F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

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

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1128
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 04:07

viper12 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
It's also quite surprising that the Super Hornet was deemed too large, when only one dimension is bigger than the Eurofighter, its length. On paper, the Super Hornet also has a bigger wingspan, but according to this source, it's below 10m wide when its wings are folded, which is around 1m less than the Eurofighter : http://www.airvectors.net/avhorn_2.html



Did you consider how the Super Duper's wings fold? do they fold flat, or are they upwards at a 90° or 60°? My point being that even folded, the tippy tops of the wings might still klonk into the hole in the mountain. I'm guessing the hangar may be roughly elliptical in shape, so folded wingtips may still be too big or too tall.
Take an F-16, stir in a little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19373
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 04:28

Attachments
ShornetDimensionsNATOPS.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3797
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 05:49

spazsinbad wrote:Shornet NATOPS Says.... https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf (19Mb)



superhornetvsf35c.jpg



8jiuhk8.png
Last edited by Corsair1963 on 07 Dec 2017, 05:54, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3797
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 05:51

typhoonvsf35apc5.jpg
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 11:27

steve2267 wrote:Did you consider how the Super Duper's wings fold? do they fold flat, or are they upwards at a 90° or 60°? My point being that even folded, the tippy tops of the wings might still klonk into the hole in the mountain. I'm guessing the hangar may be roughly elliptical in shape, so folded wingtips may still be too big or too tall.


If this hangar's cross section were an ellipse that could fit a Eurofighter, it would then have a semi-major axis a of at least 5.5m and a semi-minor axis b of at least 2.7m based on a quick check of its dimensions and how it would more or less fit in an ellipse with its undercarriage deployed.

On my monitor, the NATOPS figure has the Super Hornet's length at around 26.3cm, so with its true length of 18.31m, you get roughly a 1:69.6 scale. Based on the span with wings folded, with x = 0 and y = 0 the point in the wing planform right in the middle of the aircraft, one can deduce that the coordinates of the folded wingtip are around x = 4.98m and y = 1.87m.

So a rough calculation with the a and b values above gives (x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2 = 0.82 + 0.48 = 1.30 > 1. So yes, with the assumptions made above and approximate measurements, an ellipse-shaped hangar that can barely fit a Eurofighter couldn't host a Super Hornet, but I would say it would be truly baffling if there weren't any margins built in the hangars or that the costs of enlarging the hangars were deemed prohibitive at the scale of fighter aircraft procurement.
Last edited by viper12 on 07 Dec 2017, 17:32, edited 4 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4343
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 14:30

I thought the standard hangar was big enough for an F-15 (which is also what limited the size of the F-22/YF-23).
Last edited by sferrin on 07 Dec 2017, 17:51, edited 1 time in total.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5168
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 17:26

Worth noting that a super hornets folded wings do not exceed the top of the fins. Whether that's by design or not it helps idiot proof the ground handling, because if the fins don't clear you won't get half way in, before an oopsie happens with the folded wings if pushing tail first
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1009
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77006

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 17:54

XanderCrews wrote:Worth noting that a super hornets folded wings do not exceed the top of the fins. Whether that's by design or not it helps idiot proof the ground handling, because if the fins don't clear you won't get half way in, before an oopsie happens with the folded wings if pushing tail first


Not all hangars or shelters are shaped the same. The one's we had at Bodø fit the F-16, but not any visiting F-15. Not sure if the F-35 will fit, but I assume they will.

The image below shows a typical shelter I have been around. I don't know how a folded wing would fit with the slanted roof of the shelter.
Attachments
Shelter-AF-1983-DF-ST-85-04969-1S.jpg
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

swiss

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 21:52

spazsinbad wrote:'swiss' perhaps you have not seen my bio here (mentioned several tymes). I'm so old that back in the late 60s early 1970s I flew Vampires in the RAAF then RAN FAA where I also flew the Sea Venom (but not onboard HMAS Melbourne) then the A4G Skyhawk onboard (quite different from those other relics :drool: ). :mrgreen: Checkout the link at the bottom of my posts.


Your are right i didn't see that. I will take a look for sure. :D

The costs to enlarge the Caverns for the F-18 at the airbase Meiringen where around 120 Million Dollar. Not cheap i would say. The 2 Caverns can take 15 F-18 each. But its very narrow there. You need cranes to move the planes. So i think it make sense to enlarge them again for the SH. Even with folded wings.

Here a short video from the old Caverns ( In German :wink: ).

Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 776
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 21:59

Nice video Swiss, thanks for sharing it :thumb:

It's a petty that there isn't a shot from the tunnel/cavern's entrance.
Offline

swiss

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 22:33

ricnunes wrote:Nice video Swiss, thanks for sharing it :thumb:

It's a petty that there isn't a shot from the tunnel/cavern's entrance.


The only pictures i found from the new Cavern entrance.

Image

Image
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 01:55

swiss wrote:The costs to enlarge the Caverns for the F-18 at the airbase Meiringen where around 120 Million Dollar. Not cheap i would say. The 2 Caverns can take 15 F-18 each. But its very narrow there. You need cranes to move the planes. So i think it make sense to enlarge them again for the SH. Even with folded wings.


Like I said, that's pocket change when talking about buying fighter aircraft, even more when computing the whole life cycle cost ; the Gripen's price tag of $3.5B (acquisition cost I suppose here) is roughly an order of magnitude above enlarging the few undermountain hangars, and the latter cost becomes even smaller when compared to the $10B figure quoted for the life cycle costs : https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/bloomberg/ ... b/38607010

Especially when you consider the Rafale and Eurofighter that were also in the RFP, which have been shown throughout numerous tenders to not be cheap at all. If I had to guess why Boeing retracted its offer, it was rather for the 2 following reasons :

1) Making the customer pay a few hundreds of millions to enlarge the caverns doesn't look good in the press, even if the whole program would likely have been one of the cheapest, thanks to the economies of scale offered by the F/A-18E/F program.
2) Just as the F/A-18E/F designation was a way to persuade Congress it wasn't really a new aircraft, using the same designation would likely have made the average [s]Joe[/s] Müller think it's the same plane that was bought in the '90s, hence facing a very high chance of not passing the referendum.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19373
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 10:21

Pair O'SupaDupas [1 TANKER] WINGS FOLDED & Helioplicker: https://i1.wp.com/fightersweep.com/wp-c ... sevelt.jpg
Attachments
ShornetsSeaHawkSUN.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 776
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 16:01

swiss wrote:The only pictures i found from the new Cavern entrance.

Image

Image



Thanks Swiss! Nice photos there :thumb:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 776
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 16:07

viper12 wrote:Especially when you consider the Rafale and Eurofighter that were also in the RFP, which have been shown throughout numerous tenders to not be cheap at all. If I had to guess why Boeing retracted its offer, it was rather for the 2 following reasons :

1) Making the customer pay a few hundreds of millions to enlarge the caverns doesn't look good in the press, even if the whole program would likely have been one of the cheapest, thanks to the economies of scale offered by the F/A-18E/F program.
2) Just as the F/A-18E/F designation was a way to persuade Congress it wasn't really a new aircraft, using the same designation would likely have made the average [s]Joe[/s] Müller think it's the same plane that was bought in the '90s, hence facing a very high chance of not passing the referendum.


Yes, that makes sense and I agree with you! If those two points weren't the "sole" reasons why the SH wasn't considered for the Swiss competition/evaluation than they seem to have heavily weighted on the decision for not considering the SH.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest