Page 5 of 203

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 16:38
by Thumper3181
And of course they would lie just to make their aircraft looking better Rolling Eyes I don't know why you discredit anything which might speak for the Typhoon, but according you we can't trust anything which is stated about this aircraft. Of course this just applies to the Typhoon and no other aircraft. Laughing


You are of course correct and I apologize.

I must add however that all the pilots I have spoken to say that the Typhoon is no match for their late model F-15, Super Hornet, Rafale, and SU-30MKI.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 17:17
by Scorpion82
Thumper3181 wrote:
And of course they would lie just to make their aircraft looking better Rolling Eyes I don't know why you discredit anything which might speak for the Typhoon, but according you we can't trust anything which is stated about this aircraft. Of course this just applies to the Typhoon and no other aircraft. Laughing


You are of course correct and I apologize.

I must add however that all the pilots I have spoken to say that the Typhoon is no match for their late model F-15, Super Hornet, Rafale, and SU-30MKI.


So may I ask what's the background of these pilots and their expierience (which aircraft do they fly and have they flown against the Typhoon)? I think one of the problems for many might be the lack of information/data about the Typhoon. Of course there is ever a little bit pride for most pilots for the aircraft they are flying, some of them might not even be a good source at all especially when it comes to information about aircraft they are not flying. I'm willed to provide data/information and answer questions if a fair base is formed. Just making unback uped claims is of course no base to start with.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 18:11
by Satorian
Thumper3181 wrote:I must add however that all the pilots I have spoken to say that the Typhoon is no match for their late model F-15, Super Hornet, Rafale, and SU-30MKI.


How many pilots have you met and spoken to that had the chance to evaluate all named types in depth?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 19:23
by Thumper3181
All Typhoon pilots I spoke too and all interviews with Typhoon pilots I read/saw confirmed the Typhoon to be superior in flight performance to F-15, F-16, MiG-29 etc..


All the pilots I spoke to said the same thing but the other way around. To paraphrase what they said, "gee the Typhoon sure is a nice plane but at 122 million a pop all we got is something that is merely competitive with an F-15 in A2A, but does not have the range. They also said that with the AESA radar, helmet mounted sight and Link 16 the Typhoon is not even competitive. They did say it had great handling qualities though. The Rafale pilot said similar things.

I have also read that Super Hornet pilots and SU-30 MKI pilots have said similar things.

How many pilots have you met and spoken to that had the chance to evaluate all named types in depth?

Several, how about you and/Scorpion?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 19:46
by Satorian
Thumper3181 wrote:Several, how about you and/Scorpion?


I'm not sure. Do you want me to count those I am unwilling to prove while claiming statements I'm unable to attribute?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 20:40
by Thumper3181
Well Satorian since you butted in why don't you ask Scorpion the same question? Maybe for once you should read the thread before you stick your two cents in?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 22:58
by Scorpion82
I haven't counted the number of pilots I spoke to. But there were at least 3 Typhoon pilots and a couple of other pilots as well.
In my humble opinion the Typhoon is superior to any F-15 in BVR and WVR combat, though the F-15 enjoys the edge in terms of range and endurance. For strike missions the F-15E is currently the better choice and it will remain so in the future as long as range and payload are concerned.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2007, 08:59
by Pilotasso
Thumper3181 wrote:All the pilots I spoke to said the same thing but the other way around. To paraphrase what they said, "gee the Typhoon sure is a nice plane but at 122 million a pop all we got is something that is merely competitive with an F-15 in A2A, but does not have the range. They also said that with the AESA radar, helmet mounted sight and Link 16 the Typhoon is not even competitive. They did say it had great handling qualities though. The Rafale pilot said similar things.

I have also read that Super Hornet pilots and SU-30 MKI pilots have said similar things.

Several, how about you and/Scorpion?


122 million each?! :shock: :shock: What pilots have you been talking to?
LAst time I checked its more like 60 million, less than half you quoted.

I have been hearing other sources stating pilots saying the opposite you said.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2007, 14:43
by Thumper3181
122 million each?

Perhaps you should have checked the link given and then done the math before sticking in your two cents. Yes $120 million dollars each.

What pilots have you been talking to?

Obviously the ones in the know.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2007, 18:01
by Ozzy_Blizzard
Scorpion82 wrote:I haven't counted the number of pilots I spoke to. But there were at least 3 Typhoon pilots and a couple of other pilots as well.
In my humble opinion the Typhoon is superior to any F-15 in BVR and WVR combat, though the F-15 enjoys the edge in terms of range and endurance. For strike missions the F-15E is currently the better choice and it will remain so in the future as long as range and payload are concerned.


That doesn't surprise me. The typhoon should have superior kinematics, lower RCS, comparable weapons outfit and radar, better pitch, roll and possibly yaw rates not to mention turning radius due to that damn low wing loading, and comparable ECM, RWR & HI. In raw performance Typhoon is a better performer, has a lower RCS and comparable weapons load (in terms of systems). So in BVR i'd put my money on Typhoon.

In WVR, well the most important things are missile systems, HMCS and the man in the seat. However in this case were talking about AIM 9x vs IRIS-T/ASRAAM, so missile systems are comparable, and both sides should have a HMCS. So the most important thing in a knife fight when missiles are comparable is the ability to get your weapons on target faster, and Typhoon should be able to do this quicker because of that really low wing loading. So i'd give it to Typhoon in WVR too.

However not by much in either case.

Thumper3181 wrote:All the pilots I spoke to said the same thing but the other way around. To paraphrase what they said, "gee the Typhoon sure is a nice plane but at 122 million a pop all we got is something that is merely competitive with an F-15 in A2A, but does not have the range. They also said that with the AESA radar, helmet mounted sight and Link 16 the Typhoon is not even competitive. They did say it had great handling qualities though. The Rafale pilot said similar things.

I have also read that Super Hornet pilots and SU-30 MKI pilots have said similar things.


I agree there are more cost effective solutions on the market at the moment that provide comparable capability for a similar price, F/A 18E/F and SU 30Mk come to mind. However if you are going to compare an upgraded F15E, such as the "Block 2" versions sold to Singapore and South Korea, you have to compare it to a CAESAR/PIRATE, JTIDS, JHMCS tranche 2 Typhoon, if you want a fair comparison. I'm not sure F15E block 2 would fair so well in a one on one encounter.

What exactly did Rafale, SH & MKI pilots say about the typhoon that was similar to F15E drivers? That the typhoon was competitive, perhaps slightly better, for more money? Then that seems to be the gist of things and its hard to argue with. But i doubt they said "with new upgrades we'll chop em to pieces" as well, anyway typhoon will be a much more lethal platform in a couple of years as well.


As for the original question. F35 by a mile.....

Without venturing into things like tactical employment and raw performance, there are 3 simple things that mean F35 is a golden mile ahead of rafale inn practically every role.

VLO

APG 81

J Series PGMs....

Game over.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2007, 18:38
by elp
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:
Without venturing into things like tactical employment and raw performance, there are 3 simple things that mean F35 is a golden mile ahead of rafale inn practically every role.

VLO

APG 81

J Series PGMs....

Game over.


Make it 4 with, low band and high band jamming support by Super G. :D

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2007, 19:38
by Scorpion82
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:That doesn't surprise me. The typhoon should have superior kinematics, lower RCS, comparable weapons outfit and radar, better pitch, roll and possibly yaw rates not to mention turning radius due to that damn low wing loading, and comparable ECM, RWR & HI. In raw performance Typhoon is a better performer, has a lower RCS and comparable weapons load (in terms of systems). So in BVR i'd put my money on Typhoon.


Comparable RWR and ECM? Typhoon features latest ECM systems and not just a simple RWR but ESM. Add MAWS, LWR and TRD to that and the fact that the EWS is fully integrated and automated. Captor is vastly superior to the MSA derivates of the AN/APG-63. Other things you forget to mention includes vastly superior MMI, PIRATE IRST/FLIR sensor with a performance similar to the F-16's radar and sensor fusion.

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2007, 04:05
by Thumper3181
That doesn't surprise me. The typhoon should have superior kinematics, lower RCS, comparable weapons outfit and radar, better pitch, roll and possibly yaw rates not to mention turning radius due to that damn low wing loading, and comparable ECM, RWR & HI. In raw performance Typhoon is a better performer, has a lower RCS and comparable weapons load (in terms of systems). So in BVR i'd put my money on Typhoon.


Partial agreement. Kinematics-if you take thrust to weight and wing loading as the two main factors (stop me here if I am wrong) then Typhoon by a very slight edge. Consider both thrust o weight is around 1.15 (F-15C with PW200s) and the difference in wing loading is about 50Kg. Comparable weapons-F-15. Do you really think (today) Saudi Arabia or other export customer is going to field the latest AMRAAM? Radar, again , today the F-15s in Alaska are flying with AESA and there is funding and plans to fit all (even ANG Eagles with AESA). I then agree up to your BVR conclusion. Reason, the F-15 has the better radar and better missile. WVR without HOBS I agree today's Typhoon beats todays F-15.

One other question before I go on. Who carries more fuel? Who will have fuel enough to fly their plane aggressively for a longer period of time? I admit I do not know the answer to that but I think that has to be considered right up there with everything else.

None of that is the point though. You mention it's not fair to compare the two. Well the point is all of the F-15s are now funded to receive AESA and a good portion of them are to receive a data link, AIM-9X, and helmet mounted sight. All of this should be complete by 2012. Keep in mind these planes will also carry AIM-120D.

Are all the goodies everyone is talking about for the EF going to be funded? When do we think they will get a working AESA out in the field? How about Meteor. Will it work as advertised and be ready by 2012 as promised? Who knows. Assume all this happens what is the incremental cost for these improvements? We are already talking about a $120 million/plane mind you. What kind of weight increase is there for these goodies. How does that effect its performance?

Lets take it further. What I described for the F-15 is only for US birds. Consider an export opportunity. Japan comes to mind. The competition is the EF. What is to stop Boeing from adding fast pack capability, the 29,000 lb thrust (there goes the kinematic advantage), AESA, helmet mounted sight, aim-9x, data link, and whatever other goodies they have been putting into the Super Hornet. Much of the development work has been done. There would be some integration testing of some of the newer items from the Super Hornet but that's it.

You see it is after all about exports. Sure the Eagle is an older airframe. McDonnell Douglas got it right (oh my has it been that long) 40 years ago. There is a lot of life left in her. Her size, the general excellence of her airframe, and powerful engines provide a good platform to add upgrade to keep her competitive all but the F-35 and F-22. IMHO.

What exactly did Rafale, SH & MKI pilots say about the typhoon that was similar to F15E drivers? That the typhoon was competitive, perhaps slightly better, for more money? Then that seems to be the gist of things and its hard to argue with.

Actually the other way around.

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2007, 10:37
by Pilotasso
Thumper3181 wrote:Partial agreement. Kinematics-if you take thrust to weight and wing loading as the two main factors (stop me here if I am wrong) then Typhoon by a very slight edge. Consider both thrust o weight is around 1.15 (F-15C with PW200s) and the difference in wing loading is about 50Kg. Comparable weapons-F-15. Do you really think (today) Saudi Arabia or other export customer is going to field the latest AMRAAM? Radar, again , today the F-15s in Alaska are flying with AESA and there is funding and plans to fit all (even ANG Eagles with AESA). I then agree up to your BVR conclusion. Reason, the F-15 has the better radar and better missile. WVR without HOBS I agree today's Typhoon beats todays F-15.

One other question before I go on. Who carries more fuel? Who will have fuel enough to fly their plane aggressively for a longer period of time? I admit I do not know the answer to that but I think that has to be considered right up there with everything else.

None of that is the point though. You mention it's not fair to compare the two. Well the point is all of the F-15s are now funded to receive AESA and a good portion of them are to receive a data link, AIM-9X, and helmet mounted sight. All of this should be complete by 2012. Keep in mind these planes will also carry AIM-120D.

Are all the goodies everyone is talking about for the EF going to be funded? When do we think they will get a working AESA out in the field? How about Meteor. Will it work as advertised and be ready by 2012 as promised? Who knows. Assume all this happens what is the incremental cost for these improvements? We are already talking about a $120 million/plane mind you. What kind of weight increase is there for these goodies. How does that effect its performance?



A bit of wishfull thinking here. You make alot of double standard considerations here:

First, you mention the wing loading of both aircraft to be similar but you forget how little that means when considering that the F-15 produces down force in turns as oppososite to the Eurofighters long armed up force cannards. Not exactly the same thing?

Second, you mention ANG units to be upgraded to AESA radars but you forget that AESA Captor has already being funded and in development, scheduled for service in 2015 probably to come out at the same time ANG F-15's pour out in quantities with their APG-63V3's as well. You got dates for these?

Thirldy: you mention AIM-120D ranges and the lack of latest gen AMRAAM for Euros. Well, Poles and Britsh, greeks are all on AIM-120C5, the time AIM-120D will be followed shortly by the Meteor, so wheres the disavantage here? It doesnt matter what the custumers missiles might be, in my book weapon compatibility and the possibility that any given time they can be loaded if needed is what matters.

Fourth: you mention the inferiority of the mechanical array Captor, compared to the F-15's radars, whatever models are you talking about? APG-70, AN/APG-63V1 or the APG-63v3?
Because last time I checked there were about 32 APG-63V3's in airframes and the MSA Captor has been recognized as the best sloted antenna in the world. Did the pilots told you classified figures for you to conclude otherwise?
Did you consider the fact that both the F-15 and all the likely adversaries have all RCS the size of a barn?

Fifth: you are comparing future of the F-15 with the present of the typhoon and future of typhoon only for minor considerations.


On additional notes, and further considering the agility of the Eurofighter, It has been designed to dispense the use of thrust vesctoring by putting the canards so much on front of the pit. Considering the few exercises that have been published featuring both the F-15 and the tiphy, it was said in these forums and written in magazines that the Euro had outmanuevered the Eagle confortably WVR.
Using a trained eye you can definatly spot the differences in live demos.

Eurofighter also posesses a much more complete missile defense system including active MAWS, decoys and real time incoming missile Time to impact estimation. Something f-15 pilots can only dream of. Also Im still waiting for you to clarify me in wich area does the Eurofighter typhoons avionics lack compared to the eagles. I have seen MFD flowcharts, and it has 3 of them. It makes F-15 look dated. Care to coment on this?

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2007, 16:18
by Scorpion82
@Pilotasso,
where do you get the info that already 32 F-15s has been retrofitted with the AN/APG63V3? AFAIK only 18 F-15C of the 3rd FW at Elmsdorf are equipped with the V2 which is virtually the same as the V1 except for the MSA being replaced by an AESA. The V2 neither provides new modes, nor new capabilities. I read that the pilots weren't even much impressend by the V2. The V3 will for sure be much more capable, but details are unknown and it will not be fitted to any operational F-15 before 2008.