular soldier with sniper rifle with a night scope. Would the Typhoon win in a knife fight? Probably, but the chances of it getting to that are slim. Its going to be an AMRAAM victim before the pilot even knows he's in a fight.


My thoughts exactly. However, there is the small matter of the F-35 actually, you know, flying...

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 13:27
by energo
sextusempiricus wrote:
atc1089sqn wrote:i would say that the typhoon would be better in air to air combat due to the fact that it was designed for ait to air .
the joint strikefighter is used for steath strikes, therfore the efa will bring it down
even if it has to use its cannon due to the steth, or radar malfunctions


You can't spell, you can't punctuate, your grammar is atrocious and you dare opine on a subject about which you know nothing? Exactly how are you contributing to the discussion? Come back when you've achieved a reasonable degree of literacy.


I think we have room for polite expressions of opinions. :)

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2009, 01:18
by Corsair1963
energo wrote:
sextusempiricus wrote:
atc1089sqn wrote:i would say that the typhoon would be better in air to air combat due to the fact that it was designed for ait to air .
the joint strikefighter is used for steath strikes, therfore the efa will bring it down
even if it has to use its cannon due to the steth, or radar malfunctions


You can't spell, you can't punctuate, your grammar is atrocious and you dare opine on a subject about which you know nothing? Exactly how are you contributing to the discussion? Come back when you've achieved a reasonable degree of literacy.


I think we have room for polite expressions of opinions. :)

B. Bolsøy
Oslo


I sincerely hope so...... :idea:

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2009, 14:52
by duplex
Typhoon is pretty much a single mission fighter optimized for high altitude ,high speed +M1,5 interceptions.
It will dominate the F-35 in altitudes between 35- 50.000 feets.

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2009, 17:40
by exec
duplex wrote:Typhoon is pretty much a single mission fighter optimized for high altitude ,high speed +M1,5 interceptions.
It will dominate the F-35 in altitudes between 35- 50.000 feets.

And how would he do that!?

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2009, 17:45
by Corsair1963
duplex wrote:Typhoon is pretty much a single mission fighter optimized for high altitude ,high speed +M1,5 interceptions.
It will dominate the F-35 in altitudes between 35- 50.000 feets.



I to would like to know how the Typhoon is going to dominate the Lightning at any altitude??? :?

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2009, 20:13
by Scorpion82
Performance wise the Typhoon is likely to outmatch the F-35 in most areas. But in times of information superiority stealth and advanced sensors account for more than raw flight performance.

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2009, 22:24
by calel
Wow! The F-35 vs. the Typhoon: No matter how good the performance of the Typhoon might be, the F-35 is designed for superior combat against everything else except its eldest brother; if the EODAS is as effective as NorthropGrumman says, and if the Lightning II its as agile as LM says (because of its internal weapons, etc... storage) then I conclude that the JSF will not have any problem outperforming the Typhoon in the WVR and the BVR!!! Any thoughts about my statement???

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2009, 22:59
by f35phixer
we're getting there slowly, BF-02 arrived at PAX, yesterday. We'll have an envelope for BF-04 to test to at least :shock:

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 05:15
by Kryptid
Wow! The F-35 vs. the Typhoon: No matter how good the performance of the Typhoon might be, the F-35 is designed for superior combat against everything else except its eldest brother; if the EODAS is as effective as NorthropGrumman says, and if the Lightning II its as agile as LM says (because of its internal weapons, etc... storage) then I conclude that the JSF will not have any problem outperforming the Typhoon in the WVR and the BVR!!! Any thoughts about my statement???

You're probably right. Technology and situational awareness can defeat agility.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 06:35
by sextusempiricus
f35phixer wrote:we're getting there slowly, BF-02 arrived at PAX, yesterday. We'll have an envelope for BF-04 to test to at least :shock:


Hello, and happy new year. I'm guessing you are involved with the program, and I'm sure you are relieved that there are now a couple of F-35s over at Pax. What's your take on BF-1? Is that airframe a lemon, such as one sometimes gets, so that no matter how many times you try "fixing it", it never works quite well? And will BF-2 actually beat it to a vertical landing? I'm guessing BF-1 is retired early...

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 07:53
by callsignthumper
I hate people trying to sell a inferior aircraft. The F-35 owns anything except the f-22. I dont realy care what arguments you want to try to say, you know its right so please end this discusion that the 4.5 gen fighter will beat out the 5th gen fighter, that the less advanced countries have. Dont like it build somthing better. :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 09:29
by Corsair1963
Kryptid wrote:
Wow! The F-35 vs. the Typhoon: No matter how good the performance of the Typhoon might be, the F-35 is designed for superior combat against everything else except its eldest brother; if the EODAS is as effective as NorthropGrumman says, and if the Lightning II its as agile as LM says (because of its internal weapons, etc... storage) then I conclude that the JSF will not have any problem outperforming the Typhoon in the WVR and the BVR!!! Any thoughts about my statement???

You're probably right. Technology and situational awareness can defeat agility.



The F-35 will be far more aerodynamic in a combat configuration than the Typhoon.

That would be like comparing a clean blk 52 F-16 to combat loaded blk 52 F-16 with external fuel and weapons. Big difference....... :wink:

As a matter of fact Jon Beesley once stated that even external "AMRAAM's" have a big impact on performance. :shock:

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 14:03
by Pilotasso
^^^^The Eurofighter carries most of its load but 2 missiles in recessed pylons, so that is not a factor as drag is negligeble. EF's airframe is easely more aerodynamic even with is normal 6 missiles load onboard.


Also who thinks Eurofighter is destined to be only an interceptor is very much mistaken.
Eurofighter will be always faster and more agile than the 35.

However having said that, in my personal opinion I would preffer fly in a 35, shoot only 4 AMRAAM's missiles and disapear before it gets WVR.
I think for smaller airforces it will be more important to fire fewer weapons that count for every shot and get out undetected and survive than kicking the front door with guns blazing with the Euro.

For my country the F-35 is a better match for our requirements than the Eurofighter, long range and harder to detect as fewer planes have to cover larger areas (big ocean coverage) and only one engine to overhaul versus 2.

Its a question of money and doctrines avaiable with each AF.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 14:14
by f35phixer
sextusempiricus wrote:
f35phixer wrote:we're getting there slowly, BF-02 arrived at PAX, yesterday. We'll have an envelope for BF-04 to test to at least :shock:


Hello, and happy new year. I'm guessing you are involved with the program, and I'm sure you are relieved that there are now a couple of F-35s over at Pax. What's your take on BF-1? Is that airframe a lemon, such as one sometimes gets, so that no matter how many times you try "fixing it", it never works quite well? And will BF-2 actually beat it to a vertical landing? I'm guessing BF-1 is retired early...


and why do you call it a lemon? yes there are troubles with it, but the airframe is sound. People it's the FIRST jet built, if you don't understand that there will be issues you haven't been around development programs before! We'll get there yes it's frustrating but, that's the fun of flight testing :lol:

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 18:02
by Corsair1963
Pilotasso wrote:^^^^The Eurofighter carries most of its load but 2 missiles in recessed pylons, so that is not a factor as drag is negligeble. EF's airframe is easely more aerodynamic even with is normal 6 missiles load onboard.


Do you have a source to support that claim???

As, I highly doubt a Typhoon is more aerodynamic with 4-Semi Recessed AMRAAM's and 2-ASRAAM's than a clean F-35 Lightning! Nor, does it take into account the external fuel tanks that the former would likely carry.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 18:19
by Scorpion82
Corsair1963 wrote:Do you have a source to support that claim???

As, I highly doubt a Typhoon is more aerodynamic with 4-Semi Recessed AMRAAM's and 2-ASRAAM's than a clean F-35 Lightning! Nor, does it take into account the external fuel tanks that the former would likely carry.


Let's see wether the F-35 will achieve the performance of a loaded Typhoon clean.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 18:27
by PhillyGuy
Scorpion82 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Do you have a source to support that claim???

As, I highly doubt a Typhoon is more aerodynamic with 4-Semi Recessed AMRAAM's and 2-ASRAAM's than a clean F-35 Lightning! Nor, does it take into account the external fuel tanks that the former would likely carry.


Let's see wether the F-35 will achieve the performance of a loaded Typhoon clean.


Uhh... according to it's pilots so far it has displayed almost Raptor like performance. That's not too shabby if you ask me.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 18:36
by Scorpion82
PhillyGuy wrote:Uhh... according to it's pilots so far it has displayed almost Raptor like performance. That's not too shabby if you ask me.


You mean according to Jon Beesley the F-35 matches the F-22's performance in minor portions of the flight envelope.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 18:54
by Corsair1963
Scorpion82 wrote:
PhillyGuy wrote:Uhh... according to it's pilots so far it has displayed almost Raptor like performance. That's not too shabby if you ask me.


You mean according to Jon Beesley the F-35 matches the F-22's performance in minor portions of the flight envelope.



That is not what Jon Beesley says.........


quote:

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in "large measure like the F-22, but it's smaller, and stiffer" than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 19:07
by Scorpion82
Thanks I was to lazy to dig it up on my own. As said portions of the flight envelope.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 19:18
by SpudmanWP
What you said was "minor portions", which is obviously not the case.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 19:19
by spazsinbad
Scorpion82 said: "minor portions"? OOPS posted at same time (as I typed) by Spuddie! TAH. :lol: :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 19:22
by Corsair1963
I think way to many people assume that the F-35 has poor aerodynamic qualities. Which, is not the case at all.....

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 19:52
by Scorpion82
I don't think the F-35 has poor aerodynamics or that it will be a bad performer at all, I just don't think it's going to be a world beater. Like it or not, but there is a price you have to pay for "affordability", stealth and that level of optimation for AG operations. It's illusional to believe that an aircraft with a comparably high frontal cross section, significantly higher wing loading, inferior TWR and lack of TVC is going to perform as well. Sure the F-35 might come close to the F-22's subsonic acceleration to a certain extend and that it matches its high subsonic/transsonic manoeuver performance isn't surprising either, but that's it. The F-35 will neither match the F-22's supersonic, nor altitude performance and manoeuverability, nor it's agility at low to mid subsonic speeds. "It just does everything a little bit slower", yeah allright by that measure every aircraft can fly the cobra, they just need more time. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 20:14
by spazsinbad
Scorpion82, probably you have not read other threads on this forum that attempt to make it clear that performance in the new BVR environment is not so critical as in the days of yore. Airshow tricks are just that. Missiles do the work today, they do the tricks. One hopes that these new 'tricky' missiles are more reliable than in the past (when this reilability / performance of the missile was indeed an issue - forcing use of guns). The BVR fight will be different soon, with the JSF having a distinct advantage for the time being. We'll see what useful developments come from potential opponents. For sure the F-22 will be supreme but not likely will the JSF be going against the F-22. Keep in miind with the allies having JSFs (all the same - within type) means the 'swarm' technology of all the JSFs together with US will be considerable.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 20:34
by Scorpion82
spazsinbad wrote:Scorpion82, probably you have not read other threads on this forum that attempt to make it clear that performance in the new BVR environment is not so critical as in the days of yore. Airshow tricks are just that. Missiles do the work today, they do the tricks. One hopes that these new 'tricky' missiles are more reliable than in the past (when this reilability / performance of the missile was indeed an issue - forcing use of guns). The BVR fight will be different soon, with the JSF having a distinct advantage for the time being. We'll see what useful developments come from potential opponents. For sure the F-22 will be supreme but not likely will the JSF be going against the F-22. Keep in miind with the allies having JSFs (all the same - within type) means the 'swarm' technology of all the JSFs together with US will be considerable.


That's all known. The matter is something else.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2009, 20:37
by spazsinbad
Scorpion82: "The matter is something else". I'll assume you mean the 'reality' (will be) here. Yes I agree we need to be patient to see what happens. I'm optimistic where others are pessimistic. So be it.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2010, 02:11
by exec
SpudmanWP wrote:What you said was "minor portions", which is obviously not the case.

I'm sure he meant major portions... :wink: :roll:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2010, 04:41
by spazsinbad
Perhaps this small PDF is useful (about DAS):

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solut ... _eodas.pdf (177Kb)

'All Seeing Eye' by Bill Sweetman Oct 2008 Defence Technology International

"While the distributed aperture system’s manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, may be overstating the case by claiming that it will make manoeuvrability ‘irrelevant’, the technology has the potential to fundamentally change within visual range air-to-air combat.[vii] When the F-35 enters service, it will be the only fighter in the world with such a system." [vii] Bill Sweetman, ‘All-Seeing Eye’, Defense Technology International, an editorial supplement to Aviation Week & Space Technology, October 2008.
______________

Repeat video about DAS here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=e ... u8RzmGjQ&e

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2010, 22:09
by callsignthumper
Thanks spaz, all in all the F-35 by comparison will be the technologicaly superior aircraft for the forseable future. Ive had the privlage to talk with some execs who help run the program when they brought the mock up f-35 to my ship the john f kennedy back in 04 i believe when it was known as the x-35 hat trick. they saved 20 mill a plane by not adding the thrust vectoring, and the cockpit is VERY user friendly. The F-35 should own any aircraft out there, except the f-22. PERIOD so stop with this notion that under the perfect circumstances would this plane beat it, and this plane. No it wont, its possible, but highly unlikely. BUT THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU FIND METAL IN THE DIRT? SO WHY ISNT THERE A PROGRAM OUT THERE TO USE THE SAME TECHNOLOGY TO FIND METAL, OR"AIRPLANES" IN THE AIR?

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2010, 22:31
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2010, 20:27
by Pilotasso
Corsair1963 wrote:
Pilotasso wrote:^^^^The Eurofighter carries most of its load but 2 missiles in recessed pylons, so that is not a factor as drag is negligeble. EF's airframe is easely more aerodynamic even with is normal 6 missiles load onboard.


Do you have a source to support that claim???

As, I highly doubt a Typhoon is more aerodynamic with 4-Semi Recessed AMRAAM's and 2-ASRAAM's than a clean F-35 Lightning! Nor, does it take into account the external fuel tanks that the former would likely carry.




Corsair1963 wrote:I think way to many people assume that the F-35 has poor aerodynamic qualities. Which, is not the case at all.....


No, I never said it has poor aerodynamic qualities, Instead I said Eurofighter has negligeble drag with 6 missiles on board and probably still better than F-35. Its a bit different than what your implying isnt it?


I dont think I need to quote any sources to prove this because pretty much everyone knows that both the 35 and the Eurofighter have comparable max thrust dry and with augmentation. The later can go supersonic in dry thrust and accelerate up to mach 2 with max thrust while the 35 is firmly subsonic without afterburner and will likely be limited to mach 1.6-1.7 max.

Of course this takes in consideration air duct and engine designs but this is what completes the aerodynamic "cake" of the aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2010, 05:51
by Thumper3181
Pilotasso wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Pilotasso wrote:^^^^The Eurofighter carries most of its load but 2 missiles in recessed pylons, so that is not a factor as drag is negligeble. EF's airframe is easely more aerodynamic even with is normal 6 missiles load onboard.


Do you have a source to support that claim???

As, I highly doubt a Typhoon is more aerodynamic with 4-Semi Recessed AMRAAM's and 2-ASRAAM's than a clean F-35 Lightning! Nor, does it take into account the external fuel tanks that the former would likely carry.




Corsair1963 wrote:I think way to many people assume that the F-35 has poor aerodynamic qualities. Which, is not the case at all.....


No, I never said it has poor aerodynamic qualities, Instead I said Eurofighter has negligeble drag with 6 missiles on board and probably still better than F-35. Its a bit different than what your implying isnt it?


I dont think I need to quote any sources to prove this because pretty much everyone knows that both the 35 and the Eurofighter have comparable max thrust dry and with augmentation. The later can go supersonic in dry thrust and accelerate up to mach 2 with max thrust while the 35 is firmly subsonic without afterburner and will likely be limited to mach 1.6-1.7 max.

Of course this takes in consideration air duct and engine designs but this is what completes the aerodynamic "cake" of the aircraft.


The typical production example of the Euro fighter makes about M1.2 clean and barely breaks the sound barrier with a load of A2A missiles and a bag. We don't know what F-35 will do in military power yet but it would not be too much of a surprise if it does M1.2 with a full load of missiles and a comparative full load of fuel. Six missiles and an external fuel tank will ruin whatever aerodynamic advantage either real or imagined Euro fighter has.

Whether F-35 does M1.7 or 1.8 is immaterial. The difference in max speed is negligible. The fact is the Eurofighter is already obsolete. Having marginally better performance in some parts of the envelope than a teen series fighter make it in no way a world beating design.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2010, 15:44
by Scorpion82
Thumper3181 wrote:The typical production example of the Euro fighter makes about M1.2 clean and barely breaks the sound barrier with a load of A2A missiles and a bag. We don't know what F-35 will do in military power yet but it would not be too much of a surprise if it does M1.2 with a full load of missiles and a comparative full load of fuel. Six missiles and an external fuel tank will ruin whatever aerodynamic advantage either real or imagined Euro fighter has.

Whether F-35 does M1.7 or 1.8 is immaterial. The difference in max speed is negligible. The fact is the Eurofighter is already obsolete. Having marginally better performance in some parts of the envelope than a teen series fighter make it in no way a world beating design.


Available information and feedback from 6 years operational use tells us something else.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2010, 22:10
by underhill
"The typical production example of the Euro fighter makes about M1.2 clean."

Source, please.

"The fact is the Eurofighter is already obsolete".

Rendered obsolete by what, an airplane that has, so far, done very little except imitate an anvil?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2010, 23:31
by Scorpion82
underhill wrote:"The typical production example of the Euro fighter makes about M1.2 clean."

Source, please.


According to the Luftwaffe the aircraft achieves M 1.2 in AA config, same (6 AAMs + 1 ET) was confirmed by a eurofighter representive at a request.

Rendered obsolete by what, an airplane that has, so far, done very little except imitate an anvil?


Must be obsolete because it has no VLO capabilities and as we all know stealth is the one and all... :lol:

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 02:52
by spazsinbad
Achieves Another Significant Milestone Fort Worth TX, November 14th, 2008

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/pres ... -f-35.html

-- The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter flew supersonic for the first time yesterday, achieving another milestone. The aircraft accelerated to Mach 1.05, or about 680 miles per hour.

The test validated the F-35 Lightning II’s capability to operate beyond the speed of sound and was accomplished with a full internal load of inert or “dummy” weapons on the one-hour flight.

“The F-35 transitioned from subsonic to supersonic just as our engineers and our computer modeling had predicted,” said Jon Beesley, Lockheed Martin’s chief F-35 test pilot. “I continue to be impressed with the aircraft’s power and strong acceleration, and I’m pleased that its precise handling qualities are retained in supersonic flight, even with a payload of 5,400 pounds (2,450 kilograms) in the weapons bays.”

Beesley said it was also a significant achievement for a test aircraft to fly supersonic for the first time with the weight of a full internal load of weapons. The milestone was achieved on the 69th flight of F-35 aircraft AA-1. Beesley climbed to 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) and accelerated to Mach 1.05, or about 680 miles per hour, over a rural area in north Texas. The F-35 accomplished four transitions through the sound barrier, spending a total of eight minutes in supersonic flight. The flight was preceded by a high-subsonic mission earlier in the day. Future testing will gradually expand the flight envelope out to the aircraft’s top speed of Mach 1.6, which the F-35 is designed to achieve with a full internal load of weapons."

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 03:16
by spazsinbad
Setting the Record Straight on F-35

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/pres ... aight.html

FORT WORTH, Texas, September 19th, 2008 -- U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.
The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.

"In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer.

Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combat exercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.

"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."

The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.
Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey.

"It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."
Here are the facts:

The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.
The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.
The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.
When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations. "

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 03:27
by Thumper3181
Scorpion82 wrote:
underhill wrote:"The typical production example of the Euro fighter makes about M1.2 clean."

Source, please.


According to the Luftwaffe the aircraft achieves M 1.2 in AA config, same (6 AAMs + 1 ET) was confirmed by a eurofighter representive at a request.

Rendered obsolete by what, an airplane that has, so far, done very little except imitate an anvil?


Must be obsolete because it has no VLO capabilities and as we all know stealth is the one and all... :lol:


No, actually production versions do M1.2 clean. Straight from an article written by Key Publishing and posted on the official Eurofighter website.

Page 3.
"Max level flight speed
(supercruise)"

http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Ki ... ng_AFM.pdf

It is obsolete because it has no AESA and it is not LO. It will in fact be a second line fighter by 2020 just like the F-15, Super Hornet, and latest variant of the SU-XX series fighter. If you cannot see it you can not attack it. If yoou must use your radar and it has no LPI capability you will be seen long before you see anything.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 03:47
by airforceone
the typhoon is faster and more maneuverable than the f-35 so in vr id choose the euro every time. the f-35 is better suited as a bomb truck more than anything else and was never intended as an air dominance fighter. who was the idiot who decided it didnt need to go any faster than mach 1.6?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 15:29
by Pilotasso
Thumper3181 wrote:The typical production example of the Euro fighter makes about M1.2 clean and barely breaks the sound barrier with a load of A2A missiles and a bag. We don't know what F-35 will do in military power yet but it would not be too much of a surprise if it does M1.2 with a full load of missiles and a comparative full load of fuel. Six missiles and an external fuel tank will ruin whatever aerodynamic advantage either real or imagined Euro fighter has.


Its a known fact that the F-35 cannot supercruise even in clean configuration. So your speculation has no legs to stand on.

Your view of the Euros max supercruise speed with external stores compared to a clean F-35 makes your criticism sound the more ridiculous.

Thumper3181 wrote:The fact is the Eurofighter is already obsolete. Having marginally better performance in some parts of the envelope than a teen series fighter make it in no way a world beating design.
It is obsolete because it has no AESA and it is not LO. It will in fact be a second line fighter by 2020 just like the F-15, Super Hornet, and latest variant of the SU-XX series fighter. If you cannot see it you can not attack it. If yoou must use your radar and it has no LPI capability you will be seen long before you see anything.


But who said it was the best plane? Not me for sure, read my posts again.

Its obsolete because it has no AESA and no LO? Are you joking? :shock:

I would advise you to filter your heavy bias against it, your clearly mistaken on many accounts.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 15:53
by underhill
Thumper - LO is an advantage in air combat IF the RoEs and your sensors permit engagement beyond visual range AND you can prosecute the engagement decisively before detection becomes mutual.

And I trust that the F-15 &c will not be second-line fighters by 2020 since it is increasingly unlikely that JSF will attain FOC anywhere before 2018.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 15:58
by Pilotasso
Not only that but the Euro is already a better interceptor and AA dogfighter on paper. The AESA for it will become avaiable even before most countries start deliveries of full production F35's.

And Thumper before you get me started on F-35's supercruise:
http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm

Now if we talk about multirole then it becomes debatable at a reasonable level.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 16:03
by Scorpion82
Thumper3181 wrote:No, actually production versions do M1.2 clean. Straight from an article written by Key Publishing and posted on the official Eurofighter website.

Page 3.
"Max level flight speed
(supercruise)"

http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Ki ... ng_AFM.pdf


Being released on the official website doesn't mean anything to that regard. The subject of that article was not supercruise but the RAFs participation in exercises in the US. And I take data/information from the manufacturer/operator over what is written in a public magazine, where not even the reference from where this data come is given.

It is obsolete because it has no AESA and it is not LO. It will in fact be a second line fighter by 2020 just like the F-15, Super Hornet, and latest variant of the SU-XX series fighter. If you cannot see it you can not attack it. If yoou must use your radar and it has no LPI capability you will be seen long before you see anything.


And who says it won't receive an LPI capable AESA radar? So the F-22 is probabley obsolete because it lacks DVI, dual band IRST/FLIR and HMD, ECM in its basic configuration which is just now added as a radar function, lack of versatility etc.
Let alone that a certain US fighter is not even capable to do what it was designed for in the first place, replacing an older type in adequate numbers. In other words it's a failure, a politically caused one, but still a failure. 8)

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 16:59
by SpudmanWP
Underhill, how many F-35 squadrons have to be operating before you consider the type FOC?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 17:56
by shep1978
Scorpion82 wrote:
And who says it won't receive an LPI capable AESA radar? So the F-22 is probabley obsolete because it lacks DVI, dual band IRST/FLIR and HMD, ECM in its basic configuration which is just now added as a radar function, lack of versatility etc.
Let alone that a certain US fighter is not even capable to do what it was designed for in the first place, replacing an older type in adequate numbers. In other words it's a failure, a politically caused one, but still a failure. 8)


The F-22 is certainly not considered a failure by its operator thats for sure, however, Typhoon operator nations have been falling over themselves these last few years trying to flog off their Typhoons to anyone which speaks volumes in itself.
I guess one could say with a fair degree of honesty that obsolescence is something Typhoon has already entered into, especially being so very easily visable to anyone with a radar set thanks to its out dated design and no amount of LPI radar sets or other fancy gizmo's will fix that.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 17:57
by shep1978
Double post, sorry mods, please delete.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 18:38
by Scorpion82
shep1978 wrote:The F-22 is certainly not considered a failure by its operator thats for sure, however, Typhoon operator nations have been falling over themselves these last few years trying to flog off their Typhoons to anyone which speaks volumes in itself.


Lol what a weak argument. But I haven't expected anything else from you except those lame double standards. If you seriously measure the performance/effectiveness of an aircraft by the number of cuts, the F-22 must be a total disaster down from 750 to just 187 airframes. In comparison to that the reduction in the Eurofighter programme is tiny.
It's not that the RAF, Luftwaffe, AMI or EdA say oh we don't want any more Eurofighters, it's the politicians who want to save costs. The problem here is that the partner nations are commited to buy 620 aircraft as signed in the production contract and one sided reductions would result in penalties. This was necessary after the problems in the earlier 90s and as the production workshare is based on the number of aircraft to be taken by each respective customer. Selling aircraft to foreign nations is now seen as a way to keep the number of aircraft to which the partner nations commited them self.


I guess one could say with a fair degree of honesty that obsolescence is something Typhoon has already entered into, especially being so very easily visable to anyone with a radar set thanks to its out dated design and no amount of LPI radar sets or other fancy gizmo's will fix that.


Stealth isn't needed for most missions, but it's expensive. Eurofighter partners or that of other european nations who designed their own aircraft didn't have the requirement, will and money to design an overly specialised super expensive superfighter which isn't needed at all and any cold war scenario would have been a NATO vs Warsaw Pact theater with the US being involved as well. It would have been complementary as it would be now in any unlikely war scenario. But it's typical that you guys horizont reaches from west coast to east cost and anything else beyond that is outer space and doesn't exist.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 19:47
by underhill
Spud - Not me, the USAF, which was pinning FOC - sustained deployed operations - at 2017 before this year's delays and JET 2.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 20:00
by SpudmanWP
Thanks for the clarification..links?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 20:28
by Scorpion82
SpudmanWP wrote:Thanks for the clarification..links?


The JSF Brief May14 2009 states 2017 for full capability. I'm certain it can be found in the links/documents thread (the sticky one).

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 23:16
by SpudmanWP
Got it.. thanks

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 00:07
by spazsinbad
People here seem to have forgotten that 'the other nations' potentially buying or buying (OZ)' don't have the F-22 so they need all the help they can get with the F-35 good bits - first day to last day of any conflict.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 02:11
by calel
All of the worlds top aces agree in one thing: "the one who sees first wins the engagement". So I think its very simple; if you own a fighter with the following characteristics it will be unlikely beatable:

1) Superior Situational Awareness (EODAS & AESA)
2) Full Stealth Design (all of the F-35 angles etc...)
3) Great Agility (internal weapons, etc... storage and a great engine)

I mean, to have a better fighter we dont need the most agile and fastest fighter or the one with the latest missile technology. We only need an aircraft with excellent fighter agility, very fast, and (this is the kicker) capable of seeing you first so he can shoot you first. I understand the F-35 embraces all these advantages in a way that is in congruence with what the world history of air combat has taught us: "If I see you first I win"

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 19:07
by Scorpion82
calel wrote:All of the worlds top aces agree in one thing: "the one who sees first wins the engagement". So I think its very simple; if you own a fighter with the following characteristics it will be unlikely beatable:

1) Superior Situational Awareness (EODAS & AESA)
2) Full Stealth Design (all of the F-35 angles etc...)
3) Great Agility (internal weapons, etc... storage and a great engine)

I mean, to have a better fighter we dont need the most agile and fastest fighter or the one with the latest missile technology. We only need an aircraft with excellent fighter agility, very fast, and (this is the kicker) capable of seeing you first so he can shoot you first. I understand the F-35 embraces all these advantages in a way that is in congruence with what the world history of air combat has taught us: "If I see you first I win"


In the end it's the combination of factors which matters and here the F-35 fares quite well, especially due to its stealth characteristics. By the time the F-35 enters service virtually all modern fighters will feature AESA radars and who knows to which extend other sensors and EW equipment are further developed. The DAS is certainly a fine system if it works as advertised, but it doesn't look like something for long range target detection.

Regarding 3.) A strong engine means nothing if the weight is high and internal carriage doesn't fully neglict limited aerodynamic performance.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 19:22
by spazsinbad
"Regarding 3.) A strong engine means nothing if the weight is high and internal carriage doesn't fully neglict limited aerodynamic performance." Surely recently on this forum the point has been made many times, all reports on F-35 aero performance are good, comparable to F-22 because aircraft control laws are similar. Apparently the F-35 is not allowed to go to the extreme high AoA (unlike F-22) due to that extra lack of performance - but it does not need to because all the new tech/weapons do not require the F-35 to have 'point and shoot' performance. It will track you and shoot you while the pilot does not even need to look at you (except on the screen perhaps).

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 19:31
by Scorpion82
spazsinbad wrote:Surely recently on this forum the point has been made many times, all reports on F-35 aero performance are good, comparable to F-22 because aircraft control laws are similar.


Closley matching the performance in few (and actually not surprising areas) is not compareable. Just ignorant fanboys believe in such tales or better said they make them up, because Beesley's words were clear enough.


but it does not need to because all the new tech/weapons do not require the F-35 to have 'point and shoot' performance. It will track you and shoot you while the pilot does not even need to look at you (except on the screen perhaps).


Have fun to believe that your F-35 is going to be a flying XBOX.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 19:33
by SpudmanWP
The EODAS was never meant for "long range detection" of fighters. It was designed as a WVR sensor to track all airborne targets and to detect and track missile launches. For long range detection of fighters in the forward and lower sectors, it has the EOTS.

It also support the tracking of ground targets and functions as a navigational aid for landing at night or bad weather.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 19:37
by Scorpion82
SpudmanWP wrote:The EODAS was never meant for "long range detection" of fighters. It was designed as a WVR sensor to track all airborne targets and to detect and track missile launches. For long range detection of fighters in the forward and lower sectors, it has the EOTS.

It also support the tracking of ground targets and functions as a navigational aid for landing at night or bad weather.


All known, the problem is that certain people seem to try to sell the DAS as an upper SA tool in general, when it is just good a shorter range and at those it certainly is as said. Where we are at it are there any information released regarding automatic target recognition algorithms for the DAS? If not how is it going to identify a target or has the pilot to take a look at each single contact?

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 19:45
by exec
Scorpion82 wrote:Regarding 3.) A strong engine means nothing if the weight is high and internal carriage doesn't fully neglict limited aerodynamic performance.

F-35's TW ratio is the same as F-16C Block 52, and better than Su-30MKI for example. It's enough. Plus it will fly in clean configuration.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 20:15
by spazsinbad
Lightning Sight F-35 Helmet-Mounted Display By Sydney Carroll

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... index.html

"The helmet-mounted display system, or HMDS, displays head-steerable symbology, meaning the pilot's line of sight dictates the content that appears on the visor. As soon as, or even before, a pilot sees another aircraft in the distance, the system projects a marker on the visor to locate, identify, and track the aircraft. If the designated aircraft is determined to be hostile, the pilot can use the targeting info to cue weapons—without looking down at the cockpit displays and while pulling g's.

"No matter where pilots look, they have all the flight information right in front of their eyes," says Dave Perkins, lead engineer of HMDS integration. "The helmet displays airspeed, altitude, rate of climb, and the aiming information for all the weapons. The helmet even displays all the information needed should something go wrong. For example, it provides an alert and directs the pilot's attention if there's something nasty coming from the nose of the airplane while the pilot is looking somewhere else."

With a lot more words in this article of course - not seen here - for Scorpion82 to read.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 20:20
by SpudmanWP
The EODAS system does support some target ID, but remember that it has no optical zoom.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 20:45
by Scorpion82
spazsinbad wrote:With a lot more words in this article of course - not seen here - for Scorpion82 to read.


Thanks, but I have read that article before and it doesn't answer the question regarding the DAS.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 22:03
by spazsinbad
"In the age of high off-boresight weaponry and highly maneuverable aircraft, hesitation means defeat," intones the narrator. "... With DAS, maneuverability is irrelevant. Instead of mutual kills, the F-35 simply exits the fight, and lets its missiles do the turning." — Bill Carey

‘Game-Changing’ EO DAS Nears Action on JSF August 1, 2008

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categor ... 24687.html

"As a fifth-generation, multirole fighter, the F-35 Lightning II brings a lot to the table in terms of stealth, lethality and survivability. One "transformational" system that is quietly nearing flight on the aircraft is the Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS).
Designated AN/AAQ-37, the EO DAS is comprised of six infrared sensors, flush-mounted around the aircraft to afford 360-degree, spherical coverage — in mathematical terms "4 pi steradian." The sensor array will provide the F-35 pilot with missile-warning, situational awareness and navigation FLIR, operating simultaneously, in one package. Integrated via the mission computer, the system will support target detection and identification functions of the aircraft’s Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) and AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.....
...."Most people think of us as the radar company [but] this is the real game-changer for the F-35 that separates it from the F-22 and the F-18," said Dave Bouchard, director of JSF Programs. "The F-22 has a very basic missile launch detection system; this is a significant game-changing capability."
Said Pete Bartos, marketing director for Combat Avionics Systems, "People really don’t get what DAS does. It’s just one of those unknown, very core pieces of the JSF that, by the way, no other airplane in the world has."
Development of the system started in 2002, based on earlier technology. The program included flights of a F-16 equipped with a DAS sensor in a centerline pod to record data in a dynamic fighter environment. Live missile testing was conducted to collect data and validate models. The first flight of an EO DAS on Northrop Grumman’s BAC 1-11 testbed, initially fitted with three sensors, took place in November 2005.
Data collected during flight tests has been used to develop and optimize algorithms that process sensor data — where the real functionality of the system lies, Bouchard said. "In the algorithms, we seamlessly stitch together two or three cameras depending on the field of regard. Our requirement is to have seamlessly stitched, near 20/20 visual acuity," he said. Extremely fast update rates are required to prevent latency of the DAS imagery, which will be projected onto the pilot’s helmet-mounted display. "It has to be updated fast enough so the eye can’t tell it’s a video image as opposed to the real image," he said.....
........DAS sensors collect a terabyte per hour of data. That information is archived by the company to check system performance. However, the baseline F-35 has no data storage mechanism, and using the system to track a missile, for example, "will be like taking a sip out of a fire hydrant," he said."

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 22:20
by Scorpion82
spazsinbad wrote:will support target detection and identification functions of the aircraft’s Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) and AN/APG-81


Will support in which way is the question. Does it provide cues for the EOTS or APG-81 to ID the target, will it present images itself, does it feature automatic algorithms to do so... I don't expect somebody to know yet, but these are the questions which interest me.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 01:23
by SpudmanWP
The level of integration in the F-35's systems is such that ANY sensor, be it onboard or off, can provide cuing for other sensors to follow up on. Depending on the mission perimeters (EM silent, using EOTS actively,etc), this cuing could be automatic.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 15:27
by Scorpion82
SpudmanWP wrote:The level of integration in the F-35's systems is such that ANY sensor, be it onboard or off, can provide cuing for other sensors to follow up on. Depending on the mission perimeters (EM silent, using EOTS actively,etc), this cuing could be automatic.


All fine, but neither answering my question, nor is it something special or unique to the F-35 only.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 18:41
by Pilotasso
Electro optical device have its limitations.

For example it can be blocked by clouds, and give false alarms with several kinds of IR bursts not necessarily caused by missile launches. Detection of incoming burned out missiles could be a problem.

A radar based MAWS should be much better as it can filter out collision trajectories, prevent false returns etc.


F-35's DAS as I see it is good to compensate for the cocpits limited view angles and for targeting and in certain circunstances IFF.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 19:09
by SpudmanWP
Scorpion82 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
The level of integration in the F-35's systems is such that ANY sensor, be it onboard or off, can provide cuing for other sensors to follow up on. Depending on the mission perimeters (EM silent, using EOTS actively,etc), this cuing could be automatic.


All fine, but neither answering my question, nor is it something special or unique to the F-35 only.
Ok, here is the breakdown. Btw, the sheer number of sensors, and their type make it unique.

Scorpion82 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:will support target detection and identification functions of the aircraft’s Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) and AN/APG-81


Will support in which way is the question. Does it provide cues for the EOTS or APG-81 to ID the target,
yes

Scorpion82 wrote:will it present images itself,
yes

Scorpion82 wrote:does it feature automatic algorithms to do so...
yes

Scorpion82 wrote:I don't expect somebody to know yet, but these are the questions which interest me.


Public knowledge via program updates and YouTube clips, aka LM Propaganda ;)

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 19:46
by SpudmanWP
Pilotasso wrote:Electro optical device have its limitations.

For example it can be blocked by clouds, and give false alarms with several kinds of IR bursts not necessarily caused by missile launches. Detection of incoming burned out missiles could be a problem.
MAWs have been in use for MANY years and have proven to be successful. Any limitations they have are compensated for.

Pilotasso wrote:A radar based MAWS should be much better as it can filter out collision trajectories, prevent false returns etc.
Radar MAWs would be a GIANT "kick me" sign and would guarantee death by suicide every time. Enemy fighters would not have to use their own radar, just sit back and listen for your MAW and fire a radar-homing missile at your MAW signal and your dead. Add in that missiles already have a low RCS, and throw in some missile RAM and faceting and game over as the MAW will never see it coming.

Pilotasso wrote:F-35's DAS as I see it is good to compensate for the cocpits limited view angles and for targeting and in certain circunstances IFF.
EODAS will:
--Provide tracking of all fighters in the WVR rangeband, no more "where's my target"
--Provide long-range warning of missile launches and short range (5-10 km) detection of missile approach after motor burnout
--Track moving ground targets
--Aid in night navigation (replaces NVGs
--Weapons support, ie cuing and mid course updates for AAMs
--etc, etc, etc

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 22:22
by SpudmanWP
More on the sensor fusion..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnE2yCc-Yfs

The whole thing is good, but at the first 30 seconds and at 1:30 they start taking about sensor fusion.

Good tidbits:
1. Main display shows "situational awareness" tracks coming from any sensor or off-board source.

2. When a target is added to the shoot list, it's track is automatically upgraded to a "weapons quality" track that can be from any source, not just radar.

3. Can do 8 A2A and 16 A2A weapons quality tracks and 100 situational awareness tracks at the same time.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2010, 01:13
by Scorpion82
SpudmanWP wrote:Ok, here is the breakdown. Btw, the sheer number of sensors, and their type make it unique.


Agreed that the number of sensors and at least in the case of the EODAS their type is unique. Sensorfusion as such, including the ability to cue a sensor by another sensor is not unique.

For the identification thing, it appears not to ID targets, neither via imaging nor via algorithms.

The result is that it does not need to recognise targets by their signature...


It continously tracks known targets and if they are identified by another system DAS is capable to assign this ID and keep it in memory while continueing tracking.

That's from the DTI_EODAS.pdf

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2010, 02:34
by SpudmanWP
Re: Maintaining ID vs doing the ID itself... your right, my bad. Seems computer power has not kept up with sensor capability yet.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2010, 02:38
by Scorpion82
No problem, that's why we are here :wink:
BTW thanks for the link to the video. The number of targets to be tracked is indeed impressive. Is it yet known what the FOV of the radar is? I would expect 60-70° per side in azimuth, but while elevation coverage is probabley similar we have to take into account that the antenna is angled. I mean to remember that I have read how much, but I'm not sure. Something like 20° pops up my mind?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 13:24
by spazsinbad
More grist for the Scorpion82 mill - apologies if you have seen this before:

F-35 Electronic Warfare Suite: More Than Self-Protection Saturday, April 1, 2006 Ron Sherman
"The F-35 will combine radar warning, signals collection and analysis, passive emitter location and countermeasures functions in an integrated electronic warfare suite deeply linked to radar and imaging sensors. The design aims to bootstrap pilot situational awareness."

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/845.html

"Of the various mission sensors, the EW elements, aided by the AESA antenna, probably would detect the enemy first, after which the aircraft's electro-optical system could scan it. The radar and EW apertures cooperate closely in the RF domain. The F-35's AESA antenna and the EW receivers are connected to support quick, long-range searches throughout the AESA antenna's bandwidth.

The radar warning function includes analysis, identification and tracking of hostile radars, as well as mode detection and monopulse, angle-of-arrival direction finding. The EW system discriminates one emitter from another by determining signal characteristics such as frequency, pulse width and pulse repetition frequency. Mode determination includes defining the operating function of an emitter at a given time, e.g., search, acquisition, tracking, based on known characteristics."
&
Total Integration
Within the JSF's overall mission systems package there is considerable overlap between the sensors. The best example is the aircraft's electro-optical distributed aperture system. While not part of the EW suite, EODAS has six strategically placed, embedded sensors, providing a fully spherical, continuously operating IR shield that can identify and track threats such as missiles, vastly increasing pilot situational awareness, says Branyan. Operating in the midwave-IR range, EODAS can provide warning at "tactically significant ranges," he says. EW and EODAS are two elements of an integrated sensor suite designed to detect and identify the full spectrum of air- and ground-based threats. EW, coupled with EODAS, provides integrated RF-IR domain coverage, Branyan says.

"Within the battlespace, pilots must be continually aware of both threats and friendly assets," Waldrop says. "While integrated systems like EW and DAS significantly ease pilot workload, it's ultimately up to the pilot to prioritize threats to ensure mission success." In the case of long-range detection, he says, the pilot has more time to detect and assess the threat. The ability to find and analyze a threat well before it detects the F-35 maximizes both offensive lethality and survivability. But it's a definite advantage to know that the integrated EW suite continues to operate in the background.

"It is important to note that as F-35 pilots fly a mission, the integrated sensor suite provides full situational awareness," says Waldrop. Sensor information includes not only onboard radar, EODAS and EW, but also offboard information. This could involve data from E-3 airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft, Joint STARS (E-8C ground surveillance) aircraft, data-linked air and ground intelligence, other combat aircraft, and both space- and sea-based elements. All the tactical/defensive information, both on board and off board, is fed to the pilot through the F-35's integrated core processor.

The JSF team has overcome some big systems integration challenges, including "the ability to provide the pilot with incredible amounts of information in a very intuitive way," enabling the pilot to maintain the tactical advantage over any adversary, asserts Waldrop. The aircraft's open architecture design and use of commercial off-the-shelf components, furthermore, should improve sustainment and allow efficient upgrades.

The overarching challenge, Waldrop says, is to detect and assess relevant events in the battlespace, drawing from and publishing critical data into the "infosphere." In the final analysis, he concludes, the ultimate goal of the pilot-JSF integrated sensor interface is to achieve "a maximum level of actionable situational awareness."

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 23:09
by Scorpion82
Nothing new here spazsinbad. Would you mind explaining why you highlighted the "total integration" part? Once again assuming this is something entirely new and unique to the F-35?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 23:41
by spazsinbad
Scorpion82, what is 'old hat' to you is most likely 'new' to me so I highlight what I think is relevant from otherwise a long article. If that is not useful to you then as suggested earlier - I apologise. I have no claim to knowledge about the JSF except what becomes publically available online or otherwise. I'm also playing catchup to some things that may be well known or understood by some. Just ignore me.

If by now some one who can answer you original question has not done so; then I guess that information is classified? I'm a civilian in Australia. And happy to be here. :-) Surely this phrase is significant (if not lacking in detail): "EW and EODAS are two elements of an integrated sensor suite designed to detect and identify the full spectrum of air- and ground-based threats..."

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 12:01
by Scorpion82
spazsinbad wrote:Scorpion82, what is 'old hat' to you is most likely 'new' to me so I highlight what I think is relevant from otherwise a long article. If that is not useful to you then as suggested earlier - I apologise. I have no claim to knowledge about the JSF except what becomes publically available online or otherwise. I'm also playing catchup to some things that may be well known or understood by some. Just ignore me.

If by now some one who can answer you original question has not done so; then I guess that information is classified? I'm a civilian in Australia. And happy to be here. :-) Surely this phrase is significant (if not lacking in detail): "EW and EODAS are two elements of an integrated sensor suite designed to detect and identify the full spectrum of air- and ground-based threats..."


I thought you wanted to tell me something as you aimed your post at me.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 12:56
by spazsinbad
Scorpion82, if you know the answers to your own questions then please let us know.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 18:07
by Scorpion82
It might happen that I sometimes ask rhetorical questions, the part about identification has been cleared up before. Your text didn't unveil anything new.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 18:54
by spazsinbad
OK - I'll give only rhetorical answers then.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 02:15
by bpow
This is quite possibly the dumbest argument I have ever heard. I have flown against and with the Typhoon. I have been briefed on the US variant of the JSF and only a fraction of the magic that comes with it. And just in the stuff I have been briefed on there is not one thing that is remotely comparable between the two aircraft other then than they both have landing gear. The Typhoon is a great jet but can't and won't ever be able to compete with the JSF!!

The End!

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 08:01
by geogen
bpow,

Fair points, but these programs are truly apples and oranges at the moment considering delivery timeframe for both Mature block III and a tranche 3.

Now, I'd bet part of what you've been briefed on at least, deals with block capabilities of both the block III, but also follow-on blocks IV and even V/VI? MADL for one, and initial EODAS capabilities expected in eventual Mature blk III however, do seem extremely potent and force-multiplying so respect will absolutely be deserved for this operational a/c once mature and delivered.

As for when block IV is delivered though, and for what, if any changes to requirements are or will be subject, would probably be too speculative for anyone not working in GAO or JPO?

Yet the Typhoon, especially trn IIIA being produced today, is the most valid 'tacair mix' available for various customers currently undergoing recapitalization, as I'm sure an eventual tranche III/B model would as well. The cohesive bonus of course will be once block III and in the future blk IV are delivered enabling jointly operating AF's to allow F-35 Quarterbacking of tranche II/IIIA and even IIIB assets (as well as both jets Quarterbacking LO UCAV/UCAS in the future).

Effectively, no significant need to compete in the future at all.. they will complement... as would/will a complementing 5.5 gen someday, and so on. :)

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 13:55
by Scorpion82
bpow wrote:This is quite possibly the dumbest argument I have ever heard. I have flown against and with the Typhoon. I have been briefed on the US variant of the JSF and only a fraction of the magic that comes with it. And just in the stuff I have been briefed on there is not one thing that is remotely comparable between the two aircraft other then than they both have landing gear. The Typhoon is a great jet but can't and won't ever be able to compete with the JSF!!

The End!


May one ask what kind of qualification you have?

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 15:03
by shep1978
bpow wrote:This is quite possibly the dumbest argument I have ever heard. I have flown against and with the Typhoon. I have been briefed on the US variant of the JSF and only a fraction of the magic that comes with it. And just in the stuff I have been briefed on there is not one thing that is remotely comparable between the two aircraft other then than they both have landing gear. The Typhoon is a great jet but can't and won't ever be able to compete with the JSF!!

The End!


I agree totally. Some people will never ever ever understand that a conventional aircraft like the Typhoon with its large RCS and lack of any other LO features will never be a match for a true stealthy low observable fighter jet even if that stealthy LO fighter is a few percentage points slower and less agile as the F-35 could be*

*I say could be because a war configeration F-35 (eg armed) should be just as good a performer as a war loaded typhoon in terms of speed , agility and have better range too.
Combat config, as i'm sure you know is what counts not airshow stunts though the F-35 being able to pull higher alpha than Typhoon could quite probably be more fun to watch at airshows)

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 17:48
by Scorpion82
shep1978 wrote: I agree totally. Some people will never ever ever understand that a conventional aircraft like the Typhoon with its large RCS and lack of any other LO features will never be a match for a true stealthy low observable fighter jet even if that stealthy LO fighter is a few percentage points slower and less agile as the F-35 could be*

*I say could be because a war configeration F-35 (eg armed) should be just as good a performer as a war loaded typhoon in terms of speed , agility and have better range too.
Combat config, as i'm sure you know is what counts not airshow stunts though the F-35 being able to pull higher alpha than Typhoon could quite probably be more fun to watch at airshows)


Ah you know the operational AoA of the F-35? Must be an insider I guess or even more so have a crystall ball to know what the clearance will be in the end.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 18:46
by shep1978
Scorpion82 wrote:Ah you know the operational AoA of the F-35? Must be an insider I guess or even more so have a crystall ball to know what the clearance will be in the end.


No, not an insider and no crystal ball here but i'm just someone who listens to press releases. It has been copied up thousands of times on various forums but as i'm feeling generous you can have the the quote to see for your own eyes. Google the sentence I copied up for futher links on it though i'm convinced you've read it before.

Beesley said: "the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases."

Now, "most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor" is certainly very very impressive and i'd wager far higher AOA than a Typhoon, which lets face it isn't very good at reaching high AOA levels.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I think you'll have to live with it that the f-35 will be capable of higher angles of attack than a Typhoon is.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 18:57
by Scorpion82
shep1978 wrote:No, not an insider and no crystal ball here but i'm just someone who listens to press releases. It has been copied up thousands of times on various forums but as i'm feeling generous you can have the the quote to see for your own eyes. Google the sentence I copied up for futher links on it though i'm convinced you've read it before.

Beesley said: "the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases."

Now, "most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor" is certainly very very impressive and i'd wager far higher AOA than a Typhoon, which lets face it isn't very good at reaching high AOA levels.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I think you'll have to live with it that the f-35 will be capable of higher angles of attack than a Typhoon is.


Fine I'm looking forward to see the F-35 sustaining 60° AoA, oh it won't it's max AoA has been stated with 55° and without TVC it won't sustaine it either. And by the way what are those manoeuvers and how high is the AoA in fact? Are you even able to distngiush between max. AoA achieveable through aerodynamic and the FCS imposed soft limit and why the later one is in place? I somewhat doubt it, but feel free to surprise me...

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 19:13
by shep1978
I will freely admit that i'm not 100% sure but as far as I know Typhoon is limited to 35 degrees AoA.
It may have done more in tests (like Rafale did) but in service it is limited for certain reasons, probably FCS limits as you say. It (high AOA) may not be sustainable either like Typhoon though other jets such as the F-18 can sustain the AOA so thrust vectoring is not the excuse you are looking for here, at least not in my non professional opinion.

I stick by what I wrote and using the Raptor as a base for comparison as Beesley (more of an expert than anyone on this forum, no disrespect meant) did it would seem F-35 should certainly be able to better the Typhoon in the AOA department, sustainable or not. Until proven otherwise i'd learn to live with it if I were you.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 19:43
by Scorpion82
shep1978 wrote:I will freely admit that i'm not 100% sure but as far as I know Typhoon is limited to 35 degrees AoA.
It may have done more in tests (like Rafale did) but in service it is limited for certain reasons, probably FCS limits as you say. It (high AOA) may not be sustainable either like Typhoon though other jets such as the F-18 can sustain the AOA so thrust vectoring is not the excuse you are looking for here, at least not in my non professional opinion.

I stick by what I wrote and using the Raptor as a base for comparison as Beesley (more of an expert than anyone on this forum, no disrespect meant) did it would seem F-35 should certainly be able to better the Typhoon in the AOA department, sustainable or not. Until proven otherwise i'd learn to live with it if I were you.


The AoA isn't limited by FCS limits, but the AoA limits the AoA on aerodynamic grounds, mainly safety reasons. A Flanker can easily fly at >100° for a short period of time, yet its FCS limits the AoA to much lower values (~25° - 30° depending on the variant). An F-16 could fly with much higher AoAs than 25°, but its FCS limits it to that value and so can others including a Typhoon or the F-35. Some FCS doesn't permit an override such as that of the F-16 or Typhoon, while others do such as that of the Su-27/3X or Rafale for example. No idea wether the F-35s FCS will allow it or not. Sorry to say so but it appears you have not even the slightest clue about what you are talking and that's the reason why you just uncritically swallow any claim which sounds good for you, wether it makes sense or not doesn't interest you as you lack the knowledge/understanding to assess such claims as done by Mr. Beesley. In public interviews pilots are unfortunantely often quite vague and while people with a certain level of understanding/knowledge would raise questions, guys like you just swallow it and ask no questions, why should you it's one of your pet toys so you like consuming such stuff. Will the F-35 provide a better AoA performance than the Typhoon? I don't know, I say lets see wether the F-35 will be able to do so or not. I'm personally a bit reserved about the claim of "matching most of the F-22s high AoA manoeuvers".
But you are free to believe what you want, I don't bother, but I put things into the perspective and raise questions or simply point out limitations based on knowledge and understanding of how things work in general. Maybe you should start to allocate some of your time to start learn some basics, instead of consuming LM marketing claims you then quote infinitely.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 21:12
by shep1978
Hey no worries if you don't want to except what Beesley said, afterall, he obviously knows absolutely nothing about the F-35 and what it will be able to do. I think I'll listen to the real experts like you for example, in future. Thanks. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 22:00
by Scorpion82
shep1978 wrote:Hey no worries if you don't want to except what Beesley said, afterall, he obviously knows absolutely nothing about the F-35 and what it will be able to do. I think I'll listen to the real experts like you for example, in future. Thanks. :wink:


It has nothing to do with Mr. Beesley not knowing what he talks about, he certainly does. It's about people like you who obviously lack any comprehension of the matter and thereby swallow vague claims and make up stories out of them. I don't question Mr. Beesley claims as such, I question the lame interpretations by people like you and try to make you understand how things work, what is relevant and what are the limitations. But if you prefer to keep on your fanboy level, so be it.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 22:15
by shep1978
Oh dear, getting personel again I see.
You say that I "lack any comprehension of the matter and thereby swallow vague claims" yet you say you don't question Beesleys claims which are the very same claims i'm suppossedly swallowing down with no comprehension!
What Beesley said was not mystical or vague but very direct really, let me repeat he said ""most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor" which really isn't to vague at all. It means what it says and it says the F-35 will pull most of the high AOA the F-22 can. If anything it is you who does not understand how to read and comprehend what they are reading, it couldn't be anymore straight forward!

One more time just incase you didn't read it properly "most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor"

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 23:27
by Scorpion82
shep1978 wrote:Oh dear, getting personel again I see.
You say that I "lack any comprehension of the matter and thereby swallow vague claims" yet you say you don't question Beesleys claims which are the very same claims i'm suppossedly swallowing down with no comprehension!


You missed the "make up stories out of them" part and it's obvious why.

What Beesley said was not mystical or vague but very direct really, let me repeat he said ""most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor" which really isn't to vague at all. It means what it says and it says the F-35 will pull most of the high AOA the F-22 can. If anything it is you who does not understand how to read and comprehend what they are reading, it couldn't be anymore straight forward!


Apparently to vague for you to tell me which manoeuvers these are and with what AoA the aircraft is flying. Not that I expected to get an accurate answer, no one will give it wether he can or not, in your case I know you can't.
The fact is, like it or not and I know you don't like it and therefore dismiss it as usual, is that the F-35 can't copy the F-22's TVC enabled manoeuvers. It will most likely match those the F-22 can fly on grounds of its aerodynamics and that's it. That doesn't mean its bad or inferior to the Typhoon actually. But there are clear limitations, the F-35 isn't going to break physical laws. And if you seriously believe that the F-35 is going to be able to copy or match the Raptors TVC enabled high AoA manoeuvers there is nothing wrong with telling you that you have no clue.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2010, 00:42
by shep1978
Scorpion82 wrote:
You missed the "make up stories out of them" part and it's obvious why.


You're quite clearly drunk as nowhere did I "make up stories about them" (whoever 'them' is)
Wait tilll your hangover clears and you've sobered up then re-read my posts.

Oh btw, its not actually me but a guy with 5000 flight hours and years of experience who says it can match most of the F-22's mauverers and he holds 5000 times more weight behind his assesment than you do kiddo. As a quick analogy I feel In all honesty that i'm talking to a 5 year old who thinks he knows more about astrophysics than a qualified astrophysicist who works in that area for a living.

Goodnight, sleep tight.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2010, 02:32
by underhill
The point being that "match most of the F-22's maneuvers" is more than a little vague... and indeed, if it can do so, you have to wonder why they designed the F-22 with a lower wing loading, higher T/W ratio, and VT.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2010, 03:03
by spazsinbad
underhill, elsewhere on this or similar threads on this forum the statement has been made that with the better technology for the JSF it was not necessary to put the aircraft at risk at high AoA because it did not need to 'point and shoot'. Apparently when F-22 was designed it did not have these avionics advantages (to be brief).

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2010, 10:09
by shep1978
underhill wrote:The point being that "match most of the F-22's maneuvers" is more than a little vague... and indeed, if it can do so, you have to wonder why they designed the F-22 with a lower wing loading, higher T/W ratio, and VT.



"match most of the F-22's maneuvers"

Dictionary definitions are quite clearly needed for you and Scorpion82 so here goes:
According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com

Match= One that is able to compete equally with another
Most = Superlative of many, much. (self explanatory)
maneuver = A controlled change in movement or direction of a moving vehicle or vessel, as in the flight path of an aircraft.

So, by that we can be assert the F-35 should be able to compete with the F-22 in its ability to maneuver in most of its AOA pulling ability.

I do hope you might now understand what Beesleys statement meant now the quote has been broken down word for word but i get the feeling you'll still try and twist it and claim it to be "vague" statement which couldn't be futher from the truth.

BTW Underhill, i'd have thought you'd have learnt by now wing loading and TVC is are the be all and end all of maneuvering ability.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2010, 10:17
by Scorpion82
spazsinbad wrote:underhill, elsewhere on this or similar threads on this forum the statement has been made that with the better technology for the JSF it was not necessary to put the aircraft at risk at high AoA because it did not need to 'point and shoot'. Apparently when F-22 was designed it did not have these avionics advantages (to be brief).


That's of course true, but the point is another one. We discuss physical limitations, which some people here encounter with sheer ignorance and stupidy.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2010, 12:13
by shep1978
Still in insult mode i see, how cute. Anyway, twist and throw insults it all you want kid but the bottom line is the F-35 should be able "match most of the F-22's maneuvers" as stated by a test pilot with over 5000 hours under his belt.
So, who are we to believe? You who is a keyboard warrior with no service experience or flying hours under his belt with nothing more than a basic understanding of aircraft or Mr Beesley, a test pilot with 5000 hours flying time under his belt. I think anyone reading this knows the answer.
Here is Mr Beeselys Bography:
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:HAIa ... clnk&gl=uk
Care to post yours?

You're out of your depth mate.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2010, 20:42
by Scorpion82
shep1978 wrote:Still in insult mode i see, how cute. Anyway, twist and throw insults it all you want kid but the bottom line is the F-35 should be able "match most of the F-22's maneuvers" as stated by a test pilot with over 5000 hours under his belt.
So, who are we to believe? You who is a keyboard warrior with no service experience or flying hours under his belt with nothing more than a basic understanding of aircraft or Mr Beesley, a test pilot with 5000 hours flying time under his belt. I think anyone reading this knows the answer.
Here is Mr Beeselys Bography:
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:HAIa ... clnk&gl=uk
Care to post yours?

You're out of your depth mate.


Sorry but I'm done with you. You deserve no further time and responses as I have wasted more than enough with you. Keep happy with your fanboy sh!t and low level brabbling. A monkey can repost stuff, I haven't seen you doing much else except of that. And I don't care what you think about me either, I'm not prolifierating through my back grounds, but through the content of my post which is much more important. There are way to many people out their claiming "I'm this or that so you must believe me".

which one ?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2011, 11:42
by cal777
should I join the RAF and fly eurofighters or the navy and fly f-35's ( when im old enogh which would mean that the UK might have the new carriers and f-35's hopefully). I like the idea of flying on and off carriers and I like both planes im joining the aircadets but right now I like the navy carier flying more but cant decide so which one is the better choice navy or airforce?

RE: which one ?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2011, 12:12
by spazsinbad
I was basic trained by the RAAF to fly A4G Skyhawks in the RAN FAA about 45 years ago now but even today these stories ring true:

http://tailhook.org/USN%20USAF.html
&
http://www.squidoo.com/NavyFighterPilot
&
Perhaps more specifically to your situation in UK you cannot go past this advice:
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/?p=285

Another one: http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/?p=165

Re: which one ?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2011, 12:37
by shep1978
cal777 wrote:should I join the RAF and fly eurofighters or the navy and fly f-35's ( when im old enogh which would mean that the UK might have the new carriers and f-35's hopefully). I like the idea of flying on and off carriers and I like both planes im joining the aircadets but right now I like the navy carier flying more but cant decide so which one is the better choice navy or airforce?


Hi there, I can't offer you any direct advice but I can tell you that your best bet to get some good answers/advice will be to head over to PPRUNE.com and post your question in the 'military aircrew' section. Hope that might help.

thanks

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2011, 23:34
by cal777
thanks elite i'll give that a look

F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2012, 17:57
by alster777
As Far As Armerement Goes The F35 has 10 Pylons On Which Bombs, Missles And Other Weapons, Where As The Eurofighter Has 13 Pylons Where It Can Hold Missles Bombs Ect... So There The Eurofighter Comes Up Top.

In The Handling The Eurofighter Also Comes Out On Top.
The Typhoon is a highly agile aircraft at both supersonic and low speeds, achieved though having an intentionally relaxed stability design. It has a quadruplex digital fly-by-wire control system providing artificial stability, manual operation alone could not compensate for the inherent instability. The fly-by-wire system is described as "carefree", and prevents the pilot from exceeding the permitted manoeuvre envelope. Where As The F35 Only Has Thrust Vectoring And It Is Much Heavier Than What It Is Designed To Replace.

In The Catagory Of Stealth, the F35 Starts To Win Back The Points. It Has The Radar Cross-Section Of A Beach Ball Where As The Eurofighter Has The Radar Cross-Section Of Less Than 1 Square Meter.

In The Speed Section, Its The Eurofighter That Wins This Catagory.
The Typhoon:
Maximum speed: **At altitude: Mach 2 (2,495 km/h/1,550 mph)[223][224][225]
At sea level: Mach 1.2[220] (1,470 km/h/910 mph)[226]
Supercruise: Mach 1.1–1.5[227]
Range: 2,900 km (1,800 mi)
F35:
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[141] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) Tested to Mach 1.61.[314]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel


Over All I Personaly Belive That The Eurofighter Is The Superior Aircraft And The Statistics Back Me Up.

Re: which one ?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2012, 18:03
by alster777
shep1978 wrote:
cal777 wrote:should I join the RAF and fly eurofighters or the navy and fly f-35's ( when im old enogh which would mean that the UK might have the new carriers and f-35's hopefully). I like the idea of flying on and off carriers and I like both planes im joining the aircadets but right now I like the navy carier flying more but cant decide so which one is the better choice navy or airforce?


The Uk Are Buying Some F35Cs From The US For Use On The Queen Elisibeth Class Carriers

Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2012, 18:12
by Code3
alster777 wrote:In The Handling The Eurofighter Also Comes Out On Top.
The Typhoon is a highly agile aircraft at both supersonic and low speeds, achieved though having an intentionally relaxed stability design. It has a quadruplex digital fly-by-wire control system providing artificial stability, manual operation alone could not compensate for the inherent instability. The fly-by-wire system is described as "carefree", and prevents the pilot from exceeding the permitted manoeuvre envelope. Where As The F35 Only Has Thrust Vectoring And It Is Much Heavier Than What It Is Designed To Replace.


While I agree the Eurofighter will handle better than the JSF, it is not because of the reasons you outlined. The F-35 is also an unstable design with redundant fly-by-wire contoll systems designed to allow the aircraft to operate freely within its enlvelope without exceeding it. Also, the F-35 does not have thrust vectoring in any way that will be useful in air-to-air combat, only for STOVL.

Additionally, remember that while the F-35 only has 10 stations, it can carry multiple bombs on each station through the use of TERs, whereas the Eurofighter cannot.

RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2012, 18:49
by hcobb
Does the pilot candidate want additional airfoils for flashy displays, or does he want fewer airfoils that can show up on hostile radars?

Which do his friends and family consider to be the higher priority?

Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2012, 19:14
by delvo
alster777 wrote:As Far As Armerement Goes The F35 has 10 Pylons On Which Bombs, Missles And Other Weapons, Where As The Eurofighter Has 13 Pylons Where It Can Hold Missles Bombs Ect... So There The Eurofighter Comes Up Top.
More points, but lighter load limits per point and a lighter total. I don't know exactly how the load limits are distributed among a Typhoon's hardpoints, but illustrations show several of them carrying only fairly small weapons, and the total limit is given at 16000 pounds. Four of an F-35's hardpoints (including two internal ones) have limits of 2500 apiece, and two have 5000 apiece, which adds up to 20000 even without adding the remaining four with their lower limits. Also, four of an F-35's hardpoints, being internal, can be used without affecting its stealth or its drag (which reduces speed, range, and maneuverability).

alster777 wrote:In The Handling The Eurofighter Also Comes Out On Top.
It might, barely. I'm not sure; they're pretty close there. Probably each is superior at certain kinds of maneuver, since that's usually the case when comparing two planes of generally similar overall maneuverability.

alster777 wrote:The Typhoon is a highly agile aircraft at both supersonic and low speeds, achieved though having an intentionally relaxed stability design. It has a quadruplex digital fly-by-wire control system providing artificial stability, manual operation alone could not compensate for the inherent instability. The fly-by-wire system is described as "carefree", and prevents the pilot from exceeding the permitted manoeuvre envelope.
It has this feature in common with F-35; this is not a difference between them. For that matter, they have it in common with practically every fighter made since at least the 1970s.

alster777 wrote:Where As The F35 Only Has Thrust Vectoring
Actually it doesn't, but I don't get why you attached the "only" there. Thrust vectoring is a pretty big deal, for a plane that has it, which neither of these does.

alster777 wrote:In The Catagory Of Stealth, the F35 Starts To Win Back The Points. It Has The Radar Cross-Section Of A Beach Ball Where As The Eurofighter Has The Radar Cross-Section Of Less Than 1 Square Meter.
Golf ball. A beach ball would be pretty similar to a square meter, but these planes' radar signatures are not close at all. Also, adding external weapons makes either one easier to detect than they are without external weapons, but flying without external weapons would be pointless for a Typhoon because then it would have no weapons at all, whereas an F-35 would still have what it can carry internally.

alster777 wrote:In The Speed Section, Its The Eurofighter That Wins This Catagory.
Yes... by a small amount... if you compare them in a "clean" configuration, which means no external weapons, which means the Typhoon is unarmed and the F-35 is merely reduced to using four hardpoints.

Why do you capitalize most words?

Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2012, 23:24
by m
alster777 wrote:As Far As Armerement Goes The F35 has 10 Pylons On Which Bombs, Missles And Other Weapons, Where As The Eurofighter Has 13 Pylons Where It Can Hold Missles Bombs Ect... So There The Eurofighter Comes Up Top.

In The Handling The Eurofighter Also Comes Out On Top.
The Typhoon is a highly agile aircraft at both supersonic and low speeds, achieved though having an intentionally relaxed stability design. It has a quadruplex digital fly-by-wire control system providing artificial stability, manual operation alone could not compensate for the inherent instability. The fly-by-wire system is described as "carefree", and prevents the pilot from exceeding the permitted manoeuvre envelope. Where As The F35 Only Has Thrust Vectoring And It Is Much Heavier Than What It Is Designed To Replace.

In The Catagory Of Stealth, the F35 Starts To Win Back The Points. It Has The Radar Cross-Section Of A Beach Ball Where As The Eurofighter Has The Radar Cross-Section Of Less Than 1 Square Meter.

In The Speed Section, Its The Eurofighter That Wins This Catagory.
The Typhoon:
Maximum speed: **At altitude: Mach 2 (2,495 km/h/1,550 mph)[223][224][225]
At sea level: Mach 1.2[220] (1,470 km/h/910 mph)[226]
Supercruise: Mach 1.1–1.5[227]
Range: 2,900 km (1,800 mi)
F35:
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[141] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) Tested to Mach 1.61.[314]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel


Over All I Personaly Belive That The Eurofighter Is The Superior Aircraft And The Statistics Back Me Up.



How many Typhoon pilots will ever fly mach 2 do you think?
Within probably some 10-12 minutes or less a Typhoon will run out of fuel.
Ever thought about this, most F15 pilots never flew more than mach 1.3 or mach 1.4
(F15, mach 2.3)

A F18, nor also a Rafale fly with mach +2 speeds, both types some mach 1.8
Still both are considered as extremely good jets.
The Rafale can also be considered, as has been proved during Libya, as a very good multirole jet.
The Typhoon, as a multi role, not before till at least 2018

May be interesting, the Typhoon will fly till 2030 in the UK (phased out). The F35 will fly till 2050-2060. Some 20-30 years after the Typhoon has been phased out.


13 pylons, but will a Typhoon ever often be loaded with max. loads?
This shortens the life spam of a jet with some 7 years (Specialists on F16.net can explain this better than I do). Don’t think any Min. of Def., whatever country, will allow this.

Mach 2, but at what speed with weapons? A 35 loaded with weapons, internal, mach 1.6.
Don’t have the impression a Typhoon will fly at mach 1.6 with a same weapon load as the F35. Internal: two 2000 lbs bombs, including 2 Amraams.
Secondly, a Typhoon needs extra pods besides this weapon load. A F35 does not.

Typhoon: 13 pylons
o Some two or three pods, two bombs, 2 Amraams (without extra tanks)
o Left: 6 or 7 pylons
o With two external tanks: 4 or 5 pylons

F35A: 11 pylons
o Not 10 pylons, but 11 pylons (belly: 1)
o The F35 still has got 7 pylons left (internal 4)
o With two external tanks: 5 pylons left

o Internal: 4, but will get 6 pylons (or twin) > 6 Amraams)
o 6 internal + 7 external = 13 pylons

Besides this, being as multirole as a F35 is, a Typhoon needs a extra reconnaissance pod as well. Three or four pylons left for armament.

Concerning pylons the Typhoon and the F35 both are equal (13), but concerning effective weapon load the f35 has more to offer. Especially when the F35 will have 6 pylons internal

Effective load:
o F35: 9 pylons (without extra tanks. 7 pylons (with two extra tanks, the 35 does not need extra pods)
o Typhoon: 6 or 7 pylons (without extra tanks). 4 or 5 pylons (with extra tanks).
o Including a reconnaissance pod: 3 or 4 left for armament



Don’t forget the Typhoon is designed as a air defense fighter, not as a bomber. It’s very difficult, hardly impossible, changing a pure fighter into a specialized bomber as well.
The F35 is designed as a multi role right from the start.


Super cruise hmm. The Typhoon is not a super cruise jet to US standards. Even a F35 is not a super cruise jet, even when for instance at mach 1.4. You can’t compare, because you don’t know what the F35 will be up to.
The Typhoon advertized as a super cruise jet will never be possible with the F35, even when the F35 would fly faster than a Typhoon (Euro canard standards)


Typhoon: costs per flying hour (UK)
Per Typhoon: £70,000.00=$109,283.69
Per Typhoon (180 hours): £12.6 million = €15.2 million = $19.6 million

To compare we have to wait till the F35, C version, will fly in the UK.
Still have the impression flying costs per hour of the F35C will be significantly lower
This is a naval fighter, so a better comparison would be with the F35A

The Typhoon would have to fly in Belgium and the Netherlands to compare fairly, but even
when less costs per flying hour than in the UK, the jet is extremely expensive.

F16 MLU: costs per flying hour (2010: Belgium and the Netherlands)
o Per F16 MLU: £16,570.50 = €20,000.00 = $25,871.80 per hour
o Per F16 MLU (180 hours = £2.9 million = €3.6 million = $4.6 million per hour

* Used rates: Jan. 4, 2012

RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2012, 03:12
by destroid
Might consider which jet has a more comfortable cockpit and engine/ejector reliability (for the pilot candidate).

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2012, 16:17
by stobiewan
I'm willing to bet that if you add up every minute spent in excess of Mach 1.5 by the entire Typhoon fleet, you'd not have time to watch any of the extended editions of Lord of the Rings.

Probably ditto for the F15 fleet to be honest...

Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2012, 22:42
by southernphantom
alster777 wrote:As Far As Armerement Goes The F35 has 10 Pylons On Which Bombs, Missles And Other Weapons, Where As The Eurofighter Has 13 Pylons Where It Can Hold Missles Bombs Ect... So There The Eurofighter Comes Up Top.

In The Handling The Eurofighter Also Comes Out On Top.
The Typhoon is a highly agile aircraft at both supersonic and low speeds, achieved though having an intentionally relaxed stability design. It has a quadruplex digital fly-by-wire control system providing artificial stability, manual operation alone could not compensate for the inherent instability. The fly-by-wire system is described as "carefree", and prevents the pilot from exceeding the permitted manoeuvre envelope. Where As The F35 Only Has Thrust Vectoring And It Is Much Heavier Than What It Is Designed To Replace.

In The Catagory Of Stealth, the F35 Starts To Win Back The Points. It Has The Radar Cross-Section Of A Beach Ball Where As The Eurofighter Has The Radar Cross-Section Of Less Than 1 Square Meter.

In The Speed Section, Its The Eurofighter That Wins This Catagory.
The Typhoon:
Maximum speed: **At altitude: Mach 2 (2,495 km/h/1,550 mph)[223][224][225]
At sea level: Mach 1.2[220] (1,470 km/h/910 mph)[226]
Supercruise: Mach 1.1–1.5[227]
Range: 2,900 km (1,800 mi)
F35:
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[141] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) Tested to Mach 1.61.[314]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel


Over All I Personaly Belive That The Eurofighter Is The Superior Aircraft And The Statistics Back Me Up.


There is so much wrong with this analysis it's actually funny :lol: :lol: You're ignoring the possibility of MER/TER on the JSF, as well as the fact that the Typhoon's hardpoints are so tightly packed as to effectively preclude this kind of launcher.

The other guys covered the kinematics, so I'll go with this: The Typhoon uses the CAPTOR mechanically-scanned radar, which, though having a theoretically greater field of vision, is generally less capable against small and LO/VLO targets, has no innate EW capabilities, and is overall inferior. The Typhoon's avionics aren't useless, but are fairly primitive compared to the F-35. To compare, the F-35 pilot will be fighting smart, informed and hard to see, while the Typhoon jockey will be electronically outclassed, restricted by poorly planned ordnance selection, and butt-naked against the latest SAMs. This is very much a relative comparison and not a collection of absolute performance statements, but take your pick as to which you'd rather be flying or have as an instrument of your foreign policy.

Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2012, 06:30
by thestealthfighterguy
southernphantom wrote:
alster777 wrote:As Far As Armerement Goes The F35 has 10 Pylons On Which Bombs, Missles And Other Weapons, Where As The Eurofighter Has 13 Pylons Where It Can Hold Missles Bombs Ect... So There The Eurofighter Comes Up Top.

In The Handling The Eurofighter Also Comes Out On Top.
The Typhoon is a highly agile aircraft at both supersonic and low speeds, achieved though having an intentionally relaxed stability design. It has a quadruplex digital fly-by-wire control system providing artificial stability, manual operation alone could not compensate for the inherent instability. The fly-by-wire system is described as "carefree", and prevents the pilot from exceeding the permitted manoeuvre envelope. Where As The F35 Only Has Thrust Vectoring And It Is Much Heavier Than What It Is Designed To Replace.

In The Catagory Of Stealth, the F35 Starts To Win Back The Points. It Has The Radar Cross-Section Of A Beach Ball Where As The Eurofighter Has The Radar Cross-Section Of Less Than 1 Square Meter.

In The Speed Section, Its The Eurofighter That Wins This Catagory.
The Typhoon:
Maximum speed: **At altitude: Mach 2 (2,495 km/h/1,550 mph)[223][224][225]
At sea level: Mach 1.2[220] (1,470 km/h/910 mph)[226]
Supercruise: Mach 1.1–1.5[227]
Range: 2,900 km (1,800 mi)
F35:
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[141] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) Tested to Mach 1.61.[314]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel


Over All I Personaly Belive That The Eurofighter Is The Superior Aircraft And The Statistics Back Me Up.


There is so much wrong with this analysis it's actually funny :lol: :lol: You're ignoring the possibility of MER/TER on the JSF, as well as the fact that the Typhoon's hardpoints are so tightly packed as to effectively preclude this kind of launcher.

The other guys covered the kinematics, so I'll go with this: The Typhoon uses the CAPTOR mechanically-scanned radar, which, though having a theoretically greater field of vision, is generally less capable against small and LO/VLO targets, has no innate EW capabilities, and is overall inferior. The Typhoon's avionics aren't useless, but are fairly primitive compared to the F-35. To compare, the F-35 pilot will be fighting smart, informed and hard to see, while the Typhoon jockey will be electronically outclassed, restricted by poorly planned ordnance selection, and butt-naked against the latest SAMs. This is very much a relative comparison and not a collection of absolute performance statements, but take your pick as to which you'd rather be flying or have as an instrument of your foreign policy.


How did this thread get so long? :!:

This is the same as the F-35 vs. Su-35 thread. 5th gen spanks 4th gen. It's not hard people :!: Am I in the twilight zone again? :lol:

RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2012, 07:37
by thebigfish
Forgive the ignorant question. But I often read that the RCS of this plane is 1m2 and the F35 is about 0.02 or some figure like that. But when the RCS of 1m2 is mentioned for 4+ gen fighters, does that normally include the attached armaments that the F35 carries internally? Although missiles themselves I believe have relatively low RCS, the combination with the several that are carried and the impact of the launch rails and interaction of the plane surfaces, how much does the RCS change? So does the EF RCS increase significantly? Now I understand that from different aspects the RCS may change differently but I am looking for a more qualitative answer, if that is possible?

Re: RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2012, 11:34
by river_otter
thebigfish wrote:Forgive the ignorant question. But I often read that the RCS of this plane is 1m2 and the F35 is about 0.02 or some figure like that. But when the RCS of 1m2 is mentioned for 4+ gen fighters, does that normally include the attached armaments that the F35 carries internally? Although missiles themselves I believe have relatively low RCS, the combination with the several that are carried and the impact of the launch rails and interaction of the plane surfaces, how much does the RCS change? So does the EF RCS increase significantly? Now I understand that from different aspects the RCS may change differently but I am looking for a more qualitative answer, if that is possible?


It depends on what you mean by "significantly." Does the RCS of a gen4 aircraft change measurably when it carries external stores? Yes. Does it change in a way that matters? No. Gen4 aircraft flying clean can already be detected by fighter-sized radar well outside the no-escape zone of of AMRAAM-class missiles. Increasing the RCS slightly won't change that.

Re: RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2012, 11:39
by munny
Aircraft RCS varies depending on what angle you are looking at it from. The various VLO fighters and prototypes all have a low frontal RCS but are nowhere near as stealthy from the side (look to the X-47B and similar flat, flying wings for an all aspect, VLO airframe).

Image

The fighter aircraft are designed so that only a few set aspects give a high radar return. Its assumed that there are systems on board, tied to the RWR which assist the pilot in directing the aircraft's RCS "hotspots" away from emitting radars. The figures you've seen are possibly averages, or possibly just guesses. The only statements ever made by an US official on the RCS of these aircraft is that the F-22 has an RCS the size of a metal marble or approximately 0.000143msq and the F-35 the size of a ping pong ball or 0.001. These would almost certainly be frontal RCS numbers if in any way accurate.

In a nutshell... a comparison of an enemy aircraft's radar detection range between a stealth and legacy fighter might look like this.

Image

Missiles and pylons wouldn't add much to the aircraft's frontal RCS as long at they have no forward facing, flat surfaces. From the side though, a missile would give a signifcantly larger return. Below is a polar plot of a sidewinder missile's RCS. The frontal RCS translates to 0.001msq while the side is around 3msq.

Image

The RCS of the pylons would be signicantly larger. They also create a number of dihedral corner reflectors, a lot of random scattering and bouncing around of beams (basically a disco ball for radar)

All these RCS plots and diagrams are based on the output of physical optics simulations (the stealth aircraft one came from APA's data of the J-20)

RE: Re: RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2012, 12:43
by thebigfish
Okay , thanks Guys,
Otter, So yes the external stores increase the RCS so the probable detection range increase from far away to even further away. Thanks.
Munny, thanks for expanding. As I indicated I understand that the angle is important. And as to the figures , in reality we will probably not know in our life time what it truely is.

I suppose why I have asked this is I keep seeing the comments about the Su35s, EF, etc and how they are going to kick F35 in WVR combat. (Ohhh Cobra manuv. etc). Now that could be true but the darn Su35 has to get to WVR. Now that is where it gets down to tactics I assume. If a Su35 without external stores was detected at say (as an example) 2 x distance where a F35 can be detected, then with external stores that distance to detect the Su35 increases further, say x2.5. Then the question gets into how good the missles the F35 carries are as well as how restricted the opposing plane is in countering. With external stores a further issue is impact on Manoeuvrability. So trying to avoid incoming missile IF detected eats into situation awareness and response to further threats. All putting the F35 at an advantage. Forgive me maybe stating the obvious but this talking out the logic has served me well.

Thanks again

RE: Re: RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2012, 15:00
by sprstdlyscottsmn
So if you can't detect an AIM-9 on radar then you won't get an F-35 either, much less an F-22. Interesting.

Re: RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2012, 15:36
by wrightwing
thebigfish wrote:Forgive the ignorant question. But I often read that the RCS of this plane is 1m2 and the F35 is about 0.02 or some figure like that. But when the RCS of 1m2 is mentioned for 4+ gen fighters, does that normally include the attached armaments that the F35 carries internally? Although missiles themselves I believe have relatively low RCS, the combination with the several that are carried and the impact of the launch rails and interaction of the plane surfaces, how much does the RCS change? So does the EF RCS increase significantly? Now I understand that from different aspects the RCS may change differently but I am looking for a more qualitative answer, if that is possible?


Clean the Typhoon is generally thought to have an RCS in the .3 to .5m^2 range. The F-35 is likely somewhere between .001 and .0001m^2. Once you hang external stores on either of them, then the RCS is going to be higher than 1m^2.

RE: Re: RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2012, 17:22
by hcobb
The F-35 is planned to have a low-RCS external missile.

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065928225

RE: Re: RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2012, 19:16
by SpudmanWP
It's the pylon that is LO, not the missile itself (beyond whatever lower RCS it has).

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2012, 01:22
by munny
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So if you can't detect an AIM-9 on radar then you won't get an F-35 either, much less an F-22. Interesting.


Oops, didn't seem right when you mentioned that and I realised I ran the simulation using vhf frequency rather than x-band.... so against x-band, a missile's RCS looks like below....

Image


The weapons pylon's side profile looks a little like this. for a 30 degree arc, its has a significant RCS which peaks at around 1000msq.

Image

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F35 Vs Eurofighter

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2012, 06:45
by river_otter
Both the B-2 and RQ-170 have lumps along the upper surface of each wing (engines and who-knows-what, respectively), so evidently something sticking out of the wing is not incompatible with stealth design, and may even inherently reduce RCS in some configurations (or why put them in so similar a location on the RQ-170?). The FB-22 concept included stealthy faceted pods under the wings, that surrounded the ordnance until it was launched. By breaking up some returns off the aircraft and bouncing them back on the fuselage another time (and bouncing most of their own returns off the aircraft), supposedly modeling showed a carefully designed stealth pod under each wing actually reduced the RCS compared to the same airframe without the pods. The angles where the pods' return was high might have coincided with the angles the plane itself had to avoid anyway. The penalty of the stealth pod had to be unavoidable in weight and drag, so they were probably more suitable to housing an already bulky bomb for a bombing mission than housing a skinny missile for air superiority. Nevertheless, underwing stores that don't compromise stealth are certainly feasible, at least per statements by LM, and inference from the big and little flying wings.

Edit: And, giving myself a big "duh" for overlooking this with the original post, of course two of the three F-35s themselves carry a centerline gun pod that is supposed to not compromise stealth.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 16:17
by zero-one
Has the aeronautica militare released any word on which aircraft they will primarily task for air superiority?
is it the Typhoon or F-35A?

Since this air arm has the classified data on both aircraft, it will be interesting on which one they think would be more effective on a chosen role.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 16:30
by slapshot!
zero-one wrote:Has the aeronautica militare released any word on which aircraft they will primarily task for air superiority?
is it the Typhoon or F-35A?

Since this air arm has the classified data on both aircraft, it will be interesting on which one they think would be more effective on a chosen role.


While the F35 would make a great air superiority fighter with its powerful sensors, solid kinematics, and future 6x AMRAAM configuration, its a much better strike fighter.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 17:16
by icemaverick
The Typhoon is primarily an A2A platform although its A2G capabilities are coming along. I would suspect they will use the Typhoon for most air superiority missions. For now the Typhoon should be a match for any operational fighter except for the F-22, which it won't be facing. Things could get dicey for the Tiffy against the Su-35 though.

A lot of it comes down to training. The F-16 could be a good air superiority fighter, but in the USAF, this role has been filled by the F-15. This is at least partially due to the fact that Eagle drivers train A2A 100% of the time while the F-16 pilots also have to train for strike missions and CAS. Most F-35 missions will probably be strike oriented although it would make a very lethal air superiority fighter as well.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 18:41
by zero-one
icemaverick wrote:A lot of it comes down to training. The F-16 could be a good air superiority fighter, but in the USAF, this role has been filled by the F-15. This is at least partially due to the fact that Eagle drivers train A2A 100% of the time while the F-16 pilots also have to train for strike missions and CAS. Most F-35 missions will probably be strike oriented although it would make a very lethal air superiority fighter as well.


Just regarding that, I've always heared of Viper pilots beating F-15 pilots. and how they put Eagle drivers to shame since they only train for A2A but got beat by guys who train a good ammount of their time for A to mud.

Are there any accounts of Eagle drivers beating Viper pilots on hands down. The best thing I've heared from a pilot who flew both F-16s and F-15s was this

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to ... 1682723379

Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton wrote:Starting from BVR, the F-15 enjoys a big advantage in radar detection range...An F-15C and GE-powered F-16C merge head-on, no missiles, guns only. This is truly where the F-16 excels. The F-15 is absolutely no slouch in this arena and the margin for error is small, but he F-16 enjoys a sustained turn rate advantage and a thrust-to-weight advantage


But it seems I've never heared of Eagle pilots say anything about beating other planes.
though the 104-0 kill record speaks volumes.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 21:57
by basher54321
Here is one from ex F-15 flyer C.R Anderegg

Throughout the book I have attributed credit where it is due. However, many
statements in the book are my own. For example, in the last chapter I write that
the F–16 is a better day, visual dogfighter than the F–15. F–15 pilots who read
that statement will howl with anger. Sorry, Eagle pilots, but I flew the F–15 for
over ten years, and that’s the way I see it. (Fighter pilots are not happy unless they
are stirring the pot.)


:D



There are lots of pilot accounts in these:

https://ospreypublishing.com/f-15c-eagl ... -combat-pb

https://ospreypublishing.com/israeli-f- ... -in-combat

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 22:15
by bigjku
icemaverick wrote:The Typhoon is primarily an A2A platform although its A2G capabilities are coming along. I would suspect they will use the Typhoon for most air superiority missions. For now the Typhoon should be a match for any operational fighter except for the F-22, which it won't be facing. Things could get dicey for the Tiffy against the Su-35 though.

A lot of it comes down to training. The F-16 could be a good air superiority fighter, but in the USAF, this role has been filled by the F-15. This is at least partially due to the fact that Eagle drivers train A2A 100% of the time while the F-16 pilots also have to train for strike missions and CAS. Most F-35 missions will probably be strike oriented although it would make a very lethal air superiority fighter as well.


My guess is that EF will be billed as the air to air platform to save appearances. In reality it will be fine defensively so long as the other side fights in a disadvantageous electronic situation. Start swapping missile shots and it will hold its own but take losses along the way the F-35 wouldn't at the same ranges.

For offensive counter air in an opposed environment they won't even attempt it.

In short they are going to say one thing but act quite differently. The EF will be the best at knocking down bombers that can't shoot back after a quick scramble. Other than that it won't be better at anything really. You will likely see some EF stakeholders toss the F-35 into a turning fight and get excited about the results. But when it comes time to actually employ the aircraft the F-35 will draw all the hard missions and on like air to air missions that don't degenerate into a pure close range scrum would have an equal or better kill ratio.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 22:35
by popcorn
They will be most effective working togeher. F-35 with Meteor will be even more awesome.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 22:45
by SpudmanWP
Another item that does not bode well for the EF in a future fight... it's MAW is radar based and would either give it's position away to an "information sponge" type of fighter like the F-22/35 or they would just have to turn it off and not have a MAW.

I know that they had talked about upgrading to an IR based MAW but I have not heard much about it.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 02:07
by icemaverick
The F-16 is probably a better dogfighter but the F-15 is a more capable air superiority fighter. In the real world, no fighter pilot wants to end up in a close quarters knife fight and before the merge, the F-15 has the decisive edge. Even if it becomes a WVR fight, the F-15 will probably enter it from an advantageous position. This is why the F-15 has such a stellar combat record.

The Typhoon is about even with the F-22 in a guns-only fight when it is completely slicked off. That tells me it could probably beat the F-35 in similar training exercises, especially at higher altitudes and air speeds. Of course, that's not taking into account the capabilities of the JSF's EODAS system which would provide it a huge edge in WVR combat.

Overall, I would expect the F-35 to be a better overall air superiority fighter, but the Typhoon has to fill some role so it will probably fly more of the CAP missions against less capable foes.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 22:40
by charlielima223
Just some additional perspective...

http://theaviationist.com/2012/12/10/viper-dogfight/
I mention this article because it mentions both F-16 and Typhoon.

All things being equal I think the only real place the F-35 would have an real edge over the Typhoon would be in at BVR ranges. The F-35's stealth and SA would be very advantageous. Should it progress pass the merge and into that "classic" swirling dogfight the F-35 wont be a slouch but it wont be a Typhoon. I think the F-35 would fight like a heavier Viper but with high AoA of a Hornet but with slower rates. At would think the Typhoon would want to keep the WVR fight at higher speeds and at higher altitudes. Just making a non SWAG here.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 23:09
by geforcerfx
charlielima223 wrote:Just some additional perspective...

http://theaviationist.com/2012/12/10/viper-dogfight/
I mention this article because it mentions both F-16 and Typhoon.

All things being equal I think the only real place the F-35 would have an real edge over the Typhoon would be in at BVR ranges. The F-35's stealth and SA would be very advantageous. Should it progress pass the merge and into that "classic" swirling dogfight the F-35 wont be a slouch but it wont be a Typhoon. I think the F-35 would fight like a heavier Viper but with high AoA of a Hornet but with slower rates. At would think the Typhoon would want to keep the WVR fight at higher speeds and at higher altitudes. Just making a non SWAG here.


We have pilots saying the f-35 handles higher altitude better then the vipers, well at least while in a heavy load. I don't think furure DACT will have the eurofighters finding as much comfort up higher like they do against the f-16 and f-18.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 00:00
by icemaverick
The F-35 has slightly worse acceleration than a clean F-16 but will definitely beat out a combat-loaded F-16. While the Typhoon may have superior maneuverability at higher altitudes, the F-35 has EODAS. This enables the pilot to target an aircraft in any direction, even one that is behind him. The system also automatically identifies friend and foe. In fact, the F-35 can even fire missiles behind it so it doesn't even need to engage in a turning fight. Furthermore, thanks to the F-35's cooperative engagement capabilities, the missile doesn't necessarily have to come from the F-35 that tracks the enemy fighter with its own sensors:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 21:09
by tritonprime
"An Update on Eurofighter Modernization: The Perspective of a Former Italian Air Force Pilot"
2015-10-12 By Robbin Laird

Source:
http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-on-eur ... rce-pilot/

During my visit to Europe in the early Fall of 2015, one of the subjects of interest was the cross cutting modernization of the Eurofighter with the introduction of the F-35.

Clearly, the Royal Air Force and the Italian Air Force are key players in this process, but I was also able to visit Munich to talk with some key Eurofighter personnel as well.

One of those personnel was Raffaele Beltrame who is the Eurofighter Project Test Pilot for Airbus Defence and Space, Germany.

Previously, he was a Tornado pilot in the Italian Air Force and clearly understands a key element of the Eurofighter transition, namely, the subsuming of Tornado missions within the Eurofighter for the RAF and the IAF.

He has been involved with Eurofighter since the introduction of the plane to the Italian Air Force in 2004.

He highlighted that with the Tornado they could load 2 Paveway GBUs but with Eurofighter they can load 6, and clearly from this standpoint, the aircraft represents an upgrade.

We discussed the upgrade process and the evolution of the Eurofighter as well as Beltrame providing demonstration of developments in the cockpit simulator which is tied in with the situation room at the Eurofighter facility in Munich, where scenarios are worked through for the pilot to work through.

Beltrame provided a number of key takeaways from our discussion.

First, the inclusion of the air to ground mission sets in the Eurofighter are progressing well.

This was not part of the original 1990s design but modifications of the Eurofighter are allowing for this evolution.

The program has implemented a number of aerodynamic improvements to the aircraft which allow for a better execution of both the air to air and air to ground mission sets.

Second, given the ability to hold six air to air missiles along with the air to ground missiles, the pilot can be focused on the air to ground but have available systems to protect himself in the air against intruders.

Third, the organic capabilities of the aircraft are expanding, and with the expansion of capabilities, the effort is to improve the capability of the pilot to manage those expanded tasks.

This is being done by enhanced automation, the use of voice commands, and an improved helmet and pilot interface to manage the information more effectively for the targeting task.

Fourth, the Eurofighter is designed to work in a network.

The further evolution of the Eurofighter is focused on improving its ability to work in a network,, notably one being reshaped by the introduction of the F-35.

For Beltrame, a major change in air combat was underway, whereby the classical C2 structure makes no sense with the coming of the F-35 and the expanded capability of the Eurofighter to execute tasks.

As he put it: “A hierarchy certainly remains; but he who has the best situational awareness should be directing the execution of the missions.”

He also saw a clear trend to enhance the ability of the ability to leverage automated systems to can better domain knowledge to make better decisions, and this was clearly part of the evolving air combat capabilities of 21st century forces, which in turn drove demand for a different kind of C2 system as well.

He focuses as well on the challenge for air power leaders to command a fleet of F-35s and Eurofighters, which would be capable of mixed mission operations over the spectrum of warfare.

The shift from limited and sequential targeting to dynamic targeting of an interactive fleet would be a major challenge moving forward.

In other words, shaping an effective C2 system for a dynamic fleet operating in a fluid battlespace has little in common with the slow motion war which we have experienced over the past 20 years.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 21:16
by oldiaf
I wonder why is Germany not opting to purchase the F-35 in future instead of EF Typhoon when they must find a replacement for their old Tornados

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 00:48
by oldiaf
I think EF Typhoon wether in RAF or Italian AF will be to F-35 like the F-22 for F-35 in US

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 01:04
by oldiaf
Guys have you heard about this before : The EF Typhoon Radar ( Captor-E ) is able to detect the F-35 from 59 Km ?! :
http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/vi ... sidx=97236

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 01:46
by spazsinbad
oldiaf wrote:Italian AF chief of staff on F-35 and EF :
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/ital ... -predator/

You are getting to be a real PAIN with all your redundant double posts (and yours with just a title and URL) here. READ THIS FORUM before posting redundancies or search it or learn English or something.

Posted by 'tritonprime' four hours ago: Italy: F-35, Eurofighter, and Predator

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28191&p=305710#p305710

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 01:49
by oldiaf
spazsinbad wrote:
oldiaf wrote:Italian AF chief of staff on F-35 and EF :
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/ital ... -predator/

You are getting to be a real PAIN with all your redundant double posts (and yours with just a title and URL) here. READ THIS FORUM before posting redundancies or search it or learn English or something.

Posted by 'tritonprime' four hours ago: Italy: F-35, Eurofighter, and Predator

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28191&p=305710#p305710

And why the hell he started a new topic while he can discuss it here while the topic is about F-35 and EF ?!!!!
Anyhow I changed the post ... Satisfied ?! ... What about the EF Radar that is claimed to detect F-35 from 59 km away ?? Is it posted somewhere else ?

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 01:54
by spazsinbad
What you need to do 'oldiaf' is to read this forum for new posts by others - at least before posting new material. That would be a good start. I guess reading the old material on this forum to inform yourself is beyond your abilities. So be it.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 01:57
by oldiaf
spazsinbad wrote:What you need to do 'oldiaf' is to read this forum for new posts by others - at least before posting new material. That would be a good start. I guess reading the old material on this forum to inform yourself is beyond your abilities. So be it.

No ... Its my mistake .. I Checked this entire thread about this news ... I didn't expect someone to start a new topic while this one is available about F-35 and EF .. Anyhow as you said it would be a start ...and it wont happen again

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 02:01
by tritonprime
spazsinbad wrote:
oldiaf wrote:Italian AF chief of staff on F-35 and EF :
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/ital ... -predator/

You are getting to be a real PAIN with all your redundant double posts (and yours with just a title and URL) here. READ THIS FORUM before posting redundancies or search it or learn English or something.

Posted by 'tritonprime' four hours ago: Italy: F-35, Eurofighter, and Predator

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28191&p=305710#p305710


No Administrators? No Global Moderators?

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 02:05
by oldiaf
tritonprime wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
oldiaf wrote:Italian AF chief of staff on F-35 and EF :
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/ital ... -predator/

You are getting to be a real PAIN with all your redundant double posts (and yours with just a title and URL) here. READ THIS FORUM before posting redundancies or search it or learn English or something.

Posted by 'tritonprime' four hours ago: Italy: F-35, Eurofighter, and Predator

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28191&p=305710#p305710


No Administrators? No Global Moderators?

Ask your self why start a new topic while one is still open !

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 03:19
by eloise
oldiaf wrote:Guys have you heard about this before : The EF Typhoon Radar ( Captor-E ) is able to detect the F-35 from 59 Km ?! :
http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/vi ... sidx=97236

that article is quite long ago though
but even if CAPTOR-E can detect F-35 from 45 km , you should remember that tracking-targeting range is quite a bit shorter than detection range , not to mention the effect of jamming and clutter ( if F-35 fly at lower altitude ) , so in real life the EF-2000 will end up tracking f-35 from 20 km
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28149&start=30

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 04:16
by Dragon029
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.



If he can't get the correct T/R module count for the F-35, I'm not sure I'd trust his calculations; he may be a senior radar expert, but if you put garbage in, you'll get garbage out (particularly in regards to what values he's used for the F-35's RCS).

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 12:10
by SpudmanWP
Knowing the number of T&R modules does not equate to figuring out the detection range. There is SOOO much more to consider like (I am sure ai will miss some):
T&R construction
T&R peak & average power
T&R efficiency
Backend modules
Software & hardware in the ICP to process & fuze the data

You're right about his getting the module count wrong, how hard is it to count to 1626 ;)

Image

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 12:59
by hornetfinn
Dragon029 wrote:
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.


If he can't get the correct T/R module count for the F-35, I'm not sure I'd trust his calculations; he may be a senior radar expert, but if you put garbage in, you'll get garbage out (particularly in regards to what values he's used for the F-35's RCS).


Another problem with this calculation is that F-35 would have only 17-18 times smaller RCS than Eurofighter Typhoon. If that assumes the metal golf ball RCS for F-35, then Typhoon would have RCS of less than 0.03 square meters, which is rather small and might be possible only with totally clean Typhoon. Such a clean Typhoon would not be much combat value in any case. Of course it's said "or farther" which can mean basically anything. Of course we also now know that F-35 likely has quite a bit smaller RCS than metal golf ball. IMO, the difference in RCS between F-35 and Typhoon is much bigger than that.

However there is also quite a problem with logic in this. How is Typhoon going to detect and track the F-35 when outmaneuvering missiles (good luck with that) and then counterattack successfully? Especially so since even he admits that F-35 would detect Typhoon much farther away and could chose the moment of attack. This radar expert also must have not heard from EW, which would favor F-35 immensely due to much smaller RCS and more powerful jamming system. Same jamming power that would drop Typhoon detection range to half (to 60 km) would drop F-35 detection range to less than 15 km even using his numbers.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 19:04
by spazsinbad
Not to worry.
Germany Suspends Eurofighter Deliveries Due to Quality Problems
13 Oct 2015 Lars Hoffman

"GOTTINGEN, Germany — The German Air Force has temporarily suspended delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets following the discovery of quality problems involving the connection between the vertical stabilizers and the body of the aircraft.

In a notification to the German Bundestag, the Ministry of Defense said that drillings and the removal of burr were not conducted according to specifications....

...According to the MoD, all of the German Eurofighters delivered from tranche 1 through to the current 3A standard are affected...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /73871500/

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 19:20
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:Not to worry.
Germany Suspends Eurofighter Deliveries Due to Quality Problems
13 Oct 2015 Lars Hoffman

"GOTTINGEN, Germany — The German Air Force has temporarily suspended delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets following the discovery of quality problems involving the connection between the vertical stabilizers and the body of the aircraft.

In a notification to the German Bundestag, the Ministry of Defense said that drillings and the removal of burr were not conducted according to specifications....

...According to the MoD, all of the German Eurofighters delivered from tranche 1 through to the current 3A standard are affected...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /73871500/



I wonder if the usual suspects will screech about this like a flock of gut shot harpies or if we'll just hear crickets. :wink:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 20:05
by tritonprime
sferrin wrote:I wonder if the usual suspects will screech about this like a flock of gut shot harpies or if we'll just hear crickets. :wink:


BAE Systems is also a contractor on the F-35.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 01:02
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Not to worry.
Germany Suspends Eurofighter Deliveries Due to Quality Problems
13 Oct 2015 Lars Hoffman

"GOTTINGEN, Germany — The German Air Force has temporarily suspended delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets following the discovery of quality problems involving the connection between the vertical stabilizers and the body of the aircraft.

In a notification to the German Bundestag, the Ministry of Defense said that drillings and the removal of burr were not conducted according to specifications....

...According to the MoD, all of the German Eurofighters delivered from tranche 1 through to the current 3A standard are affected...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /73871500/



I wonder if the usual suspects will screech about this like a flock of gut shot harpies or if we'll just hear crickets. :wink:


Will they ever get this aircraft fixed!?! It's taken years!! Cancel
cancel!

Am I doing it right?

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 01:47
by spazsinbad
ALL CAPS - YOU FORGOT YOUR TRAINING!

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 21:41
by snypa777
spazsinbad wrote:Not to worry.
Germany Suspends Eurofighter Deliveries Due to Quality Problems
13 Oct 2015 Lars Hoffman

"GOTTINGEN, Germany — The German Air Force has temporarily suspended delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets following the discovery of quality problems involving the connection between the vertical stabilizers and the body of the aircraft.

In a notification to the German Bundestag, the Ministry of Defense said that drillings and the removal of burr were not conducted according to specifications....

...According to the MoD, all of the German Eurofighters delivered from tranche 1 through to the current 3A standard are affected...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /73871500/


This was some drilled holes that weren't deburred, not exactly a program ender.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2015, 03:27
by johnwill
The majority of structural cracks form at a drilled hole. Reason is the high stress concentration found around holes, especially at the sharp corner where the hole meets the surface of the structure. One of the most effective ways to reduce the stress concentration, and the likelyhood of crack formation, is to chamfer that corner about 1 mm by deburring. The burr isn't the problem, it's the sharp edge.

The German authorities acted wisely.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2015, 04:36
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'JW' - I wondered about that.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2015, 08:31
by spazsinbad
I guess the F-35s will join in - when appropriate - soon enough.
U.S., British, French forces partner for inaugural Trilateral Exercise at JBLE
01 Dec 2015 Staff Sgt. J.D. Strong II; 633rd Air Base Wing Public Affairs

"12/1/2015 - JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, Va. -- U.S. Service members will partner with members of the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force (RAF) and the French Air Force (FrAF) for the inaugural Trilateral anti-access/area denial exercise scheduled for Dec. 2-18, 2015, at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

The exercise, hosted by the 1st Fighter Wing (FW), will focus on operations in a highly-contested operational environment through a variety of simulated adversary scenarios. According to U.S. Air Force Col. Pete Fesler, the commander of the 1st FW, the intent of the exercise is to gain an understanding of the logistics, support requirements, capabilities, tactics, techniques and procedures associated with the integrated operation of coalition front-line fighters....

...The exercise will not only feature the U.S.'s Raptor, but also the RAF's Typhoon and the FrAF's Rafale as primary aircraft. The Trilateral Exercise will be the first time these coalition aircraft have flown together. Adversary aircraft will be replicated by the U.S.'s F-15E Strike Eagles and T-38 Talons. The U.S.'s Airborne Warning and Control System, as well as U.S. and FrAF tankers will also provide support during the exercise...."

Source: http://www.jble.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123464373

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2015, 15:11
by snypa777
johnwill wrote:The majority of structural cracks form at a drilled hole. Reason is the high stress concentration found around holes, especially at the sharp corner where the hole meets the surface of the structure. One of the most effective ways to reduce the stress concentration, and the likelyhood of crack formation, is to chamfer that corner about 1 mm by deburring. The burr isn't the problem, it's the sharp edge.

The German authorities acted wisely.


Hi JW hope you are well, and oh yes I agree but for some reason I was thinking about cable chafe rather than anything structural.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2016, 06:59
by jessmo111
spazsinbad wrote:I guess the F-35s will join in - when appropriate - soon enough.
U.S., British, French forces partner for inaugural Trilateral Exercise at JBLE
01 Dec 2015 Staff Sgt. J.D. Strong II; 633rd Air Base Wing Public Affairs

"12/1/2015 - JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, Va. -- U.S. Service members will partner with members of the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force (RAF) and the French Air Force (FrAF) for the inaugural Trilateral anti-access/area denial exercise scheduled for Dec. 2-18, 2015, at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

The exercise, hosted by the 1st Fighter Wing (FW), will focus on operations in a highly-contested operational environment through a variety of simulated adversary scenarios. According to U.S. Air Force Col. Pete Fesler, the commander of the 1st FW, the intent of the exercise is to gain an understanding of the logistics, support requirements, capabilities, tactics, techniques and procedures associated with the integrated operation of coalition front-line fighters....

...The exercise will not only feature the U.S.'s Raptor, but also the RAF's Typhoon and the FrAF's Rafale as primary aircraft. The Trilateral Exercise will be the first time these coalition aircraft have flown together. Adversary aircraft will be replicated by the U.S.'s F-15E Strike Eagles and T-38 Talons. The U.S.'s Airborne Warning and Control System, as well as U.S. and FrAF tankers will also provide support during the exercise...."

Source: http://www.jble.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123464373


I cant wait to see the F-35 versus the typhoon.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2017, 14:50
by juretrn
Interesting video posted by Airbus on Facebook;
https://www.facebook.com/airbus/videos/ ... 880764655/

shows the AoA required for EF2000 to go as slowly as the other guys.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2017, 18:44
by bigjku
The A400m and Eutofighter make quite the pair. Two giant international cluster screws.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2017, 01:56
by ricnunes
bigjku wrote:The A400m and Eutofighter make quite the pair. Two giant international cluster screws.


LOL :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 18:04
by euromaster
Interesting read, why wouldn't the Eurofighter just passively detect the F-35 through PIRATE and then kill it with an ASRAAM or some such at 40-50km? The F-35 may have good sensors but these stealth aircraft all suffer the same issue, their mission role is based purely around their mostly X-band radar diminishing features sacrificing load-outs and likely countless other controversial issues depending on the plane (attrition, costs, flight times, pilot safety, corrosion, dinosaur avionics) in some cases just to be countered by other bands of radar or infared tracking which seems to be getting more sophisticated.

Also the US has no upcoming replacement to the old "foot in a bucket" AMRAAM as far as I am aware to match the next generation missiles such as meteor. Maybe by the 30's, lets hope no major conflict puts them in the dilemma of being stuck with AMRAAM against current Russian missiles. :wink:

My two cents would be that apparently IRST systems have significantly better capability at higher altitudes which is where your likely to see this sort of air combat, making tracking the hot frictional heat against the skin of any aircraft highly likely at well beyond likely weapon ranges (even with meteor?) and then you have a faster, likely higher altitude aircraft in the Typhoon facing the slower aircraft (not sure F-35 can super-cruise).

Now, the F-35 is not as disadvantaged as the F-22, since unlike that plane (which i do not think has IRST) it has a IRST which may be at least as good as the PIRATE, so both can try and silently passively track the other but then, it does not have a missile like ASRAAM you may find on an RAF Typhoon, and I am not sure if it has Sidewinder-9X yet either in its tiny capacity weapons bay.

You then have the issue of its tiny weapons bay, while the air to air loadout of a Typhoon could cover 13 pylons, meaning a dozen missiles or more (if pylons can be double loaded). So it may be fairer for 2 F-35's to track a single Typhoon lest they fail to hit with their older AMRAAM variants or their missiles get outmaneuvered/out climbed by the fast climbing typhoon or spoofed by its DAAS.

Any info on the F-35's air to air loadout would be nice if anyone knows if it is currently tested and cleared for using the AIM-9X or not in its internal bay? Also, what is its helmet mounted sights like? I heard F-22 did not have one (not sure if this is still the case) but you want one if they pass the merge into a WVR fight and the Typhoon pilot is lobbing ASRAAM at you off-boresight! :shock:

Course, I suspect CAPTOR-E and Meteor (next year seems to be the general release for Typhoon) will make this less of a discussion until the F-35 gets more development.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 18:13
by nutshell
The only thing you can do to a F35 at 40-50km is to search for its picture on image.google.com

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 18:31
by eloise
euromaster wrote:Interesting read, why wouldn't the Eurofighter just passively detect the F-35 through PIRATE and then kill it with an ASRAAM or some such at 40-50km?

F-35 itself has many features to reduce IR signature
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... -benefits/
euromaster wrote:IAlso the US has no upcoming replacement to the old "foot in a bucket" AMRAAM as far as I am aware to match the next generation missiles such as meteor. Maybe by the 30's, lets hope no major conflict puts them in the dilemma of being stuck with AMRAAM against current Russian missiles. :wink:

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-relea ... p-forward/
F-35 is cleared for Meteor as well
euromaster wrote: and then you have a faster, likely higher altitude aircraft in the Typhoon facing the slower aircraft (not sure F-35 can super-cruise)

Higher and faster aircraft is much easier to detect by IRST



euromaster wrote:Any info on the F-35's air to air loadout would be nice

6 AIM-120 internally
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... 202017/Let’s-Do-More-Shots.aspx

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 18:34
by eloise
euromaster wrote:Course, I suspect CAPTOR-E and Meteor (next year seems to be the general release for Typhoon) will make this less of a discussion until the F-35 gets more development.

F-35 can hide from surface radar and AWACS radar, so CAPTOR-E will not make a different

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 18:42
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The F-35 can still use its radar with relative impunity from passive detection too. AIM-120D has great range against high and fast targets too.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 18:55
by euromaster
F-35 itself has many features to reduce IR signature


I know but nothing can change the fact that at supersonic speeds the frictional heat of any aircraft sticks out like a sore thumb at high altitudes, your document covers that. Try as they may, they can only reduce certain heat emitting fixtures but cannot of course control frictional heat, alas the worry for all fast moving objects in low temperatures (high altitudes especially) :D

I found these interesting;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzyH0M4C8TY
http://theboresight.blogspot.co.uk/2009 ... sonic.html
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/infrar ... 1691441747

F-35 is cleared for Meteor as well


Indeed, I guess I assumed this was a US F-35 vs a UK Typhoon in my head, my mistake. It could just as well be a RAF F-35 with meteor vs a German Eurofighter.

Higher and faster aircraft is much easier to detect by IRST


Absolutely, but surely if your too much lower than your opponents aircraft, assuming you knew where it was to begin with and its altitude the width/area your IRST is going to want to be looking at the allude of the target plane. Also most aircraft are going to want to get as high as they can to employ their weapons to pus the envelope of their weapon capabilities.

6 AIM-120 internally


Mind sourcing me that? I keep finding only space for 4, also any sources on AIM-9X being internally mounted?

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 19:01
by eloise
in some cases just to be countered by other bands of radar

Other radar band doesn't make stealth useless immediately either.
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 19:20
by bigjku
Meteor is a typical British weapons program. First offer a reasonable improvement over what already exist. Step two is your t as a world beater. Step three have it run well behind schedule and over budget. Step four is cut the buy down. Step five don't invest money to upgrade it. Step six is shortly be passed by by the continually upgraded US weapon you sh*t on in your marketing. Step 7 is buy the US weapon in 20 years to replace your niche product. See ALARM, Sea Wolf, Sea Eagle ect ect.

Meteor will do fine. But won't appreciably outperform AIM-120D on 5th generations and will be supplanted entirely as small form factor hit to kill missiles become the norm.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 19:59
by mk82
euromaster wrote:Interesting read, why wouldn't the Eurofighter just passively detect the F-35 through PIRATE and then kill it with an ASRAAM or some such at 40-50km? The F-35 may have good sensors but these stealth aircraft all suffer the same issue, their mission role is based purely around their mostly X-band radar diminishing features sacrificing load-outs and likely countless other controversial issues depending on the plane (attrition, costs, flight times, pilot safety, corrosion, dinosaur avionics) in some cases just to be countered by other bands of radar or infared tracking which seems to be getting more sophisticated.

Also the US has no upcoming replacement to the old "foot in a bucket" AMRAAM as far as I am aware to match the next generation missiles such as meteor. Maybe by the 30's, lets hope no major conflict puts them in the dilemma of being stuck with AMRAAM against current Russian missiles. :wink:

My two cents would be that apparently IRST systems have significantly better capability at higher altitudes which is where your likely to see this sort of air combat, making tracking the hot frictional heat against the skin of any aircraft highly likely at well beyond likely weapon ranges (even with meteor?) and then you have a faster, likely higher altitude aircraft in the Typhoon facing the slower aircraft (not sure F-35 can super-cruise).

Now, the F-35 is not as disadvantaged as the F-22, since unlike that plane (which i do not think has IRST) it has a IRST which may be at least as good as the PIRATE, so both can try and silently passively track the other but then, it does not have a missile like ASRAAM you may find on an RAF Typhoon, and I am not sure if it has Sidewinder-9X yet either in its tiny capacity weapons bay.

You then have the issue of its tiny weapons bay, while the air to air loadout of a Typhoon could cover 13 pylons, meaning a dozen missiles or more (if pylons can be double loaded). So it may be fairer for 2 F-35's to track a single Typhoon lest they fail to hit with their older AMRAAM variants or their missiles get outmaneuvered/out climbed by the fast climbing typhoon or spoofed by its DAAS.

Any info on the F-35's air to air loadout would be nice if anyone knows if it is currently tested and cleared for using the AIM-9X or not in its internal bay? Also, what is its helmet mounted sights like? I heard F-22 did not have one (not sure if this is still the case) but you want one if they pass the merge into a WVR fight and the Typhoon pilot is lobbing ASRAAM at you off-boresight! :shock:

Course, I suspect CAPTOR-E and Meteor (next year seems to be the general release for Typhoon) will make this less of a discussion until the F-35 gets more development.


Very quickly, RAF F35s will use ASRAAMs as part of its air to air load out. F35Bs at Pax River and Edwards AFB have successfully launched ASRAAMs this year (as part of weapons clearance tests)! Please do keep up...

RAF F35Bs will use Meteor too. Think about that....Meteor is much > ASRAAM in engagement range. Suddenly, your relatively high RCS Typhoon pilot don't feel so smug anymore....

Russian BVR missiles.......hahahahahahaha....seriously LOL. Perhaps you would like to discuss the pK of R27s with Ethiopian and Eritrean fighter pilots. Or ask the Indian government how reliable were their stockpile of R77s (let me give you a clue...not very!) AMRAAM D will do just fine....the Meteor, I admit, makes Russki BVR missiles seem.....inadequate

More to come!!!

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 19:59
by wrightwing
The F-35 has broadband signature reduction, not just X band. It also has IR signature reduction. Additionally, the APG-81 and ASQ-239 have significant jamming/electronic attack capabilities, and the F-35 can use towed decoys with EW capabilities too. A Eurofighter isn't gonna get within 20nm of an F-35, and certainly doesn't have first look, first shoot, first kill.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2017, 23:42
by white_lightning35
I think it would be the most fun for the f-35's to simply go around the typhoons undetected, destroy their runway, buzz their atc like in top gun, and return home. All this time the typhoons are frantically searching for the f-35's with the super duper PIRATE and captor-e while chanting " stealth is obsolete, stealth is obsolete..." :doh:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2017, 06:25
by SpudmanWP
Has the Eurofighter been updated to an IR/UV based MAWS or is it still flying around with the "shoot me I'm over here" radar-based MAWS?

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2017, 09:32
by twistedneck
Now that we are finding out how wicked the 9G capable F35 is for pure power and energy recovery i'd like to find out how it compares with the latest EF.

Ignore stealth, put both planes on the same amount of fuel (meaning the EF has a 1000L one center tank full i.e. 2000lbs + some internal gas about 50% full so 11,200lbs/2 = 5600lbs ). so both planes will carry 7600lbs of fuel.


Biggest difference? the AOA issues with the huge delta wing vs. the new super wing of the F35?

1. F35 with the new depot engine should have 1.4 mach super cruise at a decent mil power.
2. who can out climb who? F35 29,000 lbs plus some fuel vs EF 25,000lbs plus some fuel. who's got more power? assume each jet has 7600lbs of fuel = add a little draggyness to the EF with that center tank.. (although it didn't seem to matter when it was lighting up young US f22 pilots!).

F35 43,000lbs / 28,000lbs thrust in its initial release (within two depot stops thats over 50k / 33k. EF is an absolute beast and its current steady state EJ200 20,000lbs/13,500lbs (*2 = 40,000/27,000). in the not to far off future its getting a potential upgrade to 27,000lbs / 17,500 lbs. (*2 = 54000/35,000lbs).

so looking at the current jets - tw
f35 = 43,000/36600 = 1.18

EF = 40,000/32600 = 1.23

Ok, now that we have that - does the middle tank drag make up the difference? oh hell no. add to that the EF turns harder and bleeds less energy. its a very close dog fight in the phone booth or in this case stand up sleeping cell in Taiwan.

the f35 points the nose 10x better, and i'd bet that it accelerates harder due to the larger bypass fans, higher compression ratio, and much lighter weight blades - have you noticed the insane instantaneous throttle rpm compared to any other fighter? russians are close but thats a pure titanium dirty a$$ saturn kleemov ready to blow up soviet relic.

count the rings, F35 has more exhaust and its higher velocity. FYI - the brits will be knife fighting these two planes in the coming weeks so lets see how that B model works

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2017, 13:47
by shania
euromaster wrote:
Here are some sources that are quite interesting concerning stealth and infrared;

http://theboresight.blogspot.co.uk/2009 ... sonic.html



I am very much interest what others think about Obrescia blog, I have lengthy discussion with him on aciq and I thing he is very very far from credible source.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2017, 14:32
by charlielima223
euromaster wrote:
6 AIM-120 internally


Mind sourcing me that? I keep finding only space for 4, also any sources on AIM-9X being internally mounted?


download/file.php?id=11261&t=1

Though not yet, there are plans to modify the internal weapon bay to allow for 6 internal AAMs

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2017, 16:38
by eloise
euromaster wrote:I know but nothing can change the fact that at supersonic speeds the frictional heat of any aircraft sticks out like a sore thumb at high altitudes, your document covers that. Try as they may, they can only reduce certain heat emitting fixtures but cannot of course control frictional heat, alas the worry for all fast moving objects in low temperatures (high altitudes especially) :D

You can't eliminate IR radiation but you can reduce them, the main source of IR radiation is actually exhaust plumes not body heat. Nevertheless, F-35 has various IR reduction features that Eurofighter doesn't, so f-35 will be much less vulnerable to IRST




euromaster wrote:Absolutely, but surely if your too much lower than your opponents aircraft, assuming you knew where it was to begin with and its altitude the width/area your IRST is going to want to be looking at the allude of the target plane. Also most aircraft are going to want to get as high as they can to employ their weapons to pus the envelope of their weapon capabilities.

F-35 doesn't have to fly much lower, as long as it fly even a bit lower, Eurofighter's IRTS will look at the F-35 within surface backgrounds while F-35's IRST will look at Eurofighter within Sky background, since infrared radiation from surface is much higher, it will be much easier for F-35 to detect the Eurofighter than the other way around. The higher speed and lack of thermal control method on Eurofighter will make this even worse. Also, flying higher mean you are flying in thinner air, which mean it would be much harder to maneuverable and evade missiles.


euromaster wrote:Mind sourcing me that? I keep finding only space for 4, also any sources on AIM-9X being internally mounted?

http://bit.ly/2te96Nu

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2017, 16:56
by eloise
euromaster wrote:I found these interesting;
http://theboresight.blogspot.co.uk/2009 ... c.html?m=1

I haven't read all apart from the last one but there are various misleading information
1) he compare an SR-71 flying at mach 3 with an F-22 flying at mach 1.7 ??? what kind of stupid comparison is that???? the temperature will be extremely different


2) while what he said about aerodynamic heating is correct ( yes they exist ) what he talk about aircraft unable to hide is completely wrong , there are load of stuff that will absorb infrared radiation , cloud is an example
.Secondly, passive sensor such as Infrared sensor lack capabilities to measures range and velocity by themselves and have to rely on LRF to generate firing solution , LRF has very short range , for example the one on OLS-35 can reach merely 20 km
Image

3)
Target RCS (Radar Cross Section) [below] is determined by 1) the power transmitted in the direction of the target. 2) The amount of power that impacts the target and is reflected back in the direction of the radar. 3) The amount of reflected power that is intercepted by the radar antenna. 4) The length of time in which the radar is pointed at the target

Radar cross section is the measure of a target’s ability to reflect radar signals in the direction of the radar receiver. In others words, it is a measure of the ratio of backscatter power per steradian (unit solid angle) in the direction of the radar (from the target) to the power density that is intercepted by the target , it has nothing to do with the radar time on target, increasing dwell time ( related to pulse length ) will increase the power of the reflection but the trade of is the range resolution will be horrendously bad
Image

Secondly ,while high PRF can also improve capability of radar to detect target with low RCS, for unambiguous range measurements, no more than one pulse should be received from the target for each pulse transmitted by the radar. So there is a limit to how high PRF you could go. And the maximum detection range performance value that you often see is already taken in velocity search ( maximum PRF possible ) , so no more range improvement here.


4)
The weapon then dives down (using kinetic energy) to kill the target. The target profile presented to the AIM-54 is - the top of the target - not head-on. The top (stealthy or otherwise) provides the largestpossible target: surface area, physical size, and RCS aspect. F-14D (Infrared+radar) targeting in this way, with Phoenix alone - would have presented an unacceptable DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) hazard for the new USAF F-22 Raptor.

firstly , all BVR missiles use a ballistic arc and lead intercept to extend range , AIM-54 isnt the only one
secondly , even though missiles can climb to higher altitude , the angular seperation is really insignificant , especially at long range. Moreover , how can the F-14 get the firing solution in the first place ? AAS-42 doesnt have a LRF device , and good luck lock on the F-22 with the APG-71 really.

5)
F-22A 'Pitot' tube is clearly visible at the nose. The Raptor has one tube on either side. These air measurement devices are electrically heated to ~ 270 C (520 F) to keep them from icing at altitude. Indeed, they appear as two hot spots on the nose under FLIR

i find it ridiculous that he cant understand that size is a big factor in detection

6)
The IRST might also use its own stored 'Atmospheric Propagation Model' to effectively “make an educated guess” as to target(s) relative range, aspect, and velocity – without the radar or laser rangefinder. In effect, the sensors own performance is characterized to construct a sensitivity model against known objects at known distances and velocities. Then during wartime when IRST sees something - it compares its own “known” internal Atmospheric Propagation Model - and the weapons system then extrapolates target range and bearing.

To create such model you will need to know the exact speed altitude of target , and the exact atmospheric condition of that day ,as soon as the target doesnt fly at a fixed speed , altitude and the attmospheric condition change alittle bit then the accuracy for your guesstimate go out of window

7)
John C. Mather, Senior Astrophysicist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Mars Society, University of Maryland 31-July, 2009; during his remarks on Doppler (red/blue) shift detection resolution-granularity in discussing astrophysics of celestial objects: “…we are able to see the velocity of a star down to one (1) meter per second.”
Advanced Flanker IRST Doppler-shift sensitivity will not require the granularity of astrophysics because an F-22 Raptor traveling at Mach 1.1 will be moving at approximately 374 meters per second. By including air combat closure rates - this figure is even higher (!)
This would seem to fall well within, the definition of militarily useful sensitivity?

I think he don't know the different between visual light , infrared light and common radio frequency used in radar .While they are all electromagnetic wave , their frequency are very different , infrared radiation for example has much much higher frequency ( shorter wavelength ) compared to radio frequency , so the doppler effect on them are much harder to observed , you pretty much need astronomical speed to be able to see the effect . Doppler effect can be used by radar to determine aircraft speed because the radar know exact frequency that it transmitted. whereas , you cant know the exact frequency of the infrared radiation that was radiated from adversary aircraft,because this frequency will change along with aircraft speed , altitude , moitures , ambient temperature ..etc none of these are constant , and not to mention the fact that the change is extremely small , you can see how impractical it is to use red/blue shift on IRST , they dont just put LRF on thermal system for fun.

8)
Conceptually one can act on a - 'False-Positive' - even if stealth is 100% effective in the radio spectrum:

a) IRST picks something up.
b) Point your radar at it.
c) No (or strange) radar return? = stealth.
d) We don't have stealth.
e) Select R-27T-R-77 class IR weapon - 'Fox!’

So he want to launch a missiles with out getting firing solution ( no target altitude , no aspect angle , no velocity , no distance to target , no loft angle ) , yep , say good bye to lead intercept and ballistics arcs , and good luck hiting anything from BVR with that method.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2017, 18:53
by juretrn
@eloise: you can discount everything this guy has to say just based on his trying to compare this
Image
and this
Image
How can one be so stupid?!?!?!
Is it so hard to understand that an IR observatory is just not comparable to an IRST in any way? Or that at 40k ft , most of the atmosphere is already below you?Image

Oh, and remember the news from February this year when apparently there was a "dogfight" between a Su-27 and F-16 at Groom Lake?
His comment was:
We are not sure what the Americans think they are going to learn. The Sukhoi has better acceleration, rate-of-climb, deceleration, transonic handling, better low-speed and post-stall handling and (far) better combat persistence (unrefueled endurance) than all Western fighters. The Sukhoi simply enters a climbing combat-turn....and in a few moments...its all over. The F-22A may have a higher horizontal sustained turn rate, however, this remains unclear.

Wow. Just wow.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2017, 03:21
by eloise
juretrn wrote:@eloise: you can discount everything this guy has to say just based on his trying to compare this
Image
and this
Image

He probably will argue that stars are much further away while at the same time ignore that they also put out much more radiation than aircraft

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2017, 08:57
by euromaster
eloise wrote:


F-35 has various IR reduction features that Eurofighter doesn't, so f-35 will be much less vulnerable to IRST


You would think so, especially if the Euro is higher and faster but then again, if the F-35 is lower its larger surface areas from the top are clearer, and arguably so will its exhaust plumes than if it was in a stronger position level with the Typhoon. Course, do not forget until it has SIdewinder or ASRAAm the F-35 is stuck with its radar guided weapons so at some point, either the aircraft or the missile (probably both) will have to bathe the Typhoon in radiation.

Also in the same way the F-35 has IR reduction features, bear in mind the Typhoon despite not being a dedicated stealth aircraft is smaller physically and has stealth features itself. I would be skeptical saying the F-35's IR reduction at high altitude and its relatively hot frame against -40 or -50 outside temperatures (Despite your disagreements with the article, it does point out that interesting factor of the hot measurement devices under the nose of the aircraft which I had not had in mind before) vs the PIRATE sensors of the Typhoon. I would of course also be skeptical of how much closer the later F-series planes (F-35 and F-22) would have to be to detect a Typhoon in regards to its stealth characteristics.

F-35 doesn't have to fly much lower, as long as it fly even a bit lower, Eurofighter's IRTS will look at the F-35 within surface backgrounds while F-35's IRST will look at Eurofighter within Sky background, since infrared radiation from surface is much higher, it will be much easier


Do you mind sourcing me something for this? Especially at higher altitudes? See in my mind if they are at high altitudes surely the cold cover will be below the F-35, making it clear as day with all the above pointed out, especially if moving at speeds and its exhaust plumes and what not will be clearer from above of course than if it was from the front. Meanwhile, above the clouds the F-35 may well be looking into the sun if its day. I suspect at such alttiudes both will be able to detect the eachother well beyond weapon ranges with IRST.



Also, flying higher mean you are flying in thinner air, which mean it would be much harder to maneuverable and evade missiles.


Perhaps, honestly I am not sure how much of a difference it would make statistically speaking but I also would consider the fact the F-35 will be a slower aircraft trying to strike "up" at a faster, faster climbing higher alttiude aircraft which has the advances from the opposite perspective, from its higher perch would give its missiles incredible energy. In fact if I recall the supercruise alone of the Typhoon would boost is missile range up to 50%, how much more energy even equal armament (AMRAAM) the Typhoons weapon would have with that combined with it shooting "down" on the F-35 is likely going to give it huge advantages at first shot, first kill, even greater if its Meteor armed vs a F-35 still shuffling along with AMRAAM.

Which brings me to a question, does AMRAAM have any decent capability at BVR, any good statistics for it able to hit even an aircraft on equal footing (other than a higher, faster one with a huge amount of defensive aids)? Some sources suggest it cannot get favorable results against even non maneuvering aircraft or helicopters.

I wonder how close the F-35 would need to get to have any chance of hitting a Typhoon in our situation given here.


Though not yet, there are plans to modify the internal weapon bay to allow for 6 internal AAMs


Yes I thought so.


So in summary so far, the F-35 struggles are against a higher flying, faster (climbing too) aircraft which will in return have vastly greater reach among other advantages from its higher perch and at least against non RAF/EU F-35's those changes will be even more severe if compared between a AMRAAM and a Meteor equipped F-35. It also has a limited weapons capability, currently it has a measly 4 missiles so any shot must be almost assured lest it risk just waiting all its armament AND giving itself away at the same time and in the future (upgraded bay) you could be still looking at armament just over half that of a typhoon.

While the [b]Typhoons struggles[/quote] are just finding the F-35 which may or not be a problem depending on altitude and heat output of the F-35. It needs not worry about any other disadvantage and although were not likely to know due to classified information even the F-35 may not detect it favorably (in regards to getting clear shots with its AMRAAM) with its radar in regards to the Typhoons own size/stealth reduction features without actively scanning and potentially giving itself away in the process.

Course if I was going to do a bit of arm chair generalling :wink: I would keep the Typhoon at altitude and if PIRATE does not find/track it by itself I would use the sensor fusion between PIRATE and captor to judge where the F-35 is likely to be even if I cannot find its actual trajectory and what have you. I would of course not keep the radar active and likely switch off any non passive systems I can live without after any limited pulse and if I am fighting an F-35 I would outfit 6 AMRAAM and 4 ASRAAM, using maybe one ASRAAM to fire into the estimated trajectory of the F-35 and using the missiles IR sensor (Like to call it the eye) to potentially get a kill if my estimation is correct.

This is all assuming the PIRATE does not find the F-35 with ease of course, at typical air to air altitudes I have no reason to suggest otherwise, I have seen enough stealth aircraft (F-22. F-35, B-2) and this is at low altitudes most of the time or at comparatively low speed, not aircraft trying to push the reach of their missiles.

Too low and slow and the low weapon load carrying F-35 could be analogized to a spear-men trying to poke up at an archer on the battlements.

I will be honest, as interesting as this discussion is, I cannot get used to the posting system. I am not always sure if my post was sent and only being able to post once per day is also quite vexing so this may be my last post here in any case.

I hope you all enjoy the discussions. Maybe I will return when CAPTOR-E and Meteor are in full swing and the F-35 is in its final/more mature block stages. Course, we may get some information in some of the exercises they will be flying together, in any case they will likely work to each-others strengths in the coming years and will be a great team against the potential threat of the SU meanace! :D

So cheerio chaps, and jolly good luck.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 16:34
by steve2267
You ASS-U-ME much.

But you write so well. Perhaps you could get a job substitute writing for Solomon when he goes on holiday?

Apologies to all, a rather long quote, but to preserve for posterity that which was written:

euromaster wrote:
eloise wrote:


F-35 has various IR reduction features that Eurofighter doesn't, so f-35 will be much less vulnerable to IRST


You would think so, especially if the Euro is higher and faster but then again, if the F-35 is lower its larger surface areas from the top are clearer, and arguably so will its exhaust plumes than if it was in a stronger position level with the Typhoon. Course, do not forget until it has SIdewinder or ASRAAm the F-35 is stuck with its radar guided weapons so at some point, either the aircraft or the missile (probably both) will have to bathe the Typhoon in radiation.

Also in the same way the F-35 has IR reduction features, bear in mind the Typhoon despite not being a dedicated stealth aircraft is smaller physically and has stealth features itself. I would be skeptical saying the F-35's IR reduction at high altitude and its relatively hot frame against -40 or -50 outside temperatures (Despite your disagreements with the article, it does point out that interesting factor of the hot measurement devices under the nose of the aircraft which I had not had in mind before) vs the PIRATE sensors of the Typhoon. I would of course also be skeptical of how much closer the later F-series planes (F-35 and F-22) would have to be to detect a Typhoon in regards to its stealth characteristics.

F-35 doesn't have to fly much lower, as long as it fly even a bit lower, Eurofighter's IRTS will look at the F-35 within surface backgrounds while F-35's IRST will look at Eurofighter within Sky background, since infrared radiation from surface is much higher, it will be much easier


Do you mind sourcing me something for this? Especially at higher altitudes? See in my mind if they are at high altitudes surely the cold cover will be below the F-35, making it clear as day with all the above pointed out, especially if moving at speeds and its exhaust plumes and what not will be clearer from above of course than if it was from the front. Meanwhile, above the clouds the F-35 may well be looking into the sun if its day. I suspect at such alttiudes both will be able to detect the eachother well beyond weapon ranges with IRST.



Also, flying higher mean you are flying in thinner air, which mean it would be much harder to maneuverable and evade missiles.


Perhaps, honestly I am not sure how much of a difference it would make statistically speaking but I also would consider the fact the F-35 will be a slower aircraft trying to strike "up" at a faster, faster climbing higher alttiude aircraft which has the advances from the opposite perspective, from its higher perch would give its missiles incredible energy. In fact if I recall the supercruise alone of the Typhoon would boost is missile range up to 50%, how much more energy even equal armament (AMRAAM) the Typhoons weapon would have with that combined with it shooting "down" on the F-35 is likely going to give it huge advantages at first shot, first kill, even greater if its Meteor armed vs a F-35 still shuffling along with AMRAAM.

Which brings me to a question, does AMRAAM have any decent capability at BVR, any good statistics for it able to hit even an aircraft on equal footing (other than a higher, faster one with a huge amount of defensive aids)? Some sources suggest it cannot get favorable results against even non maneuvering aircraft or helicopters.

I wonder how close the F-35 would need to get to have any chance of hitting a Typhoon in our situation given here.


Though not yet, there are plans to modify the internal weapon bay to allow for 6 internal AAMs


Yes I thought so.


So in summary so far, the F-35 struggles are against a higher flying, faster (climbing too) aircraft which will in return have vastly greater reach among other advantages from its higher perch and at least against non RAF/EU F-35's those changes will be even more severe if compared between a AMRAAM and a Meteor equipped F-35. It also has a limited weapons capability, currently it has a measly 4 missiles so any shot must be almost assured lest it risk just waiting all its armament AND giving itself away at the same time and in the future (upgraded bay) you could be still looking at armament just over half that of a typhoon.

While the Typhoons struggles are just finding the F-35 which may or not be a problem depending on altitude and heat output of the F-35. It needs not worry about any other disadvantage and although were not likely to know due to classified information even the F-35 may not detect it favorably (in regards to getting clear shots with its AMRAAM) with its radar in regards to the Typhoons own size/stealth reduction features without actively scanning and potentially giving itself away in the process.

Course if I was going to do a bit of arm chair generalling :wink: I would keep the Typhoon at altitude and if PIRATE does not find/track it by itself I would use the sensor fusion between PIRATE and captor to judge where the F-35 is likely to be even if I cannot find its actual trajectory and what have you. I would of course not keep the radar active and likely switch off any non passive systems I can live without after any limited pulse and if I am fighting an F-35 I would outfit 6 AMRAAM and 4 ASRAAM, using maybe one ASRAAM to fire into the estimated trajectory of the F-35 and using the missiles IR sensor (Like to call it the eye) to potentially get a kill if my estimation is correct.

This is all assuming the PIRATE does not find the F-35 with ease of course, at typical air to air altitudes I have no reason to suggest otherwise, I have seen enough stealth aircraft (F-22. F-35, B-2) and this is at low altitudes most of the time or at comparatively low speed, not aircraft trying to push the reach of their missiles.

Too low and slow and the low weapon load carrying F-35 could be analogized to a spear-men trying to poke up at an archer on the battlements.

I will be honest, as interesting as this discussion is, I cannot get used to the posting system. I am not always sure if my post was sent and only being able to post once per day is also quite vexing so this may be my last post here in any case.

I hope you all enjoy the discussions. Maybe I will return when CAPTOR-E and Meteor are in full swing and the F-35 is in its final/more mature block stages. Course, we may get some information in some of the exercises they will be flying together, in any case they will likely work to each-others strengths in the coming years and will be a great team against the potential threat of the SU meanace! :D

So cheerio chaps, and jolly good luck.


Edit: Fixed the quoting.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 18:10
by eloise
euromaster wrote:You would think so, especially if the Euro is higher and faster but then again, if the F-35 is lower its larger surface areas from the top are clearer, and arguably so will its exhaust plumes than if it was in a stronger position level with the Typhoon.

F-35 length is 15.67 meters
Typhoon length is 15.96 meters
F-35 wing area is 42.7 m2
Typhoon wing area is 51.2 m2
so their area are relatively the same. There is absolutely zero evidence that surface at the top will be clearer than at the bottom or vice versa. The exhaust plumes and nozzle of F-35 will actually harder to see from the top since from many angle it will be blocked by the twins stabilators. By contrast both the nozzle of Typhoon are exposed.


euromaster wrote: Course, do not forget until it has SIdewinder or ASRAAm the F-35 is stuck with its radar guided weapons so at some point, either the aircraft or the missile (probably both) will have to bathe the Typhoon in radiation.

F-35 is stealth so Typhoon have to rely on IR missiles to be assure that the missile can even follow targets while F-35 can use whatever it has. AIM-120D and Meteor both have much better kinematics than IIR missiles like ASRAAM or AIM-9X

euromaster wrote:Also in the same way the F-35 has IR reduction features, bear in mind the Typhoon despite not being a dedicated stealth aircraft is smaller physically and has stealth features itself.

Typhoon is at most 3-4% smaller than F-35 from front and could be bigger from the top while at the same time lack all the IR and RCS reduction features that F-35 has

euromaster wrote: I would be skeptical saying the F-35's IR reduction at high altitude and its relatively hot frame against -40 or -50 outside temperatures

Hot frame? nope, F-35 frame is around - 20°F at Mach 0.8 while the Typhoon supercruising at Mach 1.4 will have the surface temperature of over 83°F, never mind the lack of cooling and dedicated nozzle to reduce plumes length, the Typhoon will be much easier to detect
Image


euromaster wrote:(Despite your disagreements with the article, it does point out that interesting factor of the hot measurement devices under the nose of the aircraft which I had not had in mind before) vs the PIRATE sensors of the Typhoon.

lf you think because F-35 EOTS is under the nose mean it cant see target flying higher than it , then using the same logic PIRATE cant see target flying lower than the platform either
think about the actual situation :
let say F-35 flying at altitude of X thousands feet , Typhoon flying at Y thousand feet , if Y is so much bigger than X that Typhoon can stay out of EOTS FoV then F-35 will also stay out of PIRATE FoV , if we ignore DAS on F-35 then neither fighter can detect the other on their IRST
By Contrast , if X > Y then Typhoon will always stay within EOTS FoV and F-35 will always stay within PIRATE FoV , so once again , i dont see a single advantage of having IRST on top of the nose vs below the nose

Another thing to consider , when aircraft fly at high altitude they will have to fly at positive AoA to increased lift available , which mean their nose will pitch up , which mean at high altitude it would be alot easier for F-35 to see aircraft flying higher than it than for Typhoon to detect aircraft that fly at lower altitude

euromaster wrote: would of course also be skeptical of how much closer the later F-series planes (F-35 and F-22) would have to be to detect a Typhoon in regards to its stealth characteristics.

Not very close, Typhoon is basically same as F-18E/F in terms of RCS reduction

euromaster wrote:Do you mind sourcing me something for this? Especially at higher altitudes? See in my mind if they are at high altitudes surely the cold cover will be below the F-35, making it clear as day with all the above pointed out, especially if moving at speeds and its exhaust plumes and what not will be clearer from above of course than if it was from the front. Meanwhile, above the clouds the F-35 may well be looking into the sun if its day.

If F-35 flying at lower altitude then the background that PIRATE will look at it would either be the clouds or the ground surface or sea surface , all will be heated by solar radiation leading to them having much higher temperature than the ambient air at high altitude. When Typhoon fly at higher altitude the background that F-35 EOTS will look at it is just empty space. Look at this photo, how warms are the terrain compared to the sky?. It always much harder to detect aircraft flying at lower altitude due to the massive amounts of clutter involved.
Image
The sun is a strong source of thermal radiation but it is a point source rather than a background so any imaging infrared sensors can easily distinguish it from the real targets.

The plumes of Typhoon will be longer than F-35 since it lack serrated nozzle and the low bypass engine will have higher plume temperature than a high bypass engine

Image

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 18:35
by SpudmanWP
The EOTS can see up at about 5-10 Degrees

Image

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 18:38
by zhangmdev
euromaster wrote: Meanwhile, above the clouds the F-35 may well be looking into the sun if its day. I suspect at such alttiudes both will be able to detect the eachother well beyond weapon ranges with IRST.


Angular diameter of the sun is only 32 arc minute, about half a degree, the full moon is 30 arc minute. Sky is huge. Sun or moon is tiny. Target "beyond weapon range" is much much smaller. IRST has very limited field-of-view ( FLIR has 8 degree for target acquisition) and detector/imager has limited resolution. Rotating the "eye" is much slower than electronically scanning the radar. So detecting aircraft by IR signature is not that easy.

Infrared radiation by sky background depends on a lot factors: altitude, temperature, humidity, cloud cover and so on. Target infrared radiation depends on the target surface temperature, emissivity, atmospheric absorption, target geometry and so on. IR signature varies at different spectrum. It is not as simple as "hot frame against -40 or -50 outside temperatures".

And Gish Gallop doesn't help.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 18:49
by eloise
euromaster wrote:
Perhaps, honestly I am not sure how much of a difference it would make statistically speaking but I also would consider the fact the F-35 will be a slower aircraft trying to strike "up" at a faster, faster climbing higher alttiude aircraft which has the advances from the opposite perspective, from its higher perch would give its missiles incredible energy. In fact if I recall the supercruise alone of the Typhoon would boost is missile range up to 50%, how much more energy even equal armament (AMRAAM) the Typhoons weapon would have with that combined with it shooting "down" on the F-35 is likely going to give it huge advantages at first shot, first kill, even greater if its Meteor armed vs a F-35 still shuffling along with AMRAAM

You can't get first shot without first look.
Typhoon can detect F-35 by IRST but then there is still problems with generating firing solution. LRF range is quite short, less than 20 km. Others methods aren't so reliable
Meteor and AIM-120 are both radar guided missiles, probably cannot even find the F-35 given its low RCS. So it is Typhoon with ASRAAM vs F-35 with AIM-120D or Meteors


euromaster wrote:
While the [b]Typhoons struggles are just finding the F-35 which may or not be a problem depending on altitude and heat output of the F-35. It needs not worry about any other disadvantage and although were not likely to know due to classified information even the F-35 may not detect it favorably (in regards to getting clear shots with its AMRAAM) with its radar in regards to the Typhoons own size/stealth reduction features without actively scanning and potentially giving itself away in the process


APG-81 has 1600 T/R modules, CAPTOR-E has around 1000. F-35 is stealthy, can even hide from surface radar, Eurofighter is at most same level of RCS reduction as Super hornet. It is undeniable that F-35 will detect Typhoon from much further distance. Typhoon will also struggle to guide its Meteor to F-35, if big ground radar can't even detect F-35 then there isn't much hope for small radar in fighters and air to air missiles


euromaster wrote:
This is all assuming the PIRATE does not find the F-35 with ease of course, at typical air to air altitudes I have no reason to suggest otherwise, I have seen enough stealth aircraft (F-22. F-35, B-2) and this is at low altitudes most of the time or at comparatively low speed, not aircraft trying to push the reach of their missiles.

All these photos are taken of aircraft less than a few km aways against sky backgrounds. Secondly, thicker air at sea level will cause more friction too.
Fook at this image of F-16 and see the contrast against clouds background, now imagine that from long distance
Image

euromaster wrote: Too low and slow and the low weapon load carrying F-35 could be analogized to a spear-men trying to poke up at an archer on the battlements

If you want to make an analogy, it is like a spear men in a forest trying to kill a blind archer.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2017, 03:07
by armedupdate
The Eurofighter IRST isn't designed to locking on enemy fighters and guiding missiles unless very close to cue ASRAAM. IRST for fire control requires range and velocity, something passive cameras cannot do unless you have a LRF(which EF lacks) or coordinating triangulation. Something the Eurofighter cannot do since it doesn't use a instantenous datalink, it uses to Link-16. F-35 could thanks to MADL. And if it is active radar homing missile, the F-35 will have a huge advantage since the enemy missile needs more time to aquire the target, time to dodge/chaff.

As for IRST for finding targets, most militaries don't rely on them due to atmospheric conditions. Civilian contrails from a globalized world along with those left from previous military flights could blind them. Even if you ~30-50 km on a good day maybe on a good day may be enough for fire solution with the future dual-pulse and ramjet missiles once picked off at a way longer distance by radar.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 09:18
by loke
To me it seems almost impossible for a Typhoon to shoot down an F-35 -- the F-35 pilot would have to make some serious mistakes for this to happen.

However perhaps what is sometimes forgotten in these discussions is the other part of the equation. How easy will it be for the F-35 to shoot down the Typhoon? It will of course depend on "which Typhoon", e.g., an Austrian T1 Typhoon should probably be a "walk in the park" as they say.

However the latest and most up-to-date Typhoon would be more of a challenge. It does have much improved SA and also some interesting countermeasures, like the Britecloud.

The IRIS-T missile has also been integrated on the Typhoon. It has anti-missile capabilites.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 12:59
by gta4
juretrn wrote:Oh, and remember the news from February this year when apparently there was a "dogfight" between a Su-27 and F-16 at Groom Lake?
His comment was:
We are not sure what the Americans think they are going to learn. The Sukhoi has better acceleration, rate-of-climb, deceleration, transonic handling, better low-speed and post-stall handling and (far) better combat persistence (unrefueled endurance) than all Western fighters. The Sukhoi simply enters a climbing combat-turn....and in a few moments...its all over. The F-22A may have a higher horizontal sustained turn rate, however, this remains unclear.

Wow. Just wow.


1. Take a closer look at the groom lake dogfight photo: F-16 was carrying a central line fuel tank. That is not fair:
f16 fuel tank against su27.png


2. In the eyes of a F-16 pilot (Fred "Spanky" Clifton. His user name is fulcrumflyer in this forum)

"While flying the F-16, I found the Su-27 to be a much more lethal BVR airplane (compared to Mig-29) with the exended-range AA-10C. The Flanker also has a very robust infrared search-and-track system that can also cause issues. You still have an advantage with the AMRAAM. You just have to be more cautious. In the visual fight, the Flanker is still impressive for an aircraft of its size. If the Su-27 is fairly heavyweight then it's a wallowing pig. If it has burned off some fuel, its nose-pointing ability a high angles of attack is impressive. So is its energy bleed off. If you can get him to give up some energy, I found it very beatable with the F-16. On the other hand, the Flanker is a lot like the F-15 - it's a maintenance nightmare."

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 13:27
by gta4
The Sukhoi has better acceleration, rate-of-climb, deceleration, transonic handling

That is not possible if you compare a light loaded F-16 vs a light loaded Su-27.

A light loaded Su-27 (19000kg flying weight) could accelerate from 600 kph to 1100 kph in 15 seconds, climb at 310m/s. A F-16 with similar light fuel could easily accelerate from 600 kph to 1100 kph in 13 seconds, climb rate exceeds 330m/s.

For sustained turn rates:

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510&start=30

What I have proved:

Su-27 at 18920kg flying weight could sustain at 21 deg/sec, and that is about 1800kg total fuel weight.

To achieve similar afterburner duration, a F-15C needs only 1600kg fuel, resulting in 15200kg total flying weight. The corresponding sustained rate of turn is 22.5 deg/sec (converted from 20.5 deg/sec at 37000lb. See flight manual).

To achieve similar afterburner duration, a F-18E needs only 1500kg fuel, resulting in 15792kg total flying weight. The corresponding sustained rate of turn is 21.5 deg/sec (converted from 18 deg/sec at 42100lb. See GAO report). Note that we are using single seater 18E, not 18F. 18F is slightly heavier (32000lb vs 31500lb operation empty weight).

To achieve similar afterburner duration, a F-16C-50 needs only 936kg fuel, resulting in 9675kg total flying weight. The corresponding sustained rate of turn is 22 deg/sec (converted from 21.5 deg/sec at 22000lb. See flight manual). Note that the operating empty weight of F-16C-50 is 19261lb instead of 20000lb, where the latter is an approximated value which could not be used to calculate performance.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 16:14
by mixelflick
I don't see how a Typhoon survives BVR combat with the F-35. As for WVR, it stands a better chance but I'd still stick with the F-35, especially given its high alpha performance, speed and acceleration at combat weights/loads and its "X factor" - classified capabilities.

The Typhoon is an awesome airframe/engine combination. But it'll always have to contend with drag from external stores, less than 50 degree AOA capability and certain other intangibles. Never thought I'd say it, but seeing is believing - the F-35 is one maneuverable beast!

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 16:26
by gta4
How could typhoon survive this tight loop?
F-35 could easily get to the rear hemisphere of Tyhoon using this maneuver
9s 270 deg.png

F35 loop.gif

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 16:28
by gta4
The AOA limit of typhoon is 24 deg.

No carnard aircrafts could handle 30 deg AOA without TVC.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 16:36
by lbk000
F-35 gets behind the EF with 2G turns 50nm out :D

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 10:50
by loke
gta4 wrote:The AOA limit of typhoon is 24 deg.

No carnard aircrafts could handle 30 deg AOA without TVC.


Designed under the Eurofighter Enhanced Manoeuvrability programme, the Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK) includes additional fuselage strakes and root extensions, which increase the maximum lift created by the Typhoon’s wing by some 25%, Airbus says.

“We saw angle-of-attack values around 45% greater than on the standard aircraft, and roll rates up to 100% higher, all leading to increased agility,” says Eurofighter project pilot Raffaele Beltrame.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-414684/

If I did my math correctly a Typhoon with the AMK kit will get an AOA limit of 34.8 degrees. Without TVC.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 17:36
by basher54321
Which users have ordered this upgrade so far ?

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 20:33
by XanderCrews
basher54321 wrote:Which users have ordered this upgrade so far ?

:mrgreen:

Internet logic:

Demo aircraft with demo features (not F-35) "wow look at this!! look what it can do!"

F-35 with actual features: "Does that even work? that doesn't count. talk to me when its in service. it lost to an F-16"

Bille Flynn who was a test pilot on the Typhoon and the F-35 said the F-35 would win...

Image

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 04:24
by gta4
34.8 deg AOA is still vastly inferior to F-35's 50+ deg and small radius loop....

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 13:36
by loke
Of course the F-35 is still vastly superior to the Typhoon -- the only reason I posted about the AMK kit was to correct the misinformation that a canard delta cannot obtain a 30 degree AOA limit without TVC.

That's all.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 03:21
by gta4
gta4 wrote:
juretrn wrote:Oh, and remember the news from February this year when apparently there was a "dogfight" between a Su-27 and F-16 at Groom Lake?
His comment was:
We are not sure what the Americans think they are going to learn. The Sukhoi has better acceleration, rate-of-climb, deceleration, transonic handling, better low-speed and post-stall handling and (far) better combat persistence (unrefueled endurance) than all Western fighters. The Sukhoi simply enters a climbing combat-turn....and in a few moments...its all over. The F-22A may have a higher horizontal sustained turn rate, however, this remains unclear.

Wow. Just wow.


1. Take a closer look at the groom lake dogfight photo: F-16 was carrying a central line fuel tank. That is not fair:
f16 fuel tank against su27.png


2. In the eyes of a F-16 pilot (Fred "Spanky" Clifton. His user name is fulcrumflyer in this forum)
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thr ... rshift=yes
"While flying the F-16, I found the Su-27 to be a much more lethal BVR airplane (compared to Mig-29) with the exended-range AA-10C. The Flanker also has a very robust infrared search-and-track system that can also cause issues. You still have an advantage with the AMRAAM. You just have to be more cautious. In the visual fight, the Flanker is still impressive for an aircraft of its size. If the Su-27 is fairly heavyweight then it's a wallowing pig. If it has burned off some fuel, its nose-pointing ability a high angles of attack is impressive. So is its energy bleed off. If you can get him to give up some energy, I found it very beatable with the F-16. On the other hand, the Flanker is a lot like the F-15 - it's a maintenance nightmare."

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 03:26
by gta4

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 04:25
by garrya
gta4 wrote:No carnard aircrafts could handle 30 deg AOA without TVC.

It is not really an issue of canard but rather single vertical tail vs twin canted vertical tail. At high AoA the control surfaces on the tail are blocked from airflow by the fuselage. Modern fighters have leading edge devices that can generate strong vortices. Twin tail aircraft can still maintain control at very high AoA due to the tails. Single vertical stabilizer aircraft lose yaw control when the tail does not interact with the vortices. Same is true with the stabilator though many modern fighter use large horizontal stabs so they they do not lose pitch authority at higher AoA.

Examples:
the F-18 at high alpha with vortex coming of leading edge hitting the vertical tails
Image
Image

By contrast, F-16 at AoA notice the tail and vortex coming of leading edge
Image


There is a drawback to twin tails; high buffeting at elevated angles of attack, added weight from both the twin tails and the fact that the tails have to be strong. As a result twin tails such as the Mig-29, F-15, F-18, F-35 often suffer fatigue in the vertical tails

Eurocanards such as Gripen, Rafale can reach high AoA but they do not have the control authority at high AoA like twins tail aircraft ( they can't really swing their nose around at high AoA) , so in operational their AoA limit is pretty low even though they may reach high AoA in testing
Image

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 21:29
by spazsinbad
DUBAI: RAF talks up Typhoon interoperability with F-35
13 Nov 2017 Stephen Trimble

"As interest in fifth-generation fighters builds in the UAE, a top Royal Air Force officer explained at the show how the Eurofighter Typhoon is already demonstrating how a non-stealthy fighter can integrate with the Lockheed Martin F-35 in contested airspace. The Typhoon is already equipped to send and receive data with the F-35s on Link 16, a NATO-standard datalink. But Link-16 uses an omnidirectional antenna that is not compatible with the radio – Harris's Multi-function Advanced Data Link (MADL) – that the F-35 uses to communicate with other F-35s while in stealth mode inside contested airspace.

But the Typhoon has already demonstrated the capability to transmit and receive data with the F-35 in training flights and exercises in the USA, says Air Vice-Marshall Gerry Mayhew, air officer commanding for the RAF’s No 1 Group. “This is not something we’re dreaming of. This is something we’re doing,” Mayhew says. “We’re already operating fourth- and fifth-gen fighters in exercises in training. This is also using new systems as well as the Link 16 systems.” Asked to elaborate on the new systems that allow the Typhoon to transmit and receive data with F-35s flying in communications stealth mode, Mayhew declined, saying he could not talk about the technology.

But the public record offers clues about the solution that is referred to by Mayhew. Last February, Northrop Grumman announced that the RAF held an event in the Mojave desert in California called Exercise High Rider. The exercise included an demonstration called Babel Fish III. An F-35 transmitted data from MADL to a Northrop-designed airborne gateway system, which translated the message into a waveform that could be interpreted by the Link 16 radio on board an RAF GR.4 Tornado."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -f-443219/

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 23:50
by hythelday
Okay, is it me or "defence reporters" who are confused? Surely F-35 can transmit and receive Link 16, it's just that in doing so it can reveal itself - comms node makes sure it does not.

The article makes one think F-35 "is not compatible" with Link 16.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 00:00
by Dragon029
I think you misread the article, the first paragraph explicitly says that the F-35 can communicate with the Typhoon via Link-16:

The Typhoon is already equipped to send and receive data with the F-35s on Link 16, a NATO-standard datalink
.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 00:06
by spazsinbad
"...The Typhoon is already equipped to send and receive data with the F-35s on Link 16, a NATO-standard datalink...."

Chucking in MADL after that seems erroneous - because the TYPHOID does not have MADL - sob sob sob. Get with it MADL.

OOOPsss did not see the 'Dragon029' earlier reply. Oh well.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 07:18
by mas
Typhoon at Red Flag, best of the non-stealthy rest ?

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

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.

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.”

The unit found themselves flying with and against F-15Cs, F-15 Strike Eagle, F-16s and several others but contrary to some reports they did not fly with or against any F-35s.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 11:33
by ricnunes
mas wrote: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.”


Good to know that the Typhoon, an aircraft that entered in service after 2003 is able to do what 1980's-era F/A-18s were already able to do since 1991 in real combat(TM)... :roll:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 21:08
by tincansailor
[
quote="mas"]Typhoon at Red Flag, best of the non-stealthy rest ?

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

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.

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.”

The unit found themselves flying with and against F-15Cs, F-15 Strike Eagle, F-16s and several others but contrary to some reports they did not fly with or against any F-35s.

[/quote]

Wow. What kind of kill ratio against F-15Cs is he claiming? He and his wingman shoot down 12 in one engagement? 32 kills in one mission? I don't know how many aircraft were engaged, but that sounds like a total slaughter. He seems to be saying the Typhoon completely overmatches the F-15C, F-15E. and the F-16. The Typhoon is a generation newer, but I don't see any factor that would allow them to overwhelm updated F-15Cs, or to easily defeat Batteries of Patriot Missiles. What magic powers do they have that I don't know about?

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 21:43
by ricnunes
tincansailor wrote:Wow. What kind of kill ratio against F-15Cs is he claiming? He and his wingman shoot down 12 in one engagement? 32 kills in one mission? I don't know how many aircraft were engaged, but that sounds like a total slaughter. He seems to be saying the Typhoon completely overmatches the F-15C, F-15E. and the F-16. The Typhoon is a generation newer, but I don't see any factor that would allow them to overwhelm updated F-15Cs, or to easily defeat Batteries of Patriot Missiles. What magic powers do they have that I don't know about?


The BS kind of magic. :roll:

Also of interesting note is the following from the Typhoon's pilot:

The unit found themselves flying with and against F-15Cs, F-15 Strike Eagle, F-16s and several others but contrary to some reports they did not fly with or against any F-35s.


What are these "several other" aircraft??
F-5s?? If yes, no wonder how they managed a high kill numbers/ratio... :roll:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 21:57
by optimist
It's the same with the f-35. Like all training exercises, red has ROE and can fly as other planes profiles and weapons, to act as a realistic threat. Red starts off easy and builds up the threat level as the exercise progresses. The object of the exercise is training. It's not to leave the blue pilots in tears, laying on the tarmac in a fetal position and crying out for their mummy.
The tend not to say, what threat level the F15/16 and ground threats were representing, when these results are talked about.

Our own force has exercises with red and blue fa-18 legacy hornets, with similar blue results, obviously the red fa-18 weren't in their flight profiles,trons and weapons and were another threat.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 00:03
by mas
I think the standard Nellis aggressor squadrons are F-16C. From reports of that Red Flag I did not see any mention of any guest aggressors. The Typhoon radar is supposed to outrange the F-16 radar apart from the new AESA one so presumably these kills came at range.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 00:40
by spazsinbad
Info about participant aircraft: http://aviationphotodigest.com/exercise-red-flag-17-2/
"...Red Flag 17-2 also featured non-DoD participation from Draken International with the classic Douglas A-4 Skyhawk...."

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 01:09
by optimist
Even the f-16 with aesa, if the Roe are that the blue is acquired at 80nm and targeted at 20nm. That is what the red Roe are set at.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 01:24
by f-16adf
I could be full of BS, but I think those USAF aggressor F-16C's are Block 32 (with the weak -220 engine). Also, the Eagles probably flew with 2 external fuel tanks. So really, even if the EF had a substantial kill ratio ....look at what they were fighting-

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 05:49
by Corsair1963
All depends on the details....otherwise just wild speculation on either side. :?

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 10:02
by kimjongnumbaun
I think it's a bit unfair to accept Red Flag F-35 KDRs without question, and then scrutinize Typhoon KDRs. F-35s are going up against the same aggressor squadrons as the Typhoon. That being said, the Typhoon pilot didn't give us how many times they died or what their KDR was against any specific type(air vs surface targets).

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 11:13
by ricnunes
kimjongnumbaun wrote:I think it's a bit unfair to accept Red Flag F-35 KDRs without question, and then scrutinize Typhoon KDRs. F-35s are going up against the same aggressor squadrons as the Typhoon. That being said, the Typhoon pilot didn't give us how many times they died or what their KDR was against any specific type(air vs surface targets).


You basically gave one of the reasons why most here accept the F-35's Read Flag kill ratio reports and are suspicious about those Typhoon kill ratio reports:
- The report/claim by those Typhoon pilots don't say/report how many times they were shot down in exchange for their kills. As opposed the F-35 Red Flag reports clearly states this: The F-35s shot down 20 (twenty) "enemy aircraft" for each F-35 that was show down in exchange. This in itself tells a lot about the credibility of one report against the other.
- It was also and clearly stated that the scenario/"enemy" opposition that the F-35 had to face during Red Flag was the hardest ever set up for against any aircraft, present or past.

Resuming, the F-35 reports are more credible because it comes with a considerable number of information backing it up, this instead of an only "me and my wingman shot down XX enemy planes" like happens with the Typhoon "report" which sound more like a "claim" than an actual report.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 12:39
by kimjongnumbaun
ricnunes wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:I think it's a bit unfair to accept Red Flag F-35 KDRs without question, and then scrutinize Typhoon KDRs. F-35s are going up against the same aggressor squadrons as the Typhoon. That being said, the Typhoon pilot didn't give us how many times they died or what their KDR was against any specific type(air vs surface targets).


You basically gave one of the reasons why most here accept the F-35's Read Flag kill ratio reports and are suspicious about those Typhoon kill ratio reports:
- The report/claim by those Typhoon pilots don't say/report how many times they were shot down in exchange for their kills. As opposed the F-35 Red Flag reports clearly states this: The F-35s shot down 20 (twenty) "enemy aircraft" for each F-35 that was show down in exchange. This in itself tells a lot about the credibility of one report against the other.
- It was also and clearly stated that the scenario/"enemy" opposition that the F-35 had to face during Red Flag was the hardest ever set up for against any aircraft, present or past.

Resuming, the F-35 reports are more credible because it comes with a considerable number of information backing it up, this instead of an only "me and my wingman shot down XX enemy planes" like happens with the Typhoon "report" which sound more like a "claim" than an actual report.


I don't doubt the F-35 reports on Red Flag. But I'm also not as quick to judge the Typhoon reports. The difference is that we are lacking the information on how many times the Typhoon died in combat. For all we know, the Typhoon could have achieved a 1:1 ratio, but that still wouldn't discount the information that was provided. The fact that they aren't willing to tell says a lot.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 13:04
by ricnunes
kimjongnumbaun wrote:The difference is that we are lacking the information on how many times the Typhoon died in combat.


Which means that we cannot judge the Typhoon reports and as such those same reports are at best "incomplete" and as such unreliable (as opposed to the F-35 reports).

kimjongnumbaun wrote:For all we know, the Typhoon could have achieved a 1:1 ratio, but that still wouldn't discount the information that was provided. The fact that they aren't willing to tell says a lot.


And for all that we know it could even be something like 12:30 (this is not a time :mrgreen: - it would be twelve kills against thirty loses). So the fact is that opposed to the F-35 report we cannot judge anything from these Typhoon reports (again, too much incomplete information to draw any conclusion).

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 13:05
by citanon
We also don't know how the Typhoon was really challenged. With the F35, they made clear that red for was throwing the kitchen sink at them trying to take them down.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 17:24
by XanderCrews
The Typhoon is the king of the eurocanards though

We all know it's not the Rafale lol

And the Gripen is a joke

:devil:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 21:01
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:The Typhoon is the king of the eurocanards though

We all know it's not the Rafale lol

And the Gripen is a joke

:devil:

LOL, nice trolling.

Not.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 21:27
by mas
High air to air kill ratio implies much greater than 1. The Typhoon has a powerful non-aesa radar in the F-15 class, low RCS and great transonic/supersonic/high altitude speed/acceleration/maneuverability. It's outclassed these days by stealth fighters but against 4th gen fighters it will be quite a handful. Once it gets AESA Captor-E and Meteors it will only accentuate its position as probably best of the 4th gen rest.

p.s. I remember playing a PC F-22 simulator game a long time ago. The Typhoon was the only opponent I worried about, the others I could out see, out turn, out climb, out zoom and pick off easily. The Typhoons I spotted later than the others and if I could not down them at range I would be sucked into a long grueling low energy dogfight which required tactics rather than kinematics to win. Most public records of F-22/Typhoon exercise encounters seem to back this simulation's modeling to me as the Typhoon's combat high thrust to weight ratio and low wing loading as well as not closely coupled canards result in a fighter with very good sustained turn capability with low energy bleed rates.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 22:24
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The Typhoon is the king of the eurocanards though

We all know it's not the Rafale lol

And the Gripen is a joke

:devil:

LOL, nice trolling.

Not.



Seemed to have bagged one fish at least.

It was tongue in cheek. Seems obvious though that it's a cut above the Gripen as typhoon's the high end

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 22:37
by sferrin
mas wrote:p.s. I remember playing a PC F-22 simulator game a long time ago. The Typhoon was the only opponent I worried about, the others I could out see, out turn, out climb, out zoom and pick off easily.


:lmao:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 22:41
by mas
Typhoon pilots have said they only were concerned about Gripens when they used jamming to mess up locks otherwise kinematically they felt they could handle them.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 22:46
by kimjongnumbaun
mas wrote:p.s. I remember playing a PC F-22 simulator game a long time ago. The Typhoon was the only opponent I worried about



Well, this is definitive information. Practically the same as from the mouth of an actual pilot. Thank you for sharing. :roll:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 23:02
by mas
Well I was only trying to give a subjective idea to those who couldn't visualise how the Typhoon could be pretty good in combat from the raw numbers. PC simulators are getting better and more accurate every year and x Flag encounter descriptions between F-22 and others like Typhoons have not dispelled me of the general accuracy of this simulation. Public accounts/videos of Typhoon/ Rafale training dogfights with F-22s have tended to show close fights.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 23:14
by kimjongnumbaun
mas wrote:Well I was only trying to give a subjective idea to those who couldn't visualise how the Typhoon could be pretty good in combat from the raw numbers. PC simulators are getting better and more accurate every year and x Flag encounter descriptions between F-22 and others like Typhoons have not dispelled me of the general accuracy of this simulation.


Your simulation is probably 0-5% accurate of what it is actually like to fly an aircraft, and not even close to what it is to fly one in combat.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 23:20
by lbk000
move aside wewuzkangs
mas wrote:a long grueling low energy dogfight which required tactics rather than kinematics to win

Fought and won a mind battle against Skynet. We got a war hero right here.
girlslaughing.jpg

This guy's amazing, I mean **** aerodynamics this guy can maneuver his aircraft with SunZi quotations.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 23:56
by mas
Here's an actual example of a long grueling low energy dogfight between F-22 and a euro-canard.


Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 00:41
by XanderCrews
Image

This thread has turned

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 00:53
by optimist
Froggy stronk, but Ikea bestest. Poo poo, roast beef stinks

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 01:03
by white_lightning35
optimist wrote:stronk..... bestest


Image

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 03:16
by mas
Oh dear, seems the signal has gone down and the noise quite high last few posts. Back on topic and for overall analytical balance Typhoon's roll rate and AoA ability are both poor which was what the AMK kit was all about. It's not great pointing its nose about at low speed which is why it sometimes loses to TVC Flankers and Rafales in mock dogfights. I suspect the F-35 would have a similar advantage over it.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 16:38
by ricnunes
mas wrote:High air to air kill ratio implies much greater than 1. The Typhoon has a powerful non-aesa radar in the F-15 class, low RCS and great transonic/supersonic/high altitude speed/acceleration/maneuverability. It's outclassed these days by stealth fighters but against 4th gen fighters it will be quite a handful. Once it gets AESA Captor-E and Meteors it will only accentuate its position as probably best of the 4th gen rest.


I think we've been down this road before with your claims about the supposedly "very low" Typhoon RCS which has been kinda dismissed in those same discussions. For example BAE officials have indicated that the Typhoon RCS is four (4) times lower than the Tornado's RCS. The Tornado RCS is said to be around 8 (eight) square meters which puts the Typhoon's RCS at a value of around 2 square meters (which is much higher than what you usually claim).
You can read this here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090919093 ... cture.html
This means that the Typhoon RCS is similar to the F-16 RCS. But granted it's still quite lower than F-15 RCS.

I've also posted evidence (which while not "definitive", I admit) seems to clearly indicate that for example the Super Hornet's RCS is lower than the Typhoon RCS - and being the SH RCS claimed to be around 0.9 square meters it fit the criteria (since the Typhoon RCS would be around 2 square meter). But I'm willing to accept and believe that the Typhoon RCS may be lower than 2 square meter but definitely not lower than 1 square meter. Also note that when I'm taking about RCS I'm talking about an average value and not about some odd less than 1 degree angle that the Typhoon (or any other aircraft for that matter) can attain a RCS lower than 1 square meter.
Again in the SH design features that were put on the airframe in order to reduce its RCS can clearly and easily be observed. The same can also be said about any truly Stealth aircraft like the B-2, F-22 and F-35. This RCS reduction designs/features cannot be observed or clearly observed in the Typhoon. Heck, even in the Rafale such designs can be better observed.
As such it strikes me and I must disagree with your "Typhoon is the best 4th gen fighter aircraft" logic.

While I'll probably eat my own words since this would be somehow agreeing with the troll that ventured around this forum (which fortunately is not here anymore) which starts with a C and ends with a K, I even believe that the Rafale RCS could potentially be lower than the Typhoon RCS, this due to DSI inlets which the Typhoon apparently doesn't have. But even thou I wouldn't bet money on this. But I would be serious money that the Super Hornet RCS is lower than the Typhoon!


mas wrote:p.s. I remember playing a PC F-22 simulator game a long time ago. The Typhoon was the only opponent I worried about, the others I could out see, out turn, out climb, out zoom and pick off easily. The Typhoons I spotted later than the others and if I could not down them at range I would be sucked into a long grueling low energy dogfight which required tactics rather than kinematics to win. Most public records of F-22/Typhoon exercise encounters seem to back this simulation's modeling to me as the Typhoon's combat high thrust to weight ratio and low wing loading as well as not closely coupled canards result in a fighter with very good sustained turn capability with low energy bleed rates.


PC simulations! There's so many things that I would like to say about PC simulations that this site would quickly run out of disk space :mrgreen:
So and as such, I'll try to resume the best I can:
I truly believe that PC simulations are a great "tool" (note the quotes) to learn more about military aviation! I can say that I learned a lot about playing them. I can also say that I acquired about 90% or more of every PC Combat Flight Simulations released on the market since the very early 1990's. Heck my experience with Computer Flight Simulations go as back as the 1980's with F-15 Strike Eagle and F-19 Stealth Fighter (where targets and aircraft were transparent triangles :mrgreen: ) among others while playing in a ZX Spectrum :mrgreen:

So what can I say about MODERN combat flight simulations?? They are great tools to give anyone (any player) an interesting perception on how does systems such as Radars and their modes such as RWR (Air-to-Air mode), TWS (Air-to-Air mode), GM (Air-to-Ground mode), GMT (Air-to-Ground mode), etc... and EO targeting systems such as FLIRs, TVs, etc... and all of this among many other systems work or should work.
I've also learned that PC combat flight simulations aren't that great tools to compare an aircraft with another just like you're doing. There are lots of reasons for this, ranging from incomplete info to more emphasis on the player's aircraft to limitations in AI and even in the flight/sensors of AI controlled aircraft (and how the AI uses them).
And I also learned that there are sims and there are sims! While in my opinion most sims are very fun (including the one which I believe you're mentioning), again there are sims and there are sims. With this the only sim where I believe you can remotely learn and feel how an actual modern fighter jet actually works in a realistic environment is Falcon BMS. And even between Falcon BMS and actual reality there's quite a "gap".

This being said, I believe that the F-22 sim that you're talking about is this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22:_Air ... ce_Fighter
F-22: Air Dominance Fighter by DID, no?

If yes, there's a couple of things that I can say about this sim:
First it's a quite fun sim with a dynamic campaign, and not surprisingly the direct successor of EF2000 (also by the same company) which as one can see by the name modeled the Eurofighter Typhoon. So its no surprise that this sim (F-22: Air Dominance Fighter or ADF) emphasis on both F-22 and Typhoon. However these sims (F-22 ADF and EF2000) and again while fun are not even in the top 5 of the most realistic PC combat flight simulations ever built let alone to be used as a "comparison tool" between fighter aircraft.
In my opinion any of the PC combat flight simulators below are far more realistic than this F-22: Air Dominance Fighter (or EF2000) sim:
1- Falcon BMS
2- DCS (namely the A-10C module)
3- Jane's F/A-18
4- Jane's F-15 Strike Eagle
5- F-14 Fleet Defender


Sorry for the long post... :wink:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 19:01
by mas
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... n.html?m=1

Effective Radar Cross Section is obviously classified, but the RAF Staff Target 414 (the baseline requirement set that was adopted for the definition of Typhoon’s requirements at European level) required a frontal RCS of maximum 0,05 square meters equivalent. Reports have never been detailed, but always unanimously confirmed that this has been more than met.


http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/stealth- ... port-costs

The second class includes almost all current combat aircraft. They feature RCS-reduction measures including fundamental shaping attributes (the Eurofighter Typhoon, for instance, has full line-of-sight protection of its engine faces with serpentine ducts)



https://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft

The aircraft is built with advanced composite materials to deliver a low radar profile and strong airframe. Only 15% of the aircraft’s surface is metal, delivering stealth operation and protection from radar-based systems.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofig ... n_features

Although not designated a stealth fighter, measures were taken to reduce the Typhoon's radar cross section (RCS), especially from the frontal aspect.An example of these measures is that the Typhoon has jet inlets that conceal the front of the jet engine (a strong radar target) from radar. Many important potential radar targets, such as the wing, canard and fin leading edges, are highly swept, so will reflect radar energy well away from the front sector. Some external weapons are mounted semi-recessed into the aircraft, partially shielding these missiles from incoming radar waves. In addition radar-absorbent materials (RAM), developed primarily by EADS/DASA, coat many of the most significant reflectors, such as the wing leading edges, the intake edges and interior, the rudder surrounds, and strakes.

The manufacturers have carried out tests on the early Eurofighter prototypes to optimise the low observability characteristics of the aircraft from the early 1990s. Testing at BAE's Warton facility on the DA4 prototype measured the RCS of the aircraft and investigated the effects of a variety of RAM coatings and composites. Another measure to reduce the likelihood of discovery is the use of passive sensors, which minimises the radiation of treacherous electronic emissions. While canards generally have poor stealth characteristics, the flight control system is designed to maintain the elevon trim and canards at an angle at which they have the smallest RCS.



EADS gave out some F-35/Typhoon detection comparisons which on face value implied an RCS < 0.03 sq m.

viewtopic.php?p=273189#p273189
viewtopic.php?p=305804#p305804

Of course once you start hanging missiles on it especially not semi-recessed but with pylons the RCS will come up.


Anecdotally some T-38s were taken down by Typhoons directed by Raptors in Atlantic Trident 17 and they had no warning from AWACS or GCI they were under attack before being shot down so the Typhoon was not detected either.

http://tinyurl.com/m5ssdkb

As Tsar started to maneuver our aircraft, trying to evade an enemy we couldn’t see, a Typhoon coordinating with an F-22 quickly and unceremoniously dispatched us.But the bottom line is: Seeing is believing—the Raptor and Typhoon are a lethal combination.

“Even if you were in an Eagle or J-20... You felt the same thing,” a senior Air Force official with an air superiority background told me after my flight—referring to the feeling of utter helplessness of being attacked by an invisible enemy. Flying back to Langley, the experience was an eye-opener. I have been covering the Raptor and the F-35 since beginning of both programs. It is one thing to intellectually grasp the power of stealth, but seeing it in action makes one a believer—our flight had no idea, no warning from the AWACS or GCI that we were about to be hit until it was all over. It’s nearly impossible to fight an enemy you can’t see.



p.s. well done, you correctly identified the right simulator. It certainly opened up my eyes as to how almost magical stealth is allowing you first shoot capabilities every time with enough time to maneuver to finish off the job if the opponent managed to dodge the long range attack.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 21:19
by ricnunes
mas wrote:http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/p/eurofighter-typhoon.html?m=1

Effective Radar Cross Section is obviously classified, but the RAF Staff Target 414 (the baseline requirement set that was adopted for the definition of Typhoon’s requirements at European level) required a frontal RCS of maximum 0,05 square meters equivalent. Reports have never been detailed, but always unanimously confirmed that this has been more than met.



Well without any more concrete sources or reference to that source specially who in fact said/claimed the above of even the document or part of the document showing that same RAF Staff Target 414 requirement, I would say that seems to be on the speculation side.
Actually it's curious that site above said in the top:
"News, rumours, analysis and assorted ramblings on the strategies, the missions, the procurement of kit and the future of the Armed Forces."




mas wrote:http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/stealth- ... port-costs

The second class includes almost all current combat aircraft. They feature RCS-reduction measures including fundamental shaping attributes (the Eurofighter Typhoon, for instance, has full line-of-sight protection of its engine faces with serpentine ducts)



https://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft

The aircraft is built with advanced composite materials to deliver a low radar profile and strong airframe. Only 15% of the aircraft’s surface is metal, delivering stealth operation and protection from radar-based systems.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofig ... n_features

Although not designated a stealth fighter, measures were taken to reduce the Typhoon's radar cross section (RCS), especially from the frontal aspect.An example of these measures is that the Typhoon has jet inlets that conceal the front of the jet engine (a strong radar target) from radar. Many important potential radar targets, such as the wing, canard and fin leading edges, are highly swept, so will reflect radar energy well away from the front sector. Some external weapons are mounted semi-recessed into the aircraft, partially shielding these missiles from incoming radar waves. In addition radar-absorbent materials (RAM), developed primarily by EADS/DASA, coat many of the most significant reflectors, such as the wing leading edges, the intake edges and interior, the rudder surrounds, and strakes.

The manufacturers have carried out tests on the early Eurofighter prototypes to optimise the low observability characteristics of the aircraft from the early 1990s. Testing at BAE's Warton facility on the DA4 prototype measured the RCS of the aircraft and investigated the effects of a variety of RAM coatings and composites. Another measure to reduce the likelihood of discovery is the use of passive sensors, which minimises the radiation of treacherous electronic emissions. While canards generally have poor stealth characteristics, the flight control system is designed to maintain the elevon trim and canards at an angle at which they have the smallest RCS.



I never said that the Typhoon didn't have any RCS reduction measures at all. All I said was that they aren't nearly as comprehensive as the ones found on the Super Hornet, let alone on Stealth aircraft like the F-35.

Hence why I continue to take with a "pile of salt" the claim that the Typhoon has a RCS of 0.05, even in it's frontal arc and even clean!



mas wrote:EADS gave out some F-35/Typhoon detection comparisons which on face value implied an RCS < 0.03 sq m.

viewtopic.php?p=273189#p273189
viewtopic.php?p=305804#p305804

Of course once you start hanging missiles on it especially not semi-recessed but with pylons the RCS will come up.


If you take the time to read both links that you posted above, namely the comments to that senior EADS expert claims you'll see that there are some quite legitimate doubts and skepticism about those same claims from that senior EADS expert.
Moreover how does or how can that senior EADS expert know the actual APG-81 radar performance against a Typhoon (or against any other aircraft for that matter)?? Sound "fishy" and as such I'm skeptical of those claims!

Even more, how can that same senior EADS expert know how the Captor-E performs against the F-35 (or any other aircraft for that matter) since the Captor-E is still in development and apparently quite far from being introduced in service??


mas wrote:p.s. well done, you correctly identified the right simulator. It certainly opened up my eyes as to how almost magical stealth is allowing you first shoot capabilities every time with enough time to maneuver to finish off the job if the opponent managed to dodge the long range attack.


Yes, it gives a general idea about stealth and its advantage such as an older combat flight sim well before it - called F-117 Stealth Fighter 2.0 by Microprose - also did. But one thing is giving a general idea about Stealth and its advantages while another completely different thing is using the sim (F-22 ADF) as a "comparison tool" in order to reach the conclusion that the Typhoon is the most dangerous (best) 4th gen fighter aircraft! With all due respect, this is way off...

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 23:37
by mas
The blogger is a journalist

https://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582

I'm a journalist by trade. I studied journalism in the University of Parma after my earlier objective, the pursuit of a career in the armed forces, was frustrated by my exceedingly bad eyesight. Journalism gives me a way to stay close to what i wanted as my real life choice. Since 2014 i've been responsible for the UK chapter of the World Defence Almanac by Monch Publishing, and i've been published by a number of other websites and publications.


The point about the EADS comparison was that it started from the base that APG-81 is roughly equal to Captor-E and that F-35 RCS was the then public 0.001 figure allowing you to make an estimate of Typhoon RCS from this. As it happens APG-81 has more TR modules and F-35 RCS is apparently better than F-22, i.e. < 0.0001 so the F-35's RCS is still about 500-1000 times less than Typhoon assuming the AST414 target figure is correct and that they hit it.

As for the Super Hornet yes it has more stealth features but it needs to coming from a non-stealthy classic Hornet base. The fundamental point about Typhoon is that its engine fans are hidden and it has a low metal content (15%) which is why I believe from the frontal aspect it edges the Super Hornet in stealth.

p.s. did you read my anecdotal edit which shows the Raptor and Typhoon acting as a stealthy pair against AWACS/GCI ? Sometimes the proof is in the pudding and I have read before how Raptor pilots like working with Typhoons.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 00:37
by ricnunes
mas wrote:As for the Super Hornet yes it has more stealth features but it needs to coming from a non-stealthy classic Hornet base.


The fact is that the Typhoon also comes from a non-stealthy base as well (namely if one considers the EAP demonstrator).

According to many sources, including one that you posted above:
Although not designated a stealth fighter, measures were taken to reduce the Typhoon's radar cross section (RCS), especially from the frontal aspect.


So I fail to see in how the "Typhoon base" is any different "Stealth-wise" than a Super Hornet and its "Hornet base", even because the Super Hornet also had its airframe quite and heavily modified compared to the Hornet.

And more even, the Super Hornet although based on the older Legacy Hornet design is a bit more recent than the Typhoon itself. For example the Typhoon's first flight was in 1994 while the Super Hornet's first flight was in 1995. And of course there's also the American's vaster experience in RCS reductions compared to the Europeans (which continues to this day).


mas wrote:The fundamental point about Typhoon is that its engine fans are hidden and it has a low metal content (15%) which is why I believe from the frontal aspect it edges the Super Hornet in stealth.


On the other hand the Super Hornet has trapezoidal shaped air intakes which are clearly designed to effectively to reflect frontal radar waves away from the aircraft and the radar emitter (towards the sides).
Now the Typhoon with its almost perfect square shaped air intakes doesn't seem so effective in reflecting frontal radar waves away from the aircraft and the radar emitter. Moreover, if you look at both F-22 and F-35 (and even the F-117) air intakes you'll see that their air intakes are also trapezoidal in shape.

This is one more reason why I don't believe that 0.05 square meter frontal RCS claim for the Typhoon, not even for a bit.

Also remember what I told you some time ago: While RAM materials are important (And the Super Hornet also has them as well - this is not exclusive to the Typhoon in terms of 4th gen fighter aircraft) the shape of the aircraft is FAR more important for stealth/low RCS.




mas wrote:p.s. did you read my anecdotal edit which shows the Raptor and Typhoon acting as a stealthy pair against AWACS/GCI ? Sometimes the proof is in the pudding and I have read before how Raptor pilots like working with Typhoons.


I read it but once I read this:

it’s now clear to me that even the F-35 with its mediocre kinematic performance will be an extremely dangerous foe in the air due to its low radar cross-section and sensors.


(the bold and underline part) and reading that it was written by Dave Majumdar, the credibility of that article just "went out of the window" :roll:

Anyway, I fail to see in how for example the Super Hornet wouldn't be able to equally or even better pair up with the F-22 just like you (and that article) mentioned...

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 12:32
by mk82
optimist wrote:Froggy stronk, but Ikea bestest. Poo poo, roast beef stinks


Lol!!! :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 13:39
by optimist
Just remember guys whatever you want to put the RCS of the typhoon at. I remember that Avweek reported from an air show, that a BAE head guy said the super hornet is less. Some google foo should be able to find it. My initial look came up short.

another interesting titbit was a video, from a uniform, about the f-35. When they were saying it had better 'stealth' than a f-22. Uniform misspoke a bit and said the f-35 has better rcs than a f-22, at least in the 'search bands'. Normally they talk in targeting bands when they use RCS comparisons, which is said to put the f-22 ahead.

My google foo couldn't find this again too. so take both as you will.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 13:54
by mas
Also remember what I told you some time ago: While RAM materials are important (And the Super Hornet also has them as well - this is not exclusive to the Typhoon in terms of 4th gen fighter aircraft) the shape of the aircraft is FAR more important for stealth/low RCS.


The more advanced RAM of the F-35 has allowed it to edge out the F-22's better shape so I am not convinced of your argument.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 16:47
by SpudmanWP
mas wrote:The more advanced RAM of the has allowed it to edge out the 's better shape so I am not convinced of your argument.
:doh:

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 20:28
by ricnunes
mas wrote:The more advanced RAM of the F-35 has allowed it to edge out the F-22's better shape so I am not convinced of your argument.


NO, IT HAS NOT!

The F-35 was designed from the start (shape and all) to be more stealthy than the F-22 in the frontal arc/sector/aspect!


While this is not exact science and may change a bit from aircraft to aircraft, I remember that have read somewhere in the past that on average, around 70% of the low RCS of a "stealth" aircraft comes from the aircraft's shape/airframe while the remaining 30% comes from RAM.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 23:29
by popcorn
I've read that the purpose of RAM is to cancel out any radar reflections that shaping can't handle.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 11:20
by mas
ricnunes wrote:
mas wrote:The more advanced RAM of the F-35 has allowed it to edge out the F-22's better shape so I am not convinced of your argument.


NO, IT HAS NOT!

The F-35 was designed from the start (shape and all) to be more stealthy than the F-22 in the frontal arc/sector/aspect!


While this is not exact science and may change a bit from aircraft to aircraft, I remember that have read somewhere in the past that on average, around 70% of the low RCS of a "stealth" aircraft comes from the aircraft's shape/airframe while the remaining 30% comes from RAM.


The USAF initially said that F-22 frontal RCS was steel marble sized (~0.0001 sq m) as opposed to F -35 frontal RCS being steel golf ball sized (~0.001 sq m) so I don't believe your assertion that F-35 was initially designed to be better. Accounts since have said that frontal F-35 RCS is lower than F-22 attributing that to more advanced RAM and lessons learnt from the B-2. Shape modeling of the F-35 do not indicate an RCS less than golf ball sized in X-band.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-070109-1.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01-Annex.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

Here's a research paper showing how RAM materials can reduce RCS by about -30Db which is appreciable and shows how RAM can tip the balance once you have done your initial shaping RCS reduction.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/je/2014/468313/

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 11:26
by kimjongnumbaun
There are two quotes where the F-35 beats the F-22 in RCS. This flows with logic since the F-35 was designed after the F-22, meaning that LM was able to draw upon the development of the F-22 to enhance the F-35. On top of that, since the F-35 was designed later when CPUs are faster and more accurate, the designers at LM were much more accurate in determining the RCS of the F-35.

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 12:12
by charlielima223
mas wrote:
The USAF initially said that F-22 frontal RCS was steel marble sized (~0.0001 sq m) as opposed to F -35 frontal RCS being steel golf ball sized (~0.001 sq m) so I don't believe your assertion that F-35 was initially designed to be better. Accounts since have said that frontal F-35 RCS is lower than F-22 attributing that to more advanced RAM and lessons learnt from the B-2. Shape modeling of the F-35 do not indicate an RCS less than golf ball sized in X-band.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-070109-1.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01-Annex.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

Here's a research paper showing how RAM materials can reduce RCS by about -30Db which is appreciable and shows how RAM can tip the balance once you have done your initial shaping RCS reduction.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/je/2014/468313/


using APA as a source...



here are better sources...

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... -benefits/

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 12:30
by mas
Your source does not disagree.

frontal radar cross section of F-35 fluctuated between -20 and -30 dBsm while Mig-21’s radar cross section fluctuated between 10 and 0 dBsm (both models are without radar absorbing material )

Re: F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter T