F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

[loke]

Sigh.

I was hoping for more informative posts from the experts on this forum...

I guess the issue is that the experts have not really chimed in to this ...

Anyway to repeat what I find very puzzling:

Mission effectivness in the Danish competition:

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

F-35
4.3 -- 3.3 -- 3.6 -- 3.6 -- 5.0 -- 5.0

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

I am surprised not more people are surprised that the F-35 does not score higher in the SCAR and CAS missions, and try to understand why? For AI and SEAD/DEAD it's 3 points above the SH; for SCAR AND CAS only 0.3 points above! That's one order of magnitude...

I suggested some possible explanations however I have no idea if they are the right ones...?

[optimist]

Those who know aren't going to say much on a forum, you may have noticed that already. If you tell us the evaluation criteria of the competition. It may shed some light on how the aircraft were evaluated. What were the battlespace threats, manpads for example? What weapons do they want to employ. Do they want ww2 strafing runs, we can dust off the a-10

it's a pointless exercise to ask for an answer, when no one has the data on the question.

but as to CAS, other than ME goat farmers, the modern battlespace is stand off, You may have seen this video, it impressed me at the time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZO0T5mDYU

[hornetfinn]

Anyway to repeat what I find very puzzling:

Mission effectivness in the Danish competition:

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

F-35
4.3 -- 3.3 -- 3.6 -- 3.6 -- 5.0 -- 5.0

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

I am surprised not more people are surprised that the F-35 does not score higher in the SCAR and CAS missions, and try to understand why? For AI and SEAD/DEAD it's 3 points above the SH; for SCAR AND CAS only 0.3 points above! That's one order of magnitude...

I suggested some possible explanations however I have no idea if they are the right ones...?

I think there are multiple reasons for this:

1. F/A-18F is pretty damn good in CAS and SCAR missions as it has exellent targeting pods and AESA radar, second pair of eyes and huge array of weapons to choose from.

2. F-35 in evaluation was probably in 3i or 3F configuration and there is still a lot of room for development in sensors and avionics all around. It also carries rather limited number of weapon types. It will get a lot better in the future especially with Advanced EOTS, Big SAR, new EODAS functionality, new weapons etc.

3. SCAR and CAS are missions where stealth probably helps comparatively less than other mission types due to type and nature of enemy systems. In SCAR and CAS you need to get much closer because targets are smaller and more elusive.

4. Danish language version of the report states that SCAR and CAS effectiveness was about equal in day and night operations (for F-35 and SH) both with high score (4 in all) but F-35 was significantly better in cloudy situation. F-35 scored 2 and 3 while SH scored 1 and 2. However averaging all three (4-4-2 and 4-4-3 for F-35 and 4-4-1 ad 4-4-2 for SH) results in fairly similar score. So both will do very well in easy situations, but in difficult situations F-35 will keep on performing well while 4th gen fighters can't.

[loke]

Hi Hornetfinn,

Thanks for a clearly explained and logical response! Excellent!

[loke]

Those who know aren't going to say much on a forum, you may have noticed that already. If you tell us the evaluation criteria of the competition. It may shed some light on how the aircraft were evaluated. What were the battlespace threats, manpads for example? What weapons do they want to employ. Do they want ww2 strafing runs, we can dust off the a-10

it's a pointless exercise to ask for an answer, when no one has the data on the question.

Wrong: See Hornetfinns response.

[mixelflick]

With respect to the topic at hand...

I think Billy Flynn can tell us best: He's flown both the Tiffy and every F-35 variant. And he says the F-35 has better kinematic performance. Carries a lot of weight with me. And it's only getting better with ADVENT..

[loke]

With respect to the topic at hand...

I think Billy Flynn can tell us best: He's flown both the Tiffy and every F-35 variant. And he says the F-35 has better kinematic performance. Carries a lot of weight with me. And it's only getting better with ADVENT..

You mean this?

Asked to address the issue of transonic acceleration compared to the best performing fourth-generation machines, in this case an air-to-air configured Typhoon, Flynn reiterated that the F-35 was better than or equal to that aircraft. Even with the reduced transonic acceleration times mentioned in the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation 2012 report, the F-35, including the C-model which had its specifications reduced by 43 seconds, still out accelerates competing aircraft in a combat configuration, he says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-382078/

I thought only the F-22 was on par with the kinematic performance of the Typhoon ? Does this mean that the F-35 has the same or better kinematic performance than the F-22?

[steve2267]

The F-16 sustains a high-g turn better than the MiG-29, has better outside visibility, is more responsive and easier to fly, rolls significantly faster and will out accelerate the MiG-29 like the Fulcrum was glued to the floor (the Block 50 F-16 will out accelerate the Raptor below about 25,000 ft).

-- fulcrumflyer 1-9-2007
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread233946/pg2

Loke, I posted this quote earlier, but perhaps you did not see it? Considering the source of the quote fulcrumflyer, it sounds like subsonically the Lightning will outrun the Raptor. I'm not saying the F-35 will beat the F-22 transonically or above Mach 1, but in the subsonic regime wherein most dogfighting / air combat maneuvering takes place, it would seem the F-35, which has been described as comparable or faster than an F-16C Block 50, is on par with, or better than the F-22. So if the F-22 is on par with the EF, it would seem the F-35 is as good as, or better than, the EF. Perhaps this sheds some light on the comments by Billie Flynn?

[optimist]

Loke, I would take the qualifier of "still out accelerates competing aircraft in a combat configuration " Which to me means both aircraft with fuel and weapons. A clean plane will out run it, but a clean plane doesn't go to combat.

[swiss]

Danish MLUs are a mixture of Block 10 and Block 15 airframes - so although lower thrust the upgraded block 15s on the face of it look similar to the USAF Block 50/52 CCIP - with Data Links, TGPs, AMRAAM, AIM-9X, AIFF and also use Denmark developed pylon mounted Jammers and UV missile detectors. Cant say how well the radar holds up today - but modern Block 50/52 +s sold internationally have internal Electronic Warfare suites, CFTs and should have a better radar ( APG-68(v)9 ).

Thanks a lot for your explanation basher54321. Still a capable Fighter. What means TGP and AIFF?

Hi Hornetfinn,

Thanks for a clearly explained and logical response! Excellent!

He is one of several guys here, who have a fantastic knowledge and a neutral point of view. This makes this place so special.

[mas]

With respect to the topic at hand...

I think Billy Flynn can tell us best: He's flown both the Tiffy and every F-35 variant. And he says the F-35 has better kinematic performance. Carries a lot of weight with me. And it's only getting better with ADVENT..

You mean this?

Asked to address the issue of transonic acceleration compared to the best performing fourth-generation machines, in this case an air-to-air configured Typhoon, Flynn reiterated that the F-35 was better than or equal to that aircraft. Even with the reduced transonic acceleration times mentioned in the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation 2012 report, the F-35, including the C-model which had its specifications reduced by 43 seconds, still out accelerates competing aircraft in a combat configuration, he says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-382078/

I thought only the F-22 was on par with the kinematic performance of the Typhoon ? Does this mean that the F-35 has the same or better kinematic performance than the F-22?

On QRA air patrol Typhoons are configured with two wing fuel tanks as standard but there is no doubt that subsonically F-35 is pretty quick and agile. Just above that speed though there is some debate how quick it is compared to the rest. The general point Flynn is also making is that F-35 carries its mission fuel and weapons internally so no drag penalty arises unlike the 4th gen opposition.

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/eur ... tance.html



The Typhoon also does not stop going until it reaches Mach 2+ and 65,000 ft which is kind of the performance you want from an interceptor and it also supercruises at Mach 1.5. It was designed to perform at its best supersonically as it was expected to deal with fast Russian aircraft ... quickly ! F-22 performs similarly at high altitude and speed as well as being better than Typhoon in being ultra stealthy and having great nose pointing authority and greater range which is why it is still the King of fighters despite no longer being made.

[loke]

Loke, I would take the qualifier of "still out accelerates competing aircraft in a combat configuration " Which to me means both aircraft with fuel and weapons. A clean plane will out run it, but a clean plane doesn't go to combat.

True, however we were talking about Typhoon and light a2a loadout.

The Typhoon carries a light a2a loadout like no other a/c out there, with the exception of F-22 and now also F-35 it seems.

[loke]

The F-16 sustains a high-g turn better than the MiG-29, has better outside visibility, is more responsive and easier to fly, rolls significantly faster and will out accelerate the MiG-29 like the Fulcrum was glued to the floor (the Block 50 F-16 will out accelerate the Raptor below about 25,000 ft).

-- fulcrumflyer 1-9-2007
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread233946/pg2

Loke, I posted this quote earlier, but perhaps you did not see it?

Nope I did not, thanks for reposting.

[gta4]

Since when did EF2K supercuise at Mach 1.5?

Economic term: Inflation.

Everyone boasts passing mach 1 without A/B. Bar is rising higher and higher.

[mas]

https://hushkit.net/2016/03/17/su-35-ve ... tin-bronk/

*HK: The Typhoon’s maximum quoted supercruise speed has varied. EADS test pilot Chris Worning put it at M1.15-M1.2, the RAF have stated M1.1 and Typhoon pilots have suggested 1.2-3 with four conformal AMRAAMS, twin tanks and twin ASRAAMs, and 1.5 clean. The Su-35’s supercruise is marginal, probably no higher than M1.1 – it is a much draggier design than the Typhoon.