F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 763
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 17:06

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread266386/pg1

Config unknown.

Another datapoint: According to the Swiss Leaks the Typhoon could supercruise at Mach1.4 (mentioned in the summary as one of the strong points of the Typhoon). Presumably with an a2a loadout.

Pretty good for an old 4.5 gen fighter.
Last edited by loke on 11 Dec 2017, 17:15, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 17:08

white_lightning35 wrote:When and where did I say it can't dogfight? I stated that it is very capable at it, but I just don't want to overestimate its' capabilities in that area. My belief is just that it is not wise to assume that the f-35 can take down all threats WVR. The legacy planes and su-57 are probably still very dangerous in that area.

I'll paste what I said again to perhaps it clear what I meant: The f-35 was not designed to dogfight, but because of the abilities it needed elsewhere it is very capable at it.

Overestimating one's capabilities never ends well. The f-35 will be very capable WVR. However, it's capability gap is greatly diminshed in that area, IMO.


Commen sense 101: F-35 was designed to be a very good dog fighter.

Quote: JSF Program performance threshold
To provide a platform that enjoys positive exchange ratio against highly maneuverable opponents equipped with helmet mounted sight.

https://s7.postimg.org/tvmdbzzuj/F35_ma ... rement.jpg

Result:

F-35 is the only aircraft that could roll at 300 + deg/sec, that could perform J-turn without thrust vector, that could finish a tight loop in 9 seconds without thrust vector. It also out-accelerates a clean Su-27 by 20% in subsonic.

I bet you can not find another jet with similar performance and without thrust vector.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 17:14

Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 17:19

Repost: why I think 1 F-35 could solo 2 Rafales/EF2Ks
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&p=376589&sid=6e5aa86a228aacadc9936c9854ff01cb#p376589

So according to ricnunes's explanation

Scenario: 1 F-35 enters close air combat against 2 Rafales. Head on.

F-35 can do LOAL and launch 2 aim-9xs against 2 rafales after the merge (F-35 accelerates away from the scene while Rafales are turning and burning energy. Aim-9xs are launched when rafales are low on energy, which could maximize PK rate.)

Rafales cannot LOAL because neither of them is at the rear hemisphere of F-35, thus no 3rd party targeting.

When rafales turn around and could lock onto F-35, rafales find F-35 out of the tail-chase kill zone of MICA, while they are in the kill zone of aim-9x. BOOM! :bang: :bang: :bang:
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8380
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 17:27

No need for 9x as the AIM-120C7 has LOAL & HOBS capability (more so in the AIM-120D). Given that it's an medium ranged missile, it has more than enough motor to maintain energy for maneuverability throughout the entire envelope.

Before you say "it does not have TVC so it can't be used HOBS", neither does the ASRAAM (which does not have a datalink btw).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

monkeypilot

Banned

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 18:39

Rafales cannot LOAL because neither of them is at the rear hemisphere of F-35, thus no 3rd party targeting.



??? Who said they needed third party targeting?
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 405
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 18:45

mas wrote:Image

:drool:
Beauty!
Russia stronk
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 396
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 18:49

gta4 wrote:Repost: why I think 1 F-35 could solo 2 Rafales/EF2Ks
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&p=376589&sid=6e5aa86a228aacadc9936c9854ff01cb#p376589

So according to ricnunes's explanation

Scenario: 1 F-35 enters close air combat against 2 Rafales. Head on.

F-35 can do LOAL and launch 2 aim-9xs against 2 rafales after the merge (F-35 accelerates away from the scene while Rafales are turning and burning energy. Aim-9xs are launched when rafales are low on energy, which could maximize PK rate.)

Rafales cannot LOAL because neither of them is at the rear hemisphere of F-35, thus no 3rd party targeting.

When rafales turn around and could lock onto F-35, rafales find F-35 out of the tail-chase kill zone of MICA, while they are in the kill zone of aim-9x. BOOM! :bang: :bang: :bang:


That's nice and all, but I could also say that 1 Rafale could solo 2 f-35's. Is it likely to happen? Not at all. The reverse is also true. We can all bloviate that the aim-9x has HOBS capability, which is nice, but that doesn't make the f-35 invincible. Lots of missiles have HOBS capability. A Rafale can take down the f-35 going into the merge, and vice versa. Lots of things can happen.

And IDC so much about what the f-35 can do without TVC, if it's opponents do have it. This does not mean that I think the f-35 can't dogfight. I believe it can very well, but I also don't think it's going to be world beating in it either.

Oh, and Common sense 101: Just because a design goal about being very maneuverable was stated doesn't mean it was acheived, and being overly fanboyish about something is never a good idea.

I believe the f-35 is very dangerous WVR. I haven't said otherwise, but it seems some people's delicate sensibilites get upset for saying things alluding to this. Perhaps some realism and critical thinking could be put to good use here.

P.s Using realism and critical thinking will lead one to the conclusion that the f-35 is, overall, the best out there.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2151
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 19:33

white_lightning35 wrote:And IDC so much about what the f-35 can do without TVC, if it's opponents do have it. This does not mean that I think the f-35 can't dogfight. I believe it can very well, but I also don't think it's going to be world beating in it either.

Oh, and Common sense 101: Just because a design goal about being very maneuverable was stated doesn't mean it was acheived, and being overly fanboyish about something is never a good idea.

I believe the f-35 is very dangerous WVR. I haven't said otherwise, but it seems some people's delicate sensibilites get upset for saying things alluding to this. Perhaps some realism and critical thinking could be put to good use here.

P.s Using realism and critical thinking will lead one to the conclusion that the f-35 is, overall, the best out there.


If I am coming across as being F-35 fanboyish... well, then... just shoot me. :drool: :mrgreen:

However, while I do not have access to numbers that I could try to crunch, the evidence from interviews, quotes, articles etc continue to pile up, and the picture being painted, in my mind anyway, is of an overwhelmingly dominant aircraft.

Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape.
-- RNAF Major "Dolbe" Hanche


Gunn told reporters at a briefing here that he had gone up against a friend in an F-16 a few months ago. Though the F-35 “performed very well,” he made clear that it hadn’t been dominant. They flew again recently and the F-16 pilot was amazed by the improvement in the F-35’s performance. “What have they done to your jet?” the pilot said, according to Gunn. “The difference is we have learned how to fly the jet… and better understand where its advantages are.
-- Lt. Col. Scott “Cap” Gunn

"In terms of lethality and survivability, the aircraft is absolutely head and shoulders above our legacy fleet of fighters currently fielded.
-- Brig General Scott Pleus


"If you were to engage an F-35 in say, a visual dogfight capability, the capabilities of the F-35 are absolutely eye-watering compared to a fourth-generation fighter."
-- Brig General Scott Pleus


"The airplane has unbelievable maneuvering characteristics that make it completely undefeatable in an air-to-air environment. So if it's a long-range contact, you'll never see me and you'll die, and if it's within visual-range contact you'll see me and you're gonna die and you're gonna die very quickly."
-- Brig General Scott Pleus


If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35's, "It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there,
-- Test pilot Billie Flynn


In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter, he says.
-- Test pilot Billie Flynn


Flynn was flayed for his comments. No one believed him. IMO, it's beginning to look like he simply spoke the truth.

"The F-35 is the best air-to-air airplane in the world, except for the F-22," he said. "The F-22 is the best air-to-ground aircraft in the world except for the F-35."

-- Air Combat Command Gen. "Hawk" Carlisle



Does that constitute "world beating?" Dunno. I guess that is for every person to decide for himself.

I would like to describe myself as cautiously optimistic.

And yet, even though the picture being painted is one of the F-35 being an overwhelmingly dominant aircraft in the air-to-air arena, with the possible exception of the F-22, that air-to-air maneuverability / prowess is the least impressive aspect of the jet. I'm not sure my mind is really getting around all of that.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1734
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 22:00

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



Targeting Pod e.g. AAQ-28 Litening
Advanced IFF e.g. APX-113

The lack of even 4.5 gen level avionics fusion and the old radar is potentially where the F-16AM likely suffers most.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 685
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 23:00

The F-22 Raptor is the BEST air to air jet period. I spoke with 2 Langley Raptor pilots (one came from Block 30/40/50 Vipers, the other came from C model Eagles). The Raptor, according to them, has better ITR/STR than eurocanards. And it's a better dog-fighter/air to air platform than the F-35 (sorry it just is). One said that he fought Rafales in Europe, and unless the Raptor pilot was asleep, he should nearly always come out on top; it had better ITR/STR/AOA/nose authority. The other said that the only real concern that he would have if any, was to be "careful" at times with the EF's acceleration. He DID NOT SAY that the EF can out accelerate a Raptor, he was simply implying that its T/W ratio and acceleration is its greatest asset.

They both did agree that the F-22 combines the best of low speed/high AOA flight with sheer power and high speed maneuverability. I have seen the Raptor in the break, and it cuts corners (angles) like no other jet. Also, I am willing to bet that it has more than the stated 70K lbs of thrust. Probably closer to 75-77K lbs. (I was never able to get a "clear" answer from any F-22 pilot that I have ever spoken with about this) ....The real number is most likely above 70K and classified-




And if we are going to post acceleration numbers for the Hellenic Block 50, remember the mid 1990's USAF Block 50 is about 700lbs lighter. Hence, the number needs to be adjusted.
Attachments
F-16C Block 50 early weight DI.jpg
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 23:05

basher54321 wrote:

Targeting Pod e.g. AAQ-28 Litening
Advanced IFF e.g. APX-113

The lack of even 4.5 gen level avionics fusion and the old radar is potentially where the F-16AM likely suffers most.


Thanks again basher. Very informativ.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 23:22

white_lightning35 wrote:That's nice and all, but I could also say that 1 Rafale could solo 2 f-35's. Is it likely to happen?


I would say that the probabilities of that happening while slim would be FAR HIGHER than the probability of a single Rafale managing to defeat 2 F-35's as you seem to propose :shock:


white_lightning35 wrote:Not at all. The reverse is also true. We can all bloviate that the aim-9x has HOBS capability, which is nice, but that doesn't make the f-35 invincible. Lots of missiles have HOBS capability. A Rafale can take down the f-35 going into the merge, and vice versa. Lots of things can happen.


You keep mentioning "HOBS capability" but how on Earth can the Rafale manage a decent HOBS missile shot at a F-35 on the first place?? Helmet Mounted Sight?? Good luck with that since the Rafale doesn't even have one! But granted, the Rafale will be equipped with a HMS at some point and then what? The pilot will still need to visually find the F-35 while the F-35 pilot will always know where the Rafale is around a 360ª sphere hemisphere due to DAS - Distributed Aperture System!

Yes, that's what you're forgetting, the F-35's DAS. That's a game changer which will grant quick/instantaneous HOBS missile shots that no other aircraft is capable of.



white_lightning35 wrote:And IDC so much about what the f-35 can do without TVC, if it's opponents do have it. This does not mean that I think the f-35 can't dogfight. I believe it can very well, but I also don't think it's going to be world beating in it either.

Oh, and Common sense 101: Just because a design goal about being very maneuverable was stated doesn't mean it was acheived,


What?? Everything performance wise regarding the F-35 seems to have not only been achieved but in most cases well surpassed!

I still find puzzling when people think that the F-35 isn't going to be a one of the world's top performers in terms of agility! The F-35 was designed to have the ITR and High AoA maneuvering of the F/A-18 (one of the world's best specially considering non-TVC fighter aircraft in this regard) and at the same time to have the STR and acceleration of the F-16 (again one of the world's best in this regard).
And before you say, yes the F-35 achieved this planned capability (as the pilot quotes from steve2267 clearly indicates) so why on Earth a fighter aircraft that combines the agility of the F-16 with the agility of the F/A-18 isn't one of the world's top performers?!
This puzzles me and now you can also call me "fanboy" all you want.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Dec 2017, 23:28

monkeypilot wrote:
Rafales cannot LOAL because neither of them is at the rear hemisphere of F-35, thus no 3rd party targeting.



??? Who said they needed third party targeting?


And how a Rafale without third party targeting would manage to target a F-35 (or any other fighter aircraft for that matter) if the opposing fighter is located on the rear hemisphere of the Rafale while the opposing fighter also doesn't have it's nose faced towards the Rafale (so that the Rafale's ESM cannot pick the opposing's aircraft radar emissions)??
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post12 Dec 2017, 01:17

And even or F-16adf will be up for a rude awakening. :mrgreen:

Just 5 years by now, just 5 years...
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests