F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

US pressure on helvetic bank system... Many did not appreciate the method...

@ Viper12

I also agree with you. The new fighter deal will cost up to 9 billion Dollars. So why to be worried about 100-200 Million Dollar for new Caverns?

So this makes absolutely sense.

1) Making the customer pay a few hundreds of millions to enlarge the caverns doesn't look good in the press, even if the whole program would likely have been one of the cheapest, thanks to the economies of scale offered by the F/A-18E/F program.

But possibly we will never have the answer, why Boeing retracted its offer. As ric mentioned, it would be logical to buy the SH as the successor for the current F-18. The AF always said, the cooperation with Boeing is very good.

But as i said, Boeing is also invited to the new evaluation. So lets see what happens. I only hope the result will be official.

The super hornet was overall scored better than the typhoon. The only area it scored better in was Strategic relationship



Strategic relationship: candidates ' conduct or the fulfilment of the overall Danish defence and security objectives, including the potential for cooperation with other countries.
r Military Affairs: the candidates ' ability to solve the kampflyopgaver (mission effectiveness), candidates ' survivability, the ability to keep the aircraft operational and technical relevant in life expectancy (future proofing) as well as the risks associated with each candidate, that cannot be quantified economically (candidate risk).
r Financial (f)o: candidates ' estimated lifetime costs, including costs associated with the acquisition, ongoing operation and maintenance as well as quantifiable risks.
r Industrial relations: candidates ' support for major Danish security interACEs through industry collaboration with the Danish defense industry.

In addition to the above, the Danes also looked at "survival" and "mission effectivness" separately, and evaluated the following categories:

Non-Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (NTISR), Strike, Coordination and Reconnaissance (SCAR), Close Air Support (CAS), Defensive Counter Air (DCA), Air Interdiction (AI), and Suppression / Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (S/DEAD).

Survial Typhoon:
5.0 -- 4.5 -- 3.5 -- 3.0 -- 1.0 -- 2.0

Survival SH:
5.0 -- 4.5 -- 4.5 -- 3.0 -- 1.0 -- 1.0

So quite similar; Typhoon had a higher survival score for S/DEAD and SH a higher survival score for CAS.

Mission effectivness for the same categories:

Typhoon:
2.7 -- 2.3 -- 2.7 -- 3.0 -- 2.0 -- 2.0

SH:
3.3 -- 3.0 -- 3.3 -- 2.0 -- 2.0 -- 2.0

Again very similar, SH scores slightly higher in the NTISR, SCAR, and CAS, Typhoon score higher in the DCA mission.

Each have their weak and strong points; the SH overall seems to have fewer weak points than the Typhoon when it comes to mission effectiveness.

For reference, the mission effectivness scores of the F-35:

4.3 -- 3.3 -- 3.6 -- 3.6 -- 5.0 -- 5.0

The F-35 scores in SCAR and CAS missions are actually only slightly better than the SH! Whereas the F-35 really shines in the AI and SEAD missions.

I wonder why the delta is so small for SCAR and CAS? For the SCAR, perhaps they simulate the F-35 without pods and the SH/Typhoon with pods? But what can explain the relatively low F-35 score for CAS? (compared to what one intuitively might expect from the best multirole fighter on the planet!). Perhaps related to which F-35 block they were looking at? I could not find that info however they say that the assumption was that the missions would be done in 2020.

Of course the Swiss eval was different, nevertheless some of the parameters may be somewhat similar. Here are the Swiss scores (scale 1 to 9, 6 was reference/threshold), Typhoon vs Rafale (2015 configuration):

Air Policing: Rafale 6.98, Typhoon 6.43

Defensive counter air: Rafale 7.28, Typhoon 6.49

OCA/AI/DA: Rafale 7.41, Typhoon 6.54

Recce: Rafale 7.63, Typhoon 5.43

Strike: Rafale 7.63, Typhoon 5.75

and when you add the other hand, the other super hornet model? The growler and rhino work together, enough said.
Frankly, the small difference between the s/dead of the typhoon and fa-18ef without the growler model, should be an embarrassment to the euro fans.

you would need the specs of the eval to see why cas was low for the f-35, or is the SH high? what threats were they put into. I really haven't read much of it.

The Swiss, Is that the one where the legacy hornet was the base of 6? It also had the gripen. You need to see what they want the plane to do. I think boeing declined the offer to bid and suggested gripens for their budget? I was still following the competitions when that was done.
I weakened and googled, it was the one where the old legacy hornet was a 6 and it wasn't flogged by the eurocanards and stood it's ground as a 30 year old plane.
https://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf

Frankly, the small difference between the s/dead of the typhoon and fa-18ef without the growler model, should be an embarrassment to the euro fans.

I may be wrong but I thought the Typhoon is not really prepared for S/DEAD type of operations? Who is planning to use it for that mission? The Brits and Italians will use the F-35 for S/DEAD, and Germany are AFAIK looking for a replacement for the Tornado, perhaps indicating that they are planning to not use the Typhoon for that mission...

AFAIK the French are doing some work on developing Rafale for the SEAD/DEAD role. Rafale could be in a different league than both Typhoon and SH(w.o. Growler) for this mission, although we don't really know for sure.

Hang on, are you suggesting that the typhoon wan't develped because they new they were going to the f-35? You can't say the typhoon wasn't for s/dead when designed and sold. I think like the rafale, it wasn't up to scratch, because of delays and funding. They were old ladies when they finally got to the party. It was only recently, it was able to use guided bombs.

The typhoon/f-35 were never designed to be a team, like the rhino/growlers were.

They aren't sending the rhino to do s/dead without the growler. It's like sending it on A2A without missiles. It doesn't happen. Nothing flies alone in the US forces. It's always part of a system.

I weakened and googled, it was the one where the old legacy hornet was a 6 and it wasn't flogged by the eurocanards and stood it's ground as a 30 year old plane.
https://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf

The Rafale score was well above 6 in all categories, the Typhoon score was not.

The rather low Typhoon score in the Swiss eval was a surprise to many; however the Rafale did pretty well IMHO. I am not sure what you were expecting? The Swiss Hornets are fully up-to-date and quite state-of-the-art. Scoring significantly higher than the Hornet for all missions is pretty good. Also keep in mind that whereas the Hornet was mature both Rafale and even more so the Typhoon were not really mature.

The Danes used the F-16 as a reference in their competition. The SH did not "flog" the F-16 (whatever "flog" means)...which may seem surprising since the SH is not just more modern but a much larger plane than the F-16.

Several technical evals have ranked the Hornet higher than the F-16. The Hornet is still undervalued by many people it seems...

Hang on, are you suggesting that the typhoon wan't develped because they new they were going to the f-35? You can't say the typhoon wasn't for s/dead when designed and sold. I think like the rafale, it wasn't up to scratch, because of funding. It was only recently, it was able to use guided bombs.

I think it has been known for a long time that the Brits are planning different roles for Typhoon and the F-35, with the F-35 more focused on the ground, and on operating in the highest threat scenarios, and the Typhoon will be more on a2a and perhaps act as a stand-off "missile truck" for the F-35. For sure the Italians are thinking along the same line.

Typhoon is underfunded, an thus it makes no sense to develop capabilities for Typhoon that will be well covered by the F-35.

Rafale OTOH has some basic support for SEAD/DEAD -- presumably much better than the Typhoon (and probably also better than the SH withouth the Growler around).

If you have links to prove otherwise please do share.

remember the fall of the soviet union? That's when the rafale and typhoon development funds were cut. They have never been put back. I think they both should have been sunk and started with new, clean sheet designs.

Aussies run up to date legacy hornets, I doubt the swiss would have anything the aussies doesn't. The upgrade details would be on line. It's said the rhino block 2 is far superior. It's not hard to see what the USN thinks either.

Just the f-18 and rafale going s/dead? I would imagine it's like the other comp with the typhoon, it would be second, but in the real world, that hypothesis would never be tested.

It seems our HARM AARGM missiles are for the growler.
http://australianaviation.com.au/2015/0 ... -growlers/

Aussies run up to date legacy hornets, I doubt the swiss would have anything the aussies doesn't. The upgrade details would be on line. It's said the rhino block 2 is far superior. It's not hard to see what the USN thinks either.

Just the f-18 and rafale going s/dead? I would imagine it's like the other comp with the typhoon, it would be second, but in the real world, that hypothesis would never be tested.

It seems our HARM AARGM missiles are for the growler.
http://australianaviation.com.au/2015/0 ... -growlers/

In my mind both the Swiss and Australian Hornets are (or have been) state-of-the-art, advanced, top-of-the-line fighters.

No doubt the SH is superior to the Hornet -- also the Rafale is superior to the Hornet, according to the Swiss. Whether either or both is "far superior" -- I do not know.

in Optimist Speech does "far superior" equal "flogs"? I am just wondering....

I don't want go off topic since its a F-35 vs EF2K or Rafale thread right?

I have proven one F-35 could solo 2 Rafales after the merge (please check my previous posts), so it also applies to EF2K.

I don't want go off topic since its a F-35 vs EF2K or Rafale thread right?

I have proven one F-35 could solo 2 Rafales after the merge (please check my previous posts), so it also applies to EF2K.

I am confused gta4. Please explain what you mean by "could solo 2 Rafales"? And "after the merge"?

Do you mean to say that you have proved that an F-35 could beat two Rafales operating together (i.e. a lead + wingman), WVR, after a merge? If so, how did you prove this? I do not have time to search this forum for all your previous posts, but I did search this thread for previous posts by you, and I was unable to find anything that seemed to constitute proof, let alone vs 2 Rafales. A different thread, perhaps? If so, would you kindly link to the threads / posts to which you refer?

Thx.

Good posts loke.

The Danes used the F-16 as a reference in their competition. The SH did not "flog" the F-16 (whatever "flog" means)...which may seem surprising since the SH is not just more modern but a much larger plane than the F-16.

Im curious. On which technical level is a Danish F-16 MLU? Comparable to a block 50/52?

You don't need to go any further than the radar. When looking at the legacy hornet and super hornet. They aren't on the same page.

The typhoon can't match just super hornet, let alone the f-35. The super hornet and rafale are debatable, because there isn't an eval using the two. When you add the other half, the super hornet growler. Then I can't see anyone not giving it to the rhino/growler. Again, it's a pointless exercise trying to put the rafale and the f-35 on the same page.

Now the old f-16 is scoring well on evals with 4.5 gen. No wonder the world forces are moving to 5th gen.

Flogs is similar to badly beaten, as far as I know.


Anyways, the way I see it, the arguing is rather strange. It seems to me that the f-35 was bred to go against the most dangerous current and future IADS situations out there and take out sams, along with other valuable targets. It was not meant to be a multirole plane that can have some A2A and A2G functionality and is designed for medium-threat environments. It was not designed to be a plane whose role is to go up and shoot down some Soviet bombers, or an attack plane whose only role is CAS in low-threat environments. As I said, it is meant to succeed in high-threat scenarios that planners believe will be very troublesome for others to deal with. This is all just how it seems to me.

Some people after hearing that might think "see? it's made for A2G. Something,something, pierre sprey, something something, can't turn, can't climb, can't run, hurr durr......" . I think it was designed for A2G work. However, by virtue of the capabilities it needs to succeed in its mission, it has very excellent capabilities in other areas. The world doesn't revolve around sustained turn rates and top speed anymore. The f-35 was not designed to dogfight, but because of the abilities it needed elsewhere it is very capable at it. IMO, stealth, EW, connectivity, and force mulitplying are what the important things are. The world isn't just "go up and look for people to dogfight with". Nothing flies alone. The f-35's data collecting and sharing takes this to the next level. I think about those creatures in Star Trek (no,not the borg. Forgot their names.) who operate seamlessly with one another. (hopefully the f-35's don't have some stupid " hack into their system and take them all down" thing)

That is all.