EF-2000 versus other fighters of 3rd and 4th generation

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post07 Feb 2005, 19:42

EF-2000 Typhoon
  • Width: 10.95 m
  • Length: 15.96 m
  • Height: 5.28 m
  • Wing Surface area: 50.0 m2
  • Empty weight: 10,995 ~ 11,150 kg (Single seat) 11,700 kg (Double seat)
  • Maximum take-off weight: 23,500 kg
  • Standard air-combat weight: 14500kg (50% internal fuel, BVRAAM*4 and WVRAAM*2)
  • Internal fuel: 5,640L (Single seat) 5,300L (Double seat)
  • Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 @ 11,000 m
  • Maximum speed: Mach 1.15, low level
  • Supercruise: Mach 1.2 ~ 1.3
  • Standard air-combat configuration, 1500m height, Maximum military thrust: 0.9Mach/1050km/hr with fuel consumption 85kg/min
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=950&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10

According to EADS: "The EF has a super cruise capability in the Config you raised (with weapons carried), its about 1.2 at 36KF."

"Our growth strategy contains an improvement package which will boost the AC on a super cruise of about 1.5 Ma same Fight level."

  • Road length for take off: 300~700 m
  • Road length for Landing: 500~700 m
  • Upper limit of ceiling: 60.000-65,000ft
  • Climb rate: Standard air-combat configuration):
    • Sea-level:>315m/sec
    • From break releasing to climbing to 9,146m:86 seconds.
    • From break releasing to climbing to 10,670m, 1.5 Mach:less than 150 seconds.
    • Flug-revue, 1999, Wolfgang Schirdewahn, the Germany test-pilot:"The climbing ability of EF-2000 with 4 BVRAAM and 2 WVRAAM is about 25% better than the F-16 with 2 WVRAAM."
  • Acceleration (Standard air-combat configuration):
    • 200kts --> Mach 1:<30 seconds
    • 0.9 --> 1.2M:40 seconds
    • 0.8 --> 1.4M:62 seconds
  • Flight-envelope (Standard air-combat configuration):
    • Sea-level: 0.15~1.15 Mach (F/A-18C/D:0.15~1.10 Mach)
    • 10,000ft: 0.19~1.40 Mach (F/A-18C/D:0.17~1.23 Mach)
    • 20,000ft: 0.22~1.65 Mach (F/A-18C/D:0.20~1.40 Mach)
    • 25,000ft: 0.28~1.85 Mach
    • 30,000ft: 0.30~2.00 Mach (F/A-18C/D:0.30~1.62 Mach)
    • 35,000ft: 0.31~2.00 Mach (F/A-18C/D:0.38~1.76 Mach)
    • 40,000ft: 0.35~2.00 Mach (F/A-18C/D:0.45~1.70 Mach)
    • 45,000ft: 0.40~2.00 Mach
    • 50,000ft: 0.45~2.00 Mach (F/A-18C/D:0.60~1.60 Mach)
    • 55,000ft: 0.50~2.00 Mach (F/A-18C/D:0.75~1.45 Mach)
    • 60,000ft: 0.75~1.85 Mach
    • 65,000ft: 0.88~1.70 Mach
  • G-load: -3/+9G (Normal),+15G (Maximum)
  • Instaneous turn rate/Sustaneous turn rate: 30~35/>20 (degree/sec)
  • Agility:
    • 45,000 fts, 1.6 Mach, maximum G-load:5G.
    • Radius of turning at low level:600m;30% less than F-15C.
    • Low level, 300kt, 7G, radius of turning:Less than 700m (The test-pilot declared it is better than F-16, F-18, and RAFALE.)
  • Combat radius (with appropriate weapons loads):
    • Strike:650km(4 BVRAAM, 2WVRAAM, and 7,000Ib bombs, lo-lo-lo)
    • Strike: 1390Km (Basic loading for air-combat + LGB*3 + ARM*2 + pod*1, hi-lo-hi)
    • Air-combat: 750 nm (1389 km)
    • Air-combat: 100 nm (185 km), 3hrs CAP
  • Ferry-range:
    • 3700 km (tank*2)
    • 2600 km (internal fuel)
The CAPTOR radar

A UK test pilot declared that the maximum Air-to-air "tracking range" of CAPTOR radar is "significantly longer" than the 100 miles / 161km. (Source: AFM magazine 05/2004)

The same test pilot declared that with the help of Meteor AAM, the EF-2000 could attack the multiple aero-targets (up to 8 targets) as far as 200km away at the same time theoretically. (Source: RAF magazine 06/2004)

During the test, the CAPTOR radar showed the capability of tracking up to 20 air targets (F-4 and Mig-29) simultaneously 160~185 km away and then automatically identifying and prioritising them. (Source: EADS)

The RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2 class, so these informations may hint that CAPTOR radar now can "track" (not just detect) RCS = 5m2 class target 160~185 km away. According to the basic formula for the relationship between Target's RCS and Radar's effective detective / tracking range:
    The effective detective / tracking range of CAPTOR to F/A-22 (Minimal frontal RCS = 0.0005~0.001m2 class) in head-to-head engagement should be 24~32 km / 16~22 km now.
According to the PDF at http://www.iee.org/oncomms/pn/radar/Roulston.pdf

I think that the figure in page 15 showed that the CAPTOR with AESA-upgrade's detective / tracking range is about 75% longer than the CAPTOR radar now.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post07 Feb 2005, 19:43

EF-2000 versus F/A-22 in BVR combat

So after 2012~2015, the maximum effective detective / tracking range of CAPTOR-AESA to F/A-22 (Frontal RCS = 0.0005~0.001m2 class) should be 42~56 km / 28~40 km.

This should make EF-2000 Tranch IIIs have the BVR capability to lock and attack Raptor 25~35 km away. If Raptor still use AIM-120C/D (with the help of supercruise, the F/A-22 should be able to lock and attack EF-2000 40~60 km away theoretically) at that time, its advantage in BVR combat over EF-2000 will decrease, but still exist.

In addition, USA has developed future scramjet AAM for F/A-22 for several years now. The project's name is AADRM:

http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/1996/11(November)/06-Nov-1996/Asol001.htm (Commerce Business daily issue of november 6,1996 psa#1716)

Air Force Wright Laboratory Armament Directorate Contracting Division, WL/MNK, 101 W. Eglin Blvd, Ste 337, Eglin AFB, FL 32542-6810

Abstract:
  1. The size of AADRM is constrained to fit 6-8 AADRM vehicles within a generic weapons bay. It is anticipated the final weight of the AADRM will be about 500-600 lbs.
  2. There is no stated altitude for the 30g maneuver of the AADRM at its maximum flyout range of 100nm. However, assume the maneuver occurs at 20kft. For clarity, the Mach number and altitude of both the target and launch vehicle at launch, for each of the notional performance goals, are specified below:
    • Performing at 30g maneuver (at 20kft) at a maximum flyout range (up to 100 nm in all directions, launched at 30kft, M=0.9-1.5),
    • Being capable of intercepting, within 5 seconds after launch (launched at 10kft, M=0., a 9-g head-on target (at 10kft) initially at a slant range of 1500 ft and located 45o off boresight (missile lock-on is assumed)
    • Being capable of intercepting a head-on target (at 20kft, M=0.9), being launched at 20kft, M=0.9 with flyout range and time, and average velocity as follows:
        Flyout range (nm) / Flyout time (sec) / Avg Velocity (fps)
        5 nm / 8 sec / 4000 fps
        20 nm / 24 sec / 5000 fps
        50 nm / 61 sec / 5000 fps
        100 nm / 152 sec / 4000 fps
The anticipated In-service time of AADRM is about 2015~2020, and if the EF-2000 doesn't decrease its frontal RCS (0.10~0.25 m2 now) dramatically at that time, the RAPTOR may lock and attack EF-2000 110~140 km away with AADRM theoretically after 2015~2020...


EF-2000 versus F-35 in BVR combat

Aviation Week and Space Technoledge (AW&ST) 1999/02/15

An article about the JSF mentioned the following:
  • The frontal RCS of F-22 is about -30 dB (0.001m2)
  • The frontal RCS of JSF is slightly larger than F-22 and about the same size as golf ball.
  • The frontal RCS of F-15 is about 20 dB (11m2)
Based on this article, I think the minimal frontal RCS of F-35 for USA and UK use is about 0.002~0.005m2 class perhaps.

However, it is said that USA will down-grade the stealthy capability of F-35 for exportation. Take integrating AIM-9X to F-35 for example, USA will give F-35 for exportation external pylons for firing AIM-9X, and while this procedure will improve F-35s WVR capability definitely one way, it will reduce F-35 for exportations stealthy capability significantly in another. According to my assumption, I think the F-35 for exportations minimal frontal RCS will be in 0.01m2~0.1m2 class.

So in 2010~2015:
The effective tracking range of CAPTOR-AESA to F-35 for USA and UK use (Minimal frontal RCS = 0.002~0.005m2 class) should be 40~56 km at least.

The effective tracking range of CAPTOR-AESA to F-35 for for exportation (Minimal frontal RCS = 0.01~0.1 m2 class) should be 60~120 km at least.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post07 Feb 2005, 19:43

EF-2000 v.s F/A-22, F-35A, F-16E, Rafale, and Su-35

A. Empty weight:B. Internal Fuel:
  • EF-2K: 4,600~4,996 kg
  • F/A-22: 10,500~11,500 kg (Estimation)
  • F-35A: 8,165 kg+
  • F-16E: 3,160 kg
  • Su-35: 10,250 kg
  • Rafale: 4,500~4,600 kg
C. External Payload:
  • EF-2K: 7,500~8,000 kg+
  • F/A-22: 2,270 kg (Internal weapons); 12,000 kg (Internal + External)
  • F-35A: 5,900 kg+
  • F-16E: 8,000 kg+
  • Su-35: 8,000 kg+
  • Rafale: 9,500 kg+
D. Wing Surface Area:
  • EF-2K: 50.00 m2
  • F/A-22: 78.03 m2
  • F-35A: 42.70 m2
  • F-16E: 27.87 m2
  • Su-35: 62.00 m2
  • Rafale: 45.70 m2
E. Comparison of air-combat weight, T/W ratio, and wing-load among these fighters at the "fair" condition (with the same kind and the amount of AAM weapons + roughly equal combat radius):
  • EF2000: 4,500 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + ASRAAM*2
  • F/A-22: 7,750 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2
  • F-35A: 4,500 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2
  • F-16E: 3,160 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2
  • Su-35: 6,700 kg internal fuel + R-77*4 + R-73M2*2
  • RAFALE: 4,500 kg internal fuel + MICA EM*4 + MICA IR*2
  1. Air-combat weight:

    • EF-2K: 16,500 kg
    • F/A-22: 24,250 kg
    • F-35A: 17,750 kg
    • F-16E: 14,150 kg
    • Su-35: 26,250 kg
    • Rafale: 14,900 kg
  2. Wing-load:
    • EF-2K: 330 kg/m2: Score: 94
    • F/A-22: 310 kg/m2: Score: 100
    • F-35A: 416 kg/m2: Score: 75
    • F-16E: 508 kg/m2: Score: 61
    • Su-35: 423 kg/m2: Score: 73
    • Rafale: 326 kg/m2: Score: 95
  3. T/W ratio, sea-level(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust):

    • EF-2000: 1.11/0.74(EJ200, peace time, 20,250 Ib/13,500 Ib *2): Score: 100/100(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
    • EF-2000: 1.17/0.85 (EJ200, war time, 21,265 Ib/15,525 Ib *2): Score: 105/115
    • EF-2000: 1.26/0.85 (EJ200, small revision, 22,945 Ib/15,525 Ib *2): Score: 113/115
    • EF-2000: 1.27/0.89 (EJ230, post-2010~2015?, 23,100 Ib/16,200 Ib *2): Score: 114/115
    • EF-2000: 1.48/0.96 (EJ270, post-2015~2020?, 27,000 Ib/17,500 Ib *2): Score: 133/130
    • F/A-22: 1.31/0.95 (F-119, official declaration, 35,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 118/128
    • F/A-22: 1.42/0.95 (F-119, expert estimation~1, 38,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 128/128
    • F/A-22: 1.46/0.95 (F-119, expert estimation~2, 39,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 131/128
    • F-16E: 1.04/0.61 (F-110-GE-132, peace time, 32,500 Ib/19,000 Ib *1): Score: 94/82
    • F-16E: 1.09/0.61 (F-110-GE-132, war time, 34,000 Ib/19,000 Ib *1): Score: 98/82
    • F-16E: 1.17/???? (F-110-GE-XXX, post-2010~2015?, 37,000 Ib/????Ib*1): Score: 105/???
    • Su-35: 1.10/0.65 (AL-37FU, nowadays, 31,970 Ib/18,740 Ib *2): Score: 99/88
    • Su-35: 1.24/0.83 (AL-41F1, post-2010~2015?, 36,000 Ib/24,000 Ib *2): Score: 112/112
    • RAFALE C: 1.03/0.69 (M88-2, nowadays, 16,870 Ib/11,245 Ib *2): Score: 93/93
    • RAFALE C: 1.21/0.81 (M88-3, post-2010, 20,250 Ib/13,500 Ib *2): Score: 109/109
F. Comparison of the strike radius of the NG fighters

  • F/A-22

    Internal fuel and the weapon load of SDB*8 + AIM-120C/D*2 + AIM-9X*2. The weapon load is about 3,200 Ib/1,450kg in weight.

    Combat radius:
    • With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 100 NM during the mission: 405 NM / 750 km.
    • With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 50 NM during the mission: 455 NM / 840 km.
    • Sub-sonic cruise during the whole mission: 595 NM/1,100 km
    Source: http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp
  • F-35 A/B/C

    F-35 A and C: Internal fuel and the wepon load of 2,000 Ib bomb*2 + AIM-120C*2. The weapon load is about 4,700 Ib/2,130kg in weight.

    F-35 B: Internal fuel and the wepon load of 1,000 Ib bomb*2 + AIM-120C*2. The weapon load is about 2,700 Ib/1,225kg in weight.

    Combat radius:
    • F-35A(Internal fuel: 8,300 kg):703 NM/1,300 km
    • F-35B(Internal fuel: 6,080 kg):496 NM/920 km
    • F-35C(Internal fuel: 8,633 kg):799 NM/1,480 km
    Source: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm
  • F/A-18E/F

    Combat radius:
    • 720 km(hi-lo-lo-hi, 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*2 + 1000 lb bomb*4 + AIM-9 *2. The weapon load is about 4,400 Ib/1,995 kg in weight.)
    • 1,230 km(hi-hi-hi, 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*3 + 1000 lb bomb*4 + AIM-9 *2 + pod *2)
    • 855 km(Air-interdiction with 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*3)
    • 800 km(Mission of escort, AIM-120*2 + AIM-9*2 and internal fuel only)
      -> Comparing with F/A-22 of 1,100 km-class striking radius(Sub-sonic during the whole mission, internal fuel only, and the wepon load of SDB*8 + AIM-120C/D*2 + AIM-9X*2), I estimate that with the internal fuel only and the same class of payload for air-combat, the F/A-22's combat radius should be 40~50% longer than the combat radius of the fighters such as F/A-18E/F, EF-2000, and Rafale.
    • CAP: 2 hrs and 15 mins(six AAMs and external tanks, 280 km from the carrier)
    Source: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-18E.htm
  • EF-2000

    Combat radius:
    • 650 km(BVRAAM*4 + WVRAAM*2 + 7,000 Ib payload, lo-lo-lo)
    • 1,390 km(Basic payload for air-combat + LGB*3 + ARM*2 +pod, hi-lo-hi)
    • 1,390 km (Air-combat of long range with 10 mins residual fuel)
    • CAP: 3hrs(six AAMs and external tanks, 100 nm(185 km) from the base)

  • Rafale

    Combat radius:
    • 1,100 km(Tank*3 with 4,300 L external fuel + MICA AAM*4 + 1,000 Ib bomb*12. The weapon load is about 13,000 Ib/5,900 kg in weight)
    • 1,830 km(CFT*2 with 2,300 L external fuel + Tank*3 with 5,700 L external fuel + SCALP-EG*2 + MICA AAM*2. The weapon load is about 8,820 Ib/4,000 kg in weight)
    • 1,852 km(Air-combat of long range, tank*4 with 6,600L external fuel + MICA AAM*8)
    • CAP: more than 2hrs(Rafale M with six AAMs and three 1,250L tanks, 100 nm(185 km) from the carrier)
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post07 Feb 2005, 19:46

On the Discovery Channel a UK EF-2000 pilot declared: "After taking-off, the EF-2000 can climb to the height of 40,000 ft / 12,200 m in one minute, and it is just 8 km away from the base."

The special report of "EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON" from AFM and AIR International in 2004, Page 28:
Oberstleutnant Georg Pepperl, the Germany pilot of EF-2000 declared: "The climb rate is very impressive - at full power and a speed of Mach 0.9, with an angle of attack of 50 degrees, the aircraft is up to 38,000 ft / 11,582 m in no time at all."

According to the information mentioned above and the basic formula of triangle, I estimate that it take EF-2000 (Double-seat model and may be with the standard air-combat configuration) 50~55 seconds to climb to the height of 12,000 m from the sea-level after taking off. Plusing the time of brake-releasing to taking-off (less than 8 secs), it should take EF-2000 60~65 seconds to climb to the height of 12,000 m from brake-releasing.

The world record of climbing capability from brake-releasing to the height of 12,000 m of the jet-fighters:
  • F-15 "Streak Eagle"(01/16/1975): 59.38 secs
  • Su-27 "P-42" (10/03/1987): 55.54 secs
  • Su-27 "P-42" (05/17/1988): about 59 secs with 1,000 kg external payload.
Source:
  • http://propro.ru/flankers/eng/Su-27.htm
  • http://home.wanadoo.nl/patricknieuwkamp/hist.html
However, both Streak Eagle and P-42 had accepted a lot of modifications and played many tricks before they achieved these extra-ordinary records:

Streak Eagle
During the winter of 1974-75, McDonnell modified F-15A serial number 72-0119 in an attempt to set world time-to-climb records. The project was given the name Operation Streak Eagle. In an effort to save weight, all non-mission critical systems were deleted, including the flap and the speed brake, the armament, the radar, and the fire control system. The paint was even stripped off, leaving a bare metal aircraft. It weighed 1800 pounds less than the stock F-15A. The record attempts were carried out during the winter at Grand Forks AFB in North Dakota to take advantage of the cold temperatures. During the record attempts, only enough fuel was carried to make the specific flight and return to base.

P-42
Accordingly, one of the T-10S prototypes was stripped of all armament, radar and operational equipment, the fin tips were removed, as was the tailboom and the wingtip launch rails. Even the radome was replaced by a lighter metal fairing. Stripped of paint, the aircraft was polished and all drag-producing gaps and joints were sealed. The engines were modified to give an increase in thrust of 2,204lbs - giving the P-42, as the modified aircraft was designated, a phenomenal thrust-to-weight ratio of almost 2:1.
(PS: When P-42 achieved the world records, its weight of taking-off was located at the class of 12,000~16,000 kg. However, the empty weight of the standard fighters of FlanKer family is from 16,500 kg to 18,400 kg: )

And if the declarations from the pilots of UK and Germany are honest enough, comparing with Streak Eagle and P-42, the double-seated EF-2000 (About 500 kg heavier than the one-seat model) can achieve a very close climbing performance without accepting a lot of modifications and playing many tricks theoretically.
Offline

trailmix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2004, 16:39

Unread post08 Feb 2005, 00:35

Wow, are you a professional analyist? Unfortuantely my attention span is shorter than... well its short :whistle:
Squawk 1-2-0-0, resume own navigation~
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3280
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post08 Feb 2005, 05:51

Hey trailmix, you mean I'm not the only one :P ?
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post08 Feb 2005, 06:29

1. I am just a military fan for the NG fighters (F/A-22, F-35, EF-2000, Rafale, JAS-39, T-50, Su-35/37...........) in the world, not a professional military analyst.

2. Well, if you are not as interested to the topic as me, it is reasonable that this topic can't get your attention.
Offline

cru

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 08:25

Unread post08 Feb 2005, 07:42

Without any doubt, the EF will be a superb plane. Just a couple of remarks:
1)
Flug-revue, 1999, Wolfgang Schirdewahn, the Germany test-pilot:"The climibing ability of EF-2000 with 4 BVRAAM and 2 WVRAAM is about 25% better than the F-16 with 2 WVRAAM."


Meantime the EF gained some extra weight (it is true for planes not only for humans :lol: ) so the empty weight of the single seat version exceeds 12,000 kg. So it is possible that this impressive figure (25 % better than the F 16) diminished.

2) Without an AESA,the EF 2000 would be in disadvantage vs. planes with AESA (APG 79, APG 80, and future APG 81 and APG 63 (V)3)

3)It is too early now to elaborate about future super missiles that will enter in service 10 years from now. In this moment AMRAAM rulez!
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post08 Feb 2005, 10:09

The original design of EF-2000 (EFA) is a fighter of the empty weight of 9,750 kg with 4,000 kg internal fuel and 4,500~6,500 kg external weapon load, which made EFA to be a interceptor with almost the same class of thrust to weight ratio and wing-load as F/A-22.

However, the end of cold war made NG fighters in world must emphasize and increase their capability of multirole in order to survive. Therefore, the NG fighters such as F/A-22, F-35, EF-2000, and Rafale have increased their empty weight gradually since the end of 90's.

As for EF-2000, its empty weight reached 9,999~10,500 kg in 1999. According to the designers and builders of EUROFIGHTER, the empty weight of the EF-2000 is 10,995 kg now (Another information declared that EF-2000's empty weight is 11,150 kg for the one-seat and 11,700 kg for the two-seat now). You can find the evidence at the following URL: http://www.eurofighter.com/News/Article ... .asp?n=129

The bonus of the increase of the EF-2000's empty weight from 9,750 kg to the 10,995 kg (or 11,150 kg) are:
  • Internal fuel: 4,000 kg --> 4,600 kg (Another source of information declared 4,996 kg)
  • External weapon load: 4,500~6,500 kg --> 7,500~8,000 kg
By the way, most information and calculation which I mentioned above are based on the most recent data and the estimation of the NG fighters that I can get. I think the most doubtable data should be the data of F/A-22, whose most part (such as empty weight, the "real" thrust of engine) is kept in secret by LM and USAF.
Offline

Wildcat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 12:49

Unread post09 Feb 2005, 13:10

Good work, Toan! :) What you write about the capacity of the radar of the Typhoon to pick the Raptor is really interesting, clearly demonstrating how the stealthy characteristics of the Raptor is not a "magic cloak", which some people sometimes forget. That means that an ambush attack could probably be effective on Raptors (as long as the latters have no clear AWACS-provided picture, which is doubtless, I must recognize). Anyway, interesting reading! :wink:

However, I think the Raptor still keeps a great advantage over the Typhoon, because its greater detection range enables it to enter the fight in the best situation. Moreover, as the Raptor would probably be supercruising all the time, it would begin any fight at highspeed, thus having energy for a long-range shot at any given time.

And, last, I wonder how the seeker of the AMRAAM, or any active-radar missile, would be affected by the very small RCS of the Raptor. I mean: could the radar seeker lock on the Raptor? Does anybody have a clue?
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post09 Feb 2005, 14:26

Thanks for your admiration, Mr. Wildcat, and thanks for the hard-work of Webmaster to revise my post. Without his help, my post may be too long and hard to read.

A few years ago, a team member from an Australian college made a study for the possible choices of the F-X fighter for Australian AF (The origin of the study is from: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/ar ... anker.html However, this study was removed from the web-site after the Australian AF had selected F-35A as its future fighter). According to the team's estimation, during the head-to-head engagement, the Russian active EM seeker (AGAT9B-1103M / 9B1348) for R-77 can only detect F/A-22 at the distance within 5~6 km, and lock it up at the distance within 1~2 km (As for F-15C, the R-77's seeker can detect it 70~80 km away and lock it up 15~20 km away).

Therefore, the Raptor's stealthy design should make the missile with active seeker much harder to lock it up theoretically. The fighter who use the missile with active seeker to attack F/A-22 (Of course, the fighter must lock the Raptor with its radar successfully at first, which has been quite mission impossible.....) may have to keep guiding the missile until the missile is very close to the Raptor. At this kind of situation, the "Active" NG BVRAAM's performance maybe very similar to the "Semi-active" Sparrow that USAF used in Vietnam war. Will it be very hard for a F/A-22 to get rid of a Sparrow's attack, or even kills the shooter at first???
Last edited by toan on 09 Feb 2005, 16:22, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post09 Feb 2005, 15:14

Several NG techonologies for BVRAAM have been studied and developed in order to increase the future BVRAAM's capability to against the LO or the stealthy target:

A. IRST + IIR AAM

Since the IR signal is a relative weak point for the Raptor's stealthy design, therefore, many military experts and fans believe that the NG IRST + NG IIR AAM, such as Pirate + AIM-132 for EF-2000 and FSO + MICA IR for Rafale, may be the No.1 threat in the sky for Raptor in the near future.

However, while the IRST may make the interceptors find out the approaching of F/A-22 earlier than just using the radars, the limitations of IRST are also significant:
  1. While the modern IRST has excellent performance in angular accuracy and imagenry identification, the IRST can't measuring the range by itself, and without range measurment, the fighter's pilot can't catch the right time to fire his missile.

    The FSO for RAFALE has solved this problem partially by installing a laser range finder to the system. Therefore, the french has declared that FSO is the world's first "real passive radar" and it has the ability to against the stealth fighters. However, it is said that the effective range of the laser range finder is only 40 km class.

    As for the PIRATE for EF-2000, up to now, I haven't heared about any news or information that declared the system can measure the range by itself. I think it still need help from the fighter's radar to get the range data of enemy fighter before firing missile.
  2. According to the military information and news that I've read up to now, the modern IRST like FSO or PIRATE still doesn't have the ability to guide a BVRAAM like AIM-120 C/D or Meteor to against the target 40~100+ km away.
  3. Although the modern IRST can detect hundreds of target synchronously, it can just track and lock one target at one time, while the modern radar can track 20~100 targets and engage 4~10 target synchronously.
Therefore, while the modern IRST like FSO and PIRATE may make the fighters like Rafale or EF-2000 to find out the approaching of F/A-22 longer and earlier than just using radar, it doesn't mean the RAFALE and EF-2000 can fire their missile against Raptor at that distance and that time at once. As for the Rafale + FSO + MICA IR, I think the maxium effective range to against the F/A-22 is about 30~40 km class due to the limitation of laser range finder; and as for the EF-2000 + PIRATE + AIM-132, I think the maxium effective range to against the F/A-22 is about 20~25 km class due to the limitation of Captor radar to track F/A-22 and the effective range of AIM-132.

If F/A-22 cruises with the speed of 1.5~1.7 mach class, the maximum effective range of it's AIM-120 C will be 60~80 km class theoretically. Although the effective detective range of IRST like FSO or PIRATE for the Raptor in this high-speed situation may be 70~80 km or even more, Rafale or EF-2000 still has to approach F/A-22 to the distance less than 25~40 km to get the chance to fire their MICA-IR / AIM-132. Before the Rafale or EF-2000 flys to the distance that may threaten F/A-22 with MICA-IR or AIM-132 in head to head engagement, there should be enough time for Raptor to fire two groups of AIM-120 C/D at least from 50~80 km away, turnning with 5G load and flee away with the speed of 1.6~2.0+ Mach class. What is the chance for Rafale or EF-2000 to get rid of (at least) two waves of AIM-120 attack and then chasing up the fighter with the best T/W ratio, acceleration, and practical cruise speed in the world??

B. AESA radar + mechanical motor, AESA arrays of lateral-side, or Conformal Smart Skin AESA Array

These technologies can make the view of 210 to 360 degrees for a fighter to detect / track / lock the target and guide the missile towards the target. In other words, the fighter can keep locking the target and guiding the missile while leaving the target away continuously at the same time.

C. Missile with AESA seeker, or dual/multi-seeker techonology

As far as I know, at least USA, UK, and German have studied these for several years.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post12 Mar 2005, 09:25

Thanks Mr. MP Jay for providing the newest information about F/A-22, and it seems that a little revise is needed for my previous post.

EF-2000 v.s F/A-22, F-35A, F-16E, Rafale, and Su-35

A. Empty weight:B. Internal Fuel:
  • EF-2K: 4,600~4,996 kg
  • F/A-22: 8,300 kg (Revise)
  • F-35A: 8,165 kg+
  • F-16E: 3,160 kg
  • Su-35: 10,250 kg
  • Rafale: 4,500~4,600 kg
C. External Payload:
  • EF-2K: 7,500~8,000 kg+
  • F/A-22: 2,270 kg (Internal weapons); 12,000 kg (Internal + External)
  • F-35A: 5,900 kg+
  • F-16E: 8,000 kg+
  • Su-35: 8,000 kg+
  • Rafale: 9,500 kg+
D. Wing Surface Area:
  • EF-2K: 50.00 m2
  • F/A-22: 78.03 m2
  • F-35A: 42.70 m2
  • F-16E: 27.87 m2
  • Su-35: 62.00 m2
  • Rafale: 45.70 m2
E. Comparison of air-combat weight, T/W ratio, and wing-load among these fighters at the "fair" condition (with the same kind and the amount of AAM weapons + roughly equal combat radius):
  • EF2000: 4,500 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + ASRAAM*2
  • F/A-22: 6,000 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2 (Revise)
  • F-35A: 4,500 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2
  • F-16E: 3,160 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2
  • Su-35: 6,700 kg internal fuel + R-77*4 + R-73M2*2
  • RAFALE: 4,500 kg internal fuel + MICA EM*4 + MICA IR*2
  1. Air-combat weight:

    • EF-2K: 16,500 kg
    • F/A-22: 25,150 kg
    • F-35A: 17,750 kg
    • F-16E: 14,150 kg
    • Su-35: 26,250 kg
    • Rafale: 14,900 kg
  2. Wing-load (Revise):
    • EF-2K: 330 kg/m2: Score: 97.5
    • F/A-22: 322 kg/m2: Score: 100
    • F-35A: 416 kg/m2: Score: 77.4
    • F-16E: 508 kg/m2: Score: 63.4
    • Su-35: 423 kg/m2: Score: 76.2
    • Rafale: 326 kg/m2: Score: 98.8
  3. T/W ratio, sea-level(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust):

    • EF-2000: 1.11/0.74(EJ200, peace time, 20,250 Ib/13,500 Ib *2): Score: 100/100(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
    • EF-2000: 1.17/0.85 (EJ200, war time, 21,265 Ib/15,525 Ib *2): Score: 105/115
    • EF-2000: 1.26/0.85 (EJ200, small revision, 22,945 Ib/15,525 Ib *2): Score: 113/115
    • EF-2000: 1.27/0.89 (EJ230, post-2010~2015?, 23,100 Ib/16,200 Ib *2): Score: 114/115
    • EF-2000: 1.48/0.96 (EJ270, post-2015~2020?, 27,000 Ib/17,500 Ib *2): Score: 133/130
    • F/A-22: 1.26/0.92 (F-119, official declaration, 35,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 113/124 (Revise)
    • F/A-22: 1.37/0.92 (F-119, expert estimation~1, 38,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 123/124 (Revise)
    • F/A-22: 1.41/0.92 (F-119, expert estimation~2, 39,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 127/124 (Revise)
    • F-16E: 1.04/0.61 (F-110-GE-132, peace time, 32,500 Ib/19,000 Ib *1): Score: 94/82
    • F-16E: 1.09/0.61 (F-110-GE-132, war time, 34,000 Ib/19,000 Ib *1): Score: 98/82
    • F-16E: 1.17/???? (F-110-GE-XXX, post-2010~2015?, 37,000 Ib/????Ib*1): Score: 105/???
    • Su-35: 1.10/0.65 (AL-37FU, nowadays, 31,970 Ib/18,740 Ib *2): Score: 99/88
    • Su-35: 1.24/0.83 (AL-41F1, post-2010~2015?, 36,000 Ib/24,000 Ib *2): Score: 112/112
    • RAFALE C: 1.03/0.69 (M88-2, nowadays, 16,870 Ib/11,245 Ib *2): Score: 93/93
    • RAFALE C: 1.21/0.81 (M88-3, post-2010, 20,250 Ib/13,500 Ib *2): Score: 109/109
F. Comparison of the strike radius of the NG fighters

  • F/A-22

    Internal fuel and the weapon load of SDB*8 + AIM-120C/D*2 + AIM-9X*2. The weapon load is about 3,200 Ib/1,450kg in weight.

    Combat radius:
    • With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 100 NM during the mission: 405 NM / 750 km.
    • With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 50 NM during the mission: 455 NM / 840 km.
    • Sub-sonic cruise during the whole mission: 595 NM/1,100 km
    Source: http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp
  • F-35 A/B/C

    F-35 A and C: Internal fuel and the wepon load of 2,000 Ib bomb*2 + AIM-120C*2. The weapon load is about 4,700 Ib/2,130kg in weight.

    F-35 B: Internal fuel and the wepon load of 1,000 Ib bomb*2 + AIM-120C*2. The weapon load is about 2,700 Ib/1,225kg in weight.

    Combat radius:
    • F-35A(Internal fuel: 8,300 kg):703 NM/1,300 km
    • F-35B(Internal fuel: 6,080 kg):496 NM/920 km
    • F-35C(Internal fuel: 8,633 kg):799 NM/1,480 km
    Source: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm
  • F/A-18E/F

    Combat radius:
    • 720 km(hi-lo-lo-hi, 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*2 + 1000 lb bomb*4 + AIM-9 *2. The weapon load is about 4,400 Ib/1,995 kg in weight.)
    • 1,230 km(hi-hi-hi, 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*3 + 1000 lb bomb*4 + AIM-9 *2 + pod *2)
    • 855 km(Air-interdiction with 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*3)
    • 800 km(Mission of escort, AIM-120*2 + AIM-9*2 and internal fuel only)
      -> Comparing with F/A-22 of 1,100 km-class striking radius(Sub-sonic during the whole mission, internal fuel only, and the wepon load of SDB*8 + AIM-120C/D*2 + AIM-9X*2), I estimate that with the internal fuel only and the same class of payload for air-combat, the F/A-22's combat radius should be 40~50% longer than the combat radius of the fighters such as F/A-18E/F, EF-2000, and Rafale.
    • CAP: 2 hrs and 15 mins(six AAMs and external tanks, 280 km from the carrier)
    Source: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-18E.htm
  • EF-2000

    Combat radius:
    • 650 km(BVRAAM*4 + WVRAAM*2 + 7,000 Ib payload, lo-lo-lo)
    • 1,390 km(Basic payload for air-combat + LGB*3 + ARM*2 +pod, hi-lo-hi)
    • 1,390 km (Air-combat of long range with 10 mins residual fuel)
    • CAP: 3hrs(six AAMs and external tanks, 100 nm(185 km) from the base)

  • Rafale

    Combat radius:
    • 1,100 km(Tank*3 with 4,300 L external fuel + MICA AAM*4 + 1,000 Ib bomb*12. The weapon load is about 13,000 Ib/5,900 kg in weight)
    • 1,830 km(CFT*2 with 2,300 L external fuel + Tank*3 with 5,700 L external fuel + SCALP-EG*2 + MICA AAM*2. The weapon load is about 8,820 Ib/4,000 kg in weight)
    • 1,852 km(Air-combat of long range, tank*4 with 6,600L external fuel + MICA AAM*8)
    • CAP: more than 2hrs(Rafale M with six AAMs and three 1,250L tanks, 100 nm(185 km) from the carrier)
Offline

Pumpkin

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2003, 21:12

Unread post12 Mar 2005, 12:52

toan wrote:B. AESA radar + mechanical motor, AESA arrays of lateral-side, or Conformal Smart Skin AESA Array

These technologies can make the view of 210 to 360 degrees for a fighter to detect / track / lock the target and guide the missile towards the target. In other words, the fighter can keep locking the target and guiding the missile while leaving the target away continuously at the same time.


great effort on your interest toan. Thanks for sharing. I am intrigued by the above mentioned. These are planned for the EF-2000?

210 to 360 degrees is a rather large coverage planned for a fighter. AESA arrays of lateral-side and Conformal 'Smart Skin' AESA Array sound like the technologies for AEW platforms (Erieye & PHALCON). And the AESA radar + mechanical motor is new to me. Again, I appreciate if you can direct me to some references to the articles.

cheers,
Desmond
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post12 Mar 2005, 16:14

http://www.iee.org/oncomms/pn/radar/Roulston.pdf

This is a document of the introduction of the newest study and effort of BAES for the fire-control radar of fighters. Please pay a little more attention to the page 16 of document. That is the scenario what AESA radar + mechanical motor, AESA arrays of lateral-side, or Conformal Smart Skin AESA Array wants to achieve.

All that I can say now is that the big military manufacturers in the western world such as Raythoon, BAES, EADS, THALES, Ericsson and so on should have the similar study and research, and they may have the chance to be incorpoprated to NG fighters such as F/A-22, F-35, EF-2000, Rafale, JAS-39 and so on one day. But when?? I have no answer now. The life of the NG western fighter is just begining, and it should be very, very long..........

When F-15 got into service in 1972, who knows it will be able to got an AESA radar one day????
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests