F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Corsair1963 wrote:

In what way would a Typhoon or Rafale enjoy better combat persisitence or firepower range over the Lightning???

I think he is of the opinion that a Typhoon or Rafale can carry over 10 AAMs if that is what the operator wants it to do. The F-35 will not be able to do the same unless it carries external stores. This is a frequently coined argument against the F-35.

The answer to this question is rather simple. The question one has to ask really should be "Is the typical combat load of the Typhoon or Rafale -- 4~6 AAMs in addition to a tank or two -- sufficient". And "How often do they ever sling more than that." If this is sufficient, then the F-35's loadout capability of at least 4 AAMs internally and more likely 6 with the appropriate ejectors is also sufficient.

IMHO, it is sufficient and an aircraft is only as persistent as it is survivable; when you are shot down you can no longer fight. When you take into account flight performance, sensors, networking ability and stealth, it is also my opinion that the F-35 is much more survivable and effective in A2A combat than an Eurocanard.

Surly this debate about A2A effectiveness should also be around weapon performance. The warfighter's capability comes from the weapons deployed. Otherwise the aircraft is not much more than an expensive dustcover for engines and avionics! Typhoon with ASRAAM and Meteor (or Rafale with Mica IR & RF plus Meteor) vs. F-35 with AIM-9X (External only) and AIM-120. No real contest, as its 5th generation weapons against 4th. But put new weapons on F-35 and it could be interesting. F-35 is also not invisible; I think from certain aspects angles (and from the rear) that the aircraft will not have a particularly low rcs, therefore making it a little vulnerable! It will certainly not have the nose pointing authority of a Typhoon, an important factor in A2A combat. In my opinion, both aircraft are good for what they are designed to do. Both aircraft will do that in very different ways.

Thumper3181 wrote:You obviously do not understand the advantages Stealth brings to the table.
You do not understand AESA
You seriously underestimate the power of net centric warfare.

... you obviously dont understand the purpose of my earlier posts...

Thumper3181 wrote:Raptor and Lightening would be shooting these planes out of the sky long before the eurocanards could use Pirate.

... and this proves it, now Im being confused by one of those "IRST-beats-everything" guys.

Thumper3181 wrote:Better to buy a potent 5th gen fighter than the Eurocanards who are obsolete the moment the Lightening enters production.

Obsolete?! Your seriously believe that? Your kidding yourself.

What I dont understand is why people are taking this discussion to F-35 VS Canards dogfights. I never even went close to that, and this discussion has come off target realy.

Tintin wrote:Surly this debate about A2A effectiveness should also be around weapon performance. The warfighter's capability comes from the weapons deployed. Otherwise the aircraft is not much more than an expensive dustcover for engines and avionics! Typhoon with ASRAAM and Meteor (or Rafale with Mica IR & RF plus Meteor) vs. F-35 with AIM-9X (External only) and AIM-120. No real contest, as its 5th generation weapons against 4th. But put new weapons on F-35 and it could be interesting. F-35 is also not invisible; I think from certain aspects angles (and from the rear) that the aircraft will not have a particularly low rcs, therefore making it a little vulnerable! It will certainly not have the nose pointing authority of a Typhoon, an important factor in A2A combat. In my opinion, both aircraft are good for what they are designed to do. Both aircraft will do that in very different ways.

A few things...

(1) The only missile mentioned above that is one generation ahead of the rest is the Meteor. Perhaps half a generation because it is really very much like an AMRAAM other than the air breathing sustainer. There is no technological or capabilities enhancement over the AIM-120 other than propulsion. The MICA is nothing more than an ASRAAM class motor (6.3") trying to play the role of both a WVR dogfight missile and a medium range AAM. It is available in two versions because an RF seeker is not ideal for short range HOBS engagement, whereas an IR one is inferior of BVR missions because of its shorter range homing basket. The problem is that it is neither as fast nor as long ranged as the AIM-120 because it is a smaller missile with a lower energy content and with higher drag broad strakes. The MICA is in every way inferior as a BVR AAM compared to the AMRAAM other than the fact that it is a little smaller and lighter to carry. Both the ASRAAM and the AIM-9X are available to both the Typhoon and the F-35, the former being optimized for longer ranged NBVR shots whereas the later is optimised for maximum HOBS performance.

(2) The F-35 will also carry the Meteor if the client's country operates this missile. MBDA made this very clear because they don't want to lose out on the potentially dominant fighter in the 21st century in terms of market share. In fact, under the current plans there will NOT be two versions of the meteor. There will be only one. The Meteor's fins and ducts will be made compliant with the F-35's internal weapons envelope if it is not already.

(3) There is no reason the AIM-9X has to be an external only missile. It is certainly small enough and light enough to fit internally. The only thing one can say is that internal carriage will not be available by 2009 because it didn't make the list of weapons that will be the first ones to be certified for F-35 carriage.

F-35 is not planned to have ejection rails for internal bays, and it makes sense, because they would waste for AMRAAM space. That is not an issue on the F-22.

By no means I am here to diss out the F-35, infact I would like it to replace my countries F-16's some day but I find the claims that Eurocanards are obsolete to be highly innacurate and dissing themselves.

Pilotasso wrote:F-35 is not planned to have ejection rails for internal bays, and it makes sense, because they would waste for AMRAAM space. That is not an issue on the F-22.

By no means I am here to diss out the F-35, infact I would like it to replace my countries F-16's some day but I find the claims that Eurocanards are obsolete to be highly innacurate and dissing themselves.

(1) The F-35 has two ejectors (they are not rails) on the doors of the internal bays. These are rated for 350 lbs making them suitable only for AAMs. The two bays also have two heavy weapon stations. These are really hard points rated for 2500 lbs each. A variety of ejectors may be placed on it to accomodate one, two or four weapons simultaneously. The only condition being that the total load must not exceed 2500 lbs and the weapons must fit. We know for sure that AAMs like the AIM-120 and the Meteor fits the envelope that is > 4.13m long. Width is harder to determine, but it will be >18" wide at the top (because the 2000 lb JDAM's fins are that wide and they go all the way to the top). Because of the trapezoidal shape of the bay we know that the bay has to be wider lower down. By looking at the photographs available, it appears that the bay is ~28" wide half way down and about 35" wide at the mouth. Two AIM-120s in a staggered arrangement only require 22.75" width including a 0.5" clearance, which is why many believe that two can be accomodated in the weapon station. In addition to the door rail that makes a total of 3 AAMs per bay or 6 total in internal carriage.

(2) The suspicion that the F-35 is capable of 6 internal AAMs of the AIM-120 class was further reinforced by comments made by the JSF program officials. For instance, during a visit to Canberra Australia in October 2006, (USAF) General Charles Davis -- Program Executive Officer of the F-35 program -- commented that "the F-35A’s internal carriage weapons bays have volume to carry more than four missiles, with studies underway to develop a new rack to carry additional weapons.".

http://www.adbr.com.au/download/2510.pdf (See Page 23)

(3) The Eurocanards are not obsolete compared to the general fighter landscape of the world. But they are clearly outdated and out classed both in A2A and A2G combat when compared to the F-35. This is because they were designed around the same paradigm as the F-16 -- small, light, agile -- with incremental improvements in the areas of agility and to a lesser extent cruising speed. They do not offer a better value either in terms of purchase price. life-time costs and/or operability. This makes them dogs in the market place once the F-35 comes onto the stage full swing.[/url]

Well I still see a problem for the 9X employment from the F-35's internal bay. Its that the missile has to be extended outside the bay prior to launch, the weight and number of weapons in the bay space are not an issue if you can just drop them. Like JDAM or AMRAAM. But then the whole picture changes when you need to extend 1 missile out of that space before firing it. Either you discart all other weapons on that rack to carry the Sidwinder, or all wepons on the same rack are extended out together. This may necessitate a beefier reinforced rack, not only due to the weight involved but because now its got moving parts that have to endure the stresses of high G combat, and that may offset and cancel out the number of weapons you inteded to add in the first place.

Besides a bely position is a horrible place to have a heat seeker when you need to cue it with the helmet on the widest viewcone possible.

Pilotasso wrote:Well I still see a problem for the 9X employment from the F-35's internal bay. Its that the missile has to be extended outside the bay prior to launch, the weight and number of weapons in the bay space are not an issue if you can just drop them. Like JDAM or AMRAAM. But then the whole picture changes when you need to extend 1 missile out of that space before firing it. Either you discart all other weapons on that rack to carry the Sidwinder, or all wepons on the same rack are extended out together. This may necessitate a beefier reinforced rack, not only due to the weight involved but because now its got moving parts that have to endure the stresses of high G combat, and that may offset and cancel out the number of weapons you inteded to add in the first place.

Besides a bely position is a horrible place to have a heat seeker when you need to cue it with the helmet on the widest viewcone possible.

Actually, if the AIM-9X is put in the door position, it will be fired in lock-on before launch mode only for relatively straight forward bore sight shots. In every other scenario, it'll be fired in lock-on after launch mode. The HMD or radar or DAS or EOTS or EW sensors or a combination of the above will provide an estimated position of the target to the AIM-9X immediately prior to launch. The seeker itself doesn't see the target. The missile will pitch towards the previously memorized approximate target location after release and wil try to acquire and lock onto the target after weapons release and initial maneuvering. The ASRAAM is operated in the same manner.

Whether the missile leaves the aircraft on a rail or is ejected really doesn't matter at all.

The F-22 has a rail that extends outwards to maximize the AIM-9's seeker field of view partly because it was designed prior to the AIM-9X's introduction. The F-22 was designed to operate the AIM-9M/L from the internal bays and these missiles can only be used in LOBL mode.

Pilotasso wrote:Well I still see a problem for the 9X employment from the F-35's internal bay. Its that the missile has to be extended outside the bay prior to launch, the weight and number of weapons in the bay space are not an issue if you can just drop them. Like JDAM or AMRAAM. But then the whole picture changes when you need to extend 1 missile out of that space before firing it. Either you discart all other weapons on that rack to carry the Sidwinder, or all wepons on the same rack are extended out together. This may necessitate a beefier reinforced rack, not only due to the weight involved but because now its got moving parts that have to endure the stresses of high G combat, and that may offset and cancel out the number of weapons you inteded to add in the first place.

Besides a bely position is a horrible place to have a heat seeker when you need to cue it with the helmet on the widest viewcone possible.

JSF will most likely do AMRAAM internal, which btw isn't so bad at closer ranges.



large image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... stores.jpg

I know AMRAAM is to be going internal but I had some doubts, and still have from AIM-9X's internal bay. Even Lock after launch from an internal bay (thx dwightlooi , completely missed that one out) doesnt sound too good if you have more planes in the same directions as the target does or if you want to keep the same number of AMRAAMs and not trade one for another.

Pilotasso wrote:I know AMRAAM is to be going internal but I had some doubts, and still have from AIM-9X's internal bay. Even Lock after launch from an internal bay (thx dwightlooi , completely missed that one out) doesnt sound too good if you have more planes in the same directions as the target does or if you want to keep the same number of AMRAAMs and not trade one for another.

Well, this afflicts the ASRAAM too. And, there are two solutions to the problem.

The first is relatively straight forward. If you put the AIM-9X or ASRAAM on the door rails they will at least be able to look forward pretty well. In situations where you have the above concerns, then you use LOBL release and you don't employ the extreme HOBS option.

The second is based on upgrading the weapon. The ASRAAM and the AIM-9X both have imaging IR sensors and modern image processors. Working in conjunction with the F-35, the target type can be identified and a set of IR signatures downloaded to the missile. The missile will then have to perform image recognition and homing in only one the target type it knows it is supposed to go after.

Here is a very nice photo to share

Holy cow! It almost seems that they were trying to fly it into the cargo bay!

almost

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-7324.html

With regards to the F-35 vs. the Eurofighter (or any 5th generation vs. 4.5 generation fighter)...I also think one has to keep in mind the enormous R&D costs the US has sunk into creating the F-22 and F-35. The F-35 will borrow heavily on the advances of the F-22.

- F-22 R&D cost: $33.0B
- F-35 R&D cost: $36.5B ($40.5B including 10% foreign contribution)
- Typhoon R&D cost: $8.0B (I've seen as high as $19B, but this included the purchase of a number of aircraft as well)

I'm truely impressed by the Eurocanards and would love to claim that my country is producing better aircraft, but I think this is not a level playing field. As it shouldn't be. When all is done, the US will have an spent $69.5B on R&D for these 2 aircraft. To give a benchmark, the defense budget in 2006 for Britain was $66.7B and France was $39.3B.

Jeff