F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

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

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post16 Nov 2017, 01:03

optimist wrote:stronk..... bestest


Image
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post16 Nov 2017, 03:16

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.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Nov 2017, 16:38

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:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post16 Nov 2017, 19:01

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.
Last edited by mas on 16 Nov 2017, 21:23, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Nov 2017, 21:19

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...
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post16 Nov 2017, 23:37

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.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Nov 2017, 00:37

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...
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Nov 2017, 12:32

optimist wrote:Froggy stronk, but Ikea bestest. Poo poo, roast beef stinks


Lol!!! :mrgreen:
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1248
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post17 Nov 2017, 13:39

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.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post17 Nov 2017, 13:54

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.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Nov 2017, 16:47

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:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Nov 2017, 20:28

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.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7720
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post17 Nov 2017, 23:29

I've read that the purpose of RAM is to cancel out any radar reflections that shaping can't handle.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post18 Nov 2017, 11:20

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/
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 382
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post18 Nov 2017, 11:26

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.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests