F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 23:19

sferrin wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Shornet Engine Intake Cropped: https://preview.ibb.co/fuDecm/SH_eng.jpg


That's the radar blocker, not the engine face. (BTW the bottom one is probably a Rafale, but you get the idea.)

block 2.jpg


block.jpg


Excellent photos there sferrin! :D

The first photo in particular clearly shows that the level of exposure of the engine fan in the Super Hornet is at least very similar to the one seen/observed in the Typhoon.


spazsinbad wrote:Two page PDF from Super Hornet NATOPS attached with a lot of text about RCS Reduction Techniques used including...
NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F/A-18E/F 165533 AND UP AIRCRAFT
15 Sep 2008 NavAir USN

“...The engine inlet ducts incorporate a device to minimize engine front face scattering....”

Source: https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf (19.3Mb)


Thanks spazsinbad, for sharing the RCS reduction pages of the Super Hornet's NATOPS manual :D
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5580
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 23:39

ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Shornet Engine Intake Cropped: https://preview.ibb.co/fuDecm/SH_eng.jpg


That's the radar blocker, not the engine face. (BTW the bottom one is probably a Rafale, but you get the idea.)

block 2.jpg


block.jpg


Excellent photos there sferrin! :D

The first photo in particular clearly shows that the level of exposure of the engine fan in the Super Hornet is at least very similar to the one seen/observed in the Typhoon.


Except that's not the fan on the Super Hornet, it's a radar blocker.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1252
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 01:17

This is just a faint recollection, but Isn't it also an adjustable radar blocker? Didn't I read they can open the blocker blades to let in more air if needed, I think the example was WVR doggies.. it may even have been another plane?
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

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

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 01:32

Optimist: For the record I don't only believe that the Typhoon has a small frontal RCS (0.03-0.05)* but that the Super Hornet, Rafale and Su-57 do too (0.1-0.2) in a frontal plain, just not as low but still pretty good. The Super Hornet and Su-57 however have better all round lower RCS than the Typhoon and Rafale I believe as that was their design target with the latter two optimised mainly from the front. I am not saying I am completely right about these things just that I have not been conclusively proven to be wrong about them, a subtle difference, and each of us is entitled to hold our opinion without trying to impose it on the other, it's called debate.

* Backed up by raf design target and manufacturers detection claims
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3112
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 08:04

Danish evaluation between F-35, EF Typhoon (Tranche 3 single seater) and Super Hornet (Block 2 F-model) gave Typhoon and SH very similar survivability levels. Naturally F-35 was way better than either one. EF Typhoon was assessed to have better survivability in S/DEAD while SH was similarly better in CAS missions. Overall the survivability levels were very similar. Of course there is way more to survivability than RCS, but IMO it shows that these two aircraft likely have very similar survivability levels and relatively small differences in RCS does not mean that much overall. My personal opinion is that SH (Block 2) likely has somewhat lower RCS while EF Typhoon has somewhat higher flight performance (better acceleration, turn rates and speed) to counter that. Avionics capabilities would make most of the difference, but it seems like they are fairly equal overall.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 921
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 14:00

In terms of turn rate, SH is already almost the king of the hill. In terms of ITR Super Hornet was rated "tightest turner" in MMRCA test. In terms of STR Super Hornet was 93% as good as Typhoon in MMRCA test. It also has pirouette maneuver which generates much better turn rate than conventional IRT/STR. That is good enough to outturn most of Gen. 4/4.5 birds.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3112
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 14:28

gta4 wrote:In terms of turn rate, SH is already almost the king of the hill. In terms of ITR Super Hornet was rated "tightest turner" in MMRCA test. In terms of STR Super Hornet was 93% as good as Typhoon in MMRCA test. It also has pirouette maneuver which generates much better turn rate than conventional IRT/STR. That is good enough to outturn most of Gen. 4/4.5 birds.


That's true. I was thinking about survivability which means avoiding missile shots and breaking radar locks with maneuvering. Both SH and Typhoon would have some advantages in turn rates in different parts of maneuvers. SH with ITR and Typhoon with STR. I also think SH has advantage at lower speeds and Typhoon at higher speeds. It depends on what maneuvers need to be done, which aircraft would have advantage.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 20:05

hornetfinn wrote:Danish evaluation between F-35, EF Typhoon (Tranche 3 single seater) and Super Hornet (Block 2 F-model) gave Typhoon and SH very similar survivability levels. Naturally F-35 was way better than either one. EF Typhoon was assessed to have better survivability in S/DEAD while SH was similarly better in CAS missions. Overall the survivability levels were very similar. Of course there is way more to survivability than RCS, but IMO it shows that these two aircraft likely have very similar survivability levels and relatively small differences in RCS does not mean that much overall. My personal opinion is that SH (Block 2) likely has somewhat lower RCS while EF Typhoon has somewhat higher flight performance (better acceleration, turn rates and speed) to counter that. Avionics capabilities would make most of the difference, but it seems like they are fairly equal overall.


I agree with you hornetfinn.

Regarding your observation that the Danes assessed the EF Typhoon to have better survivability in S/DEAD roles compared to the Super Hornet could in my opinion be mainly due to a better integrated Defensive EW suite (in the Typhoon).
I could be wrong but it seems to me that the EF Typhoon DASS seems to be somehow better/more advanced than the Super Hornet's IDECM. For example DASS includes a MAWS while everything that I read about the Super Hornet and IDECM doesn't seem to include a MAWS - perhaps Block3 or whatever Boeing will call the upcoming SH variant will be equipped with MAWS some day but so far none seem to be included in the SH.
Moreover if DASS is a generally better integrated defensive EW suite (than IDECM) - for example have better jammers - than this could certainly explain why the Danes considered the EF Typhoon better in SEAD/DEAD roles.

By the way, a DASS brochure can be downloaded here:
http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/praetorian-2
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

monkeypilot

Banned

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

Unread post25 Nov 2017, 11:57

Perhaps flying higher and faster allowed Typhoon better kinematics for ARM release (further)?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3563
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post25 Nov 2017, 20:25

mas wrote:Optimist: For the record I don't only believe that the Typhoon has a small frontal RCS (0.03-0.05)* but that the Super Hornet, Rafale and Su-57 do too (0.1-0.2) in a frontal plain, just not as low but still pretty good. The Super Hornet and Su-57 however have better all round lower RCS than the Typhoon and Rafale I believe as that was their design target with the latter two optimised mainly from the front. I am not saying I am completely right about these things just that I have not been conclusively proven to be wrong about them, a subtle difference, and each of us is entitled to hold our opinion without trying to impose it on the other, it's called debate.

* Backed up by raf design target and manufacturers detection claims

There is no claim, manufacturer or otherwise, that the Typhoon has an RCS of .03 to .05m^2. The best claims that I've seen are .3 to .5m^2 (with no pylons, or external stores/sensors/fuel tanks.) The Rafale, and Super Hornet are in the same range (as is the Su-57, according to Russian and Indian sources.)
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

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

Unread post25 Nov 2017, 22:01

I posted this a while back giving the evidence for my belief for this particular low RCS value (0.03-0.05 sq m) of the Typhoon. Apparently it was in the RAF AST414 specification and EADS kind of confirmed it when they compared the F-35 and Typhoon detection range of each other assuming F-35 RCS was golf ball sized (0.001 sq m) as was commonly believed up to 2016 and that they both had identically performing AESA radars. Now you may choose to believe other values based on others opinions or looking at the aircraft and estimating the RCS from the visible work because it fits a narrative you may be more comfortable with which you are perfectly entitled to but my money would be on the RAF and EADS opinions on the matter.

viewtopic.php?p=381142#p381142
Last edited by mas on 25 Nov 2017, 22:04, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3563
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post25 Nov 2017, 22:03

Your beliefs are incorrect.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 00:44

mas wrote:Now you may choose to believe other values based on others opinions or looking at the aircraft and estimating the RCS from the visible work because it fits a narrative you may be more comfortable with which you are perfectly entitled to but my money would be on the RAF and EADS opinions on the matter.

viewtopic.php?p=381142#p381142


Yet, you conveniently choose to ignore the BAE "opinions on the matter" that the Typhoon RCS is (only) 4 times less than the Tornado which you can read in the post just above the one that you linked above and which puts the Typhoon RCS at a value much higher than what you claim - This actually puts the Typhoon RCS at around 2 square meters. And this looks a more credible and official source than yours (see below).
And yet, "my problem" with your rhetoric is that you simply ignore the evidences that others (including myself) have posted while at the same time claiming that what me and others have posted are personal opinions (and even BS as you said regarding my posts) but all you've posted is very far from being official and above all very far from being credible information:
- You claim that a comment made by an EADS official that claimed that the Typhoon would be detected by the F-35 radar(APG-81) at X miles away proves your Typhoon RCS values. But how on Earth could this EADS spokesman knows this?? I'm pretty sure that he doesn't have access to the APG-81 radar performance to make such as WILD guess.
This alone makes your source as "highly dubious" at best!

I'm sure that you'll simply continue with your rhetoric and continue to do what you accuse others (just like you did to wrightwing) by choosing to believe your Typhoon RCS values because it "fits your narrative".
Anyway, this serves more to others who may read these forums than to yourself which I lost hope in having a reasonable argumentation with...


mas wrote:I posted this a while back giving the evidence for my belief for this particular low RCS value (0.03-0.05 sq m) of the Typhoon.


According to you the Typhoon RCS is already 0.03 square meters!! MAN, at this rate we'll have by the end of the month and coming from you a RCS value for the Typhoon similar to the F-35... :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1252
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 00:59

Mas, I'm a superhornet and f-35 nationalistic aussie fan boy. I've seen said that the SH has a surprisingly small frontal RCS in its, go to war kit and without tanks and missiles/bombs on pylons. It also doesn't take much alignment damage to throw it's RCS way out. Block 2 really is a reduced RCS platform, with a good ew radar.

It's said the the SH is smaller RCS than the eurocanards. I wouldn't use any of the numbers that are claimed for the eurocanards for the SH. You can believe what ever RCS that you want to, but you are always going to get pushback when you say 0.XXX. Simply, there is a strong argument that all the 4/4.5 gen are orders of magnitude greater then the f-35.

You need to move a decimal point to to say that it's tactically significant. 10m-1m-0.1m
I strongly believe that none of the 4/4.5 are in negative numbers, in typical mission profiles. Keep in mind that A f-15 and SU are over 15sq meters. Generally the 4.5 are talked about in meters and arguments made for parts of meters in very specific profiles and angles.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 02:43

I'm sure a clean sheet typhoon/rafale is something 0.1-5, but once you add in tanks and weapons it's a lot higher than that.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests