Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

The optical sensor suite is called "TIGER Eyes Sensor Suite"

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2002/LockheedMartinWins163MillionOrderFo.html

The sensor itself is called "AN/AAS-42" and was originally on the F-14D. Lockheed has recently made updates to it in order to integrate into ANY fighter by utilizing a special Centerline tank/IRST combo. Details here.

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/combatvision/F14%20IRST/product-F14_IRST.shtml

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

On F-15 V Typhoon, I would be extremely disappointed it the Tiffie couldn`t whack an F-15 every time.

I guess you would be disappointed then since there is no factual basis (and no one has ever come up with a better reason the "the F-15 is 30 years old") for it. Especially an F-15 with the GE engines, an AESA and AIM-120 C8. You see you don;t want to get into electronics Snypa but at the end of the day that is what counts.

Quote:

the Typhoon "may" be able to position itself more ably because of it`s supersonic cranking ability.

The F-15 has a higher top speed, greater range, and an AESA so I really don't think so.

Quote:

As far as flight dynamics, turning ability, you got to hand it to the Typhoon, which is a plus as far as WVR goes with guns.

Do I ? Any particular reason other than BAEs say so?

Quote:

The F-15 is a 9g aircraft although I understand this is actually limited along with top speed to preserve airframe life.

I actually expected better of you. Whether this is true or not is moot. During wartime do you really think that there would be this limitation?

Quote:

It is interesting to me that an RAF jockey who was qualified on the Viper and flew on secondment with the USAF has said that the Viper is the most challenging opponent he has faced in the Typhoon, not the F-15. (The Typhoon is now his steed).

It really all depends on what F-15/F-16 he flew. Second what is he going to say, the EF sucks?

Quote:

I have also heard comments from guys who did dozens of JOUST simulations who have said they Shwacked the F-15 every time whilst flying Typhoon.

On so many levels thanks for the laugh.

Quote:

There are two attributes that I see consistently mentioned about the Tiffie and are described as "breathtaking"by aircrew , these are the EJ200`s and the CAPTOR.

Absolutely after you have been flying Tornados.

Quote:

Before anyone says it, manoeuvrability still matters

Which the Starship still has in spades.

I wrote:

On F-15 V Typhoon, I would be extremely disappointed it the Tiffie couldn`t whack an F-15 every time.

Thumper wrote:

I guess you would be disappointed then since there is no factual basis (and no one has ever come up with a better reason the "the F-15 is 30 years old") for it. Especially an F-15 with the GE engines, an AESA and AIM-120 C8. You see you don;t want to get into electronics Snypa but at the end of the day that is what counts.

Ok, I would be disappointed because the Typhoon is DESIGNED to be better than the F-15 in many aspects. Didn`t see anything wrong with that comment? By the way,show me an F-15 carrying AIM-120 D.

I wrote:

the Typhoon "may" be able to position itself more ably because of it`s supersonic cranking ability.

Thumper wrote:

The F-15 has a higher top speed, greater range, and an AESA so I really don't think so.

Higher top speed, AESA or greater range do not equate to better supersonic turning ability.

I wrote:

As far as flight dynamics, turning ability, you got to hand it to the Typhoon, which is a plus as far as WVR goes with guns.

Thumper wrote:

Do I ? Any particular reason other than BAEs say so?

Not at all, the guy with the better turning ability is going to gun you. Take any two aircraft you want.

Thumper wrote:

It is interesting to me that an RAF jockey who was qualified on the Viper and flew on secondment with the USAF has said that the Viper is the most challenging opponent he has faced in the Typhoon, not the F-15. (The Typhoon is now his steed).

Thumper wrote:

It really all depends on what F-15/F-16 he flew. Second what is he going to say, the EF sucks?

He was referring to a turning fight and the ability to get on the other guys six. If the Typhoon sucked, word would be out, in the same way RAF crews told us that the F.3 Tornado sucked and couldn`t turn for sh*t.

I wrote:

I have also heard comments from guys who did dozens of JOUST simulations who have said they Shwacked the F-15 every time whilst flying Typhoon.

Thumper wrote:

On so many levels thanks for the laugh.

Glad to see that the serious and well thought out simulator time spent by non USAF pilots gives you a belly laugh!

Quote:

There are two attributes that I see consistently mentioned about the Tiffie and are described as "breathtaking"by aircrew , these are the EJ200`s and the CAPTOR.

Thumper wrote:

Absolutely after you have been flying Tornados.

The comments come from guys who have flown F-16s, F-4s, MIG-29s, F-18s, basically European air force pilots.

I wrote:

Before anyone says it, manoeuvrability still matters

Thumper wrote:

Which the Starship still has in spades.

The Tiffie is the ultimate evolution of teen series fighters, newer technology, newer construction techniques, light weight coupled with strong engines, nose pointing ability, Thumper, the F-15 is a superb machine but I think newer machines have overtaken it now, stop holding onto warm memories mate, eventually everything gets bettered. The USAF itself thinks the Su-30 with TVC beats the F-15 in so many ways but of course you wouldn`t agree.
Cool

Thumper3181 wrote:

I guess you would be disappointed then since there is no factual basis (and no one has ever come up with a better reason the "the F-15 is 30 years old") for it.

There plenty of reasons why the Typhoon can be considered as superior in the AA area. Your problem is that you ignore any comments and that you are not willed to accept anything which doesn't suit your mind.
Everything said without pointing to a source is "pulled out of the a$$" in your opinion, posting sources doesn't change anything for you because all what is said about the Typhoon which doesn't suit your mind is "propaganda" and/or "overhype". Face it you are not willed to admit any strength of the Typhoon, because you hate this aircraft, why ever.

Quote:

Especially an F-15 with the GE engines, an AESA and AIM-120 C8. You see you don;t want to get into electronics Snypa but at the end of the day that is what counts.

[Thumber mode on]
Prove with a source that a GE equipped Eagle performs better than the Typhoon. Prove that the C-8 is in service with any F-15. Yes the V3 which isn't in service yet is superior to the Captor as an advanced AESA system, but the aircraft's avionics doesn't soley consist of the radar. Prove that the F-15 has any superior electronics except for the radar, which will be superior when it enters service from next year or so.

Quote:

Do I ? Any particular reason other than BAEs say so?

No because everyone with the slightest clue says it. Engineers, pilots and experts of all kind from around the world. But of course your opinion is more worse than that of 1000s of people around the world.

Quote:

Absolutely after you have been flying Tornados.

And Jaguars, Phantoms, Starfighters, F-18s, F-16s, F-15s, Harriers, Lightnings, MiG-29s etc etc.

Quote:

Ok, I would be disappointed because the Typhoon is DESIGNED to be better than the F-15 in many aspects. Didn`t see anything wrong with that comment? By the way,show me an F-15 carrying AIM-120 D.

The EF was designed to beat the SU-27 and it’s derivatives. AIM-120D is scheduled to achieve IOC this fall. You can bet if they are needed they would be used.

Quote:

Higher top speed, AESA or greater range do not equate to better supersonic turning ability.

Do you know how big of a turn any fighter makes at supersonic speeds. Do you realize that by the time the plane is turned around the enemy is either long gone or flying right at you. Do you know just how much air combat is done past M 1. The general limit for everyone, British pilots, Americans ones and Swahili ones is somewhere around 9g. So, supersonic turning ability, okay, whatever. I think anyone in their right mind would take the superior FCS and range. You can do so much more with it.

If the Typhoon sucked, word would be out, in the same way RAF crews told us that the F.3 Tornado sucked and couldn`t turn for sh*t.

Quote:

As I recall (and I am old enough to remember), the crappy turning characteristics of the Tornado did not come out until well after production ceased.

Quote:

The USAF itself thinks the Su-30 with TVC beats the F-15 in so many ways but of course you wouldn`t agree.

The air force, for better or worse wants more Raptors, not upgraded Eagles.

Thumper wrote:

The EF was designed to beat the SU-27 and it’s derivatives. AIM-120D is scheduled to achieve IOC this fall. You can bet if they are needed they would be used.

The Su, in the right hands, is a match for the F-15 in the hands of a pilot with similar abilities. This is the USAF assessment. Yes, you wanted the Raptor but that is a poor excuse, really. It was a candid admission I think, with a large dose of the truth. The other guy has caught up, especially in flight dynamics. Look at the records the Su has busted which were formally Eagle territory as an example.
If the Typhoon was designed to beat the Su-27, it was certainly built to beat the older Eagle don`t you think?

Thumper wrote:

Do you know how big of a turn any fighter makes at supersonic speeds. Do you realize that by the time the plane is turned around the enemy is either long gone or flying right at you. Do you know just how much air combat is done past M 1. The general limit for everyone, British pilots, Americans ones and Swahili ones is somewhere around 9g. So, supersonic turning ability, okay, whatever. I think anyone in their right mind would take the superior FCS and range. You can do so much more with it.

You don`t have to pull 9g to make a supersonic turn. It depends on the radius. I talked about positioning for a BVR fight before the merge, not trying to get on his six. This is something the Indian Su-30 pilots talked during the recent bilateral exercise with the RAF. They stated that the Typhoon was at an advantage in that area over their own mounts.

I am not a pilot and don`t pretend to understand these tactics fully, but it was a plus for the Tiffie as far as the IAF were concerned.

In addition, the F-15 is in burner whilst the Typhoon isn`t, burning much less gas. Typhoon pilots say that is a great attribute, the ability to pull higher speeds without using burner.

Thumper wrote:

As I recall (and I am old enough to remember), the crappy turning characteristics of the Tornado did not come out until well after production ceased.

Not really, we all heard in the UK about the "Cement radar" and poor turning ability whilst the F.3 variants were being converted from the IDS variants. It was already known that the Tornado was no dogfighter.

Thumper wrote:

The air force, for better or worse wants more Raptors, not upgraded Eagles.

For sure, because the world has caught up, the way to stay ahead is to produce Stealth fighters like the F-22 with TVC whilst the Eagle, like Elvis, leaves the building. Enter stage left....the F-22.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Do you know how big of a turn any fighter makes at supersonic speeds. Do you realize that by the time the plane is turned around the enemy is either long gone or flying right at you. Do you know just how much air combat is done past M 1. The general limit for everyone, British pilots, Americans ones and Swahili ones is somewhere around 9g. So, supersonic turning ability, okay, whatever. I think anyone in their right mind would take the superior FCS and range. You can do so much more with it.

I suppose you never heared about g-onset, flight envelope, sustained g-performance, nose pointing capabilities and the like. If you would be aware of such things you wouldn't talk that much BS.

Blah, blah, blah.....y'all still debating this?

I know its been thrown arround a bit but i think everyone is underestimating the advantages held by advnaced variants of the F15, nameley radar/missile combo, comperable kinematics with more fuel. More fuel means more energy, not just more range. APG 63 (v)3 and AIM 120D will be a devistating missile/radar combination, and a real advantage over Block 5/10 typhoons. These factors dominate BVR performance, thats why a truck like tornado F3 can hold its own vs an F15 in BVR exercises, it has a good radar and can move. The difference in this scenario is that the '15 has a better radar rather than a comperable one, with comperable kinimatics and more fuel to utilise it. These are serious advantages in the outfield fight.

On the other hand the typhoon does have a much smaller frontal RCS, due to its smaller profile and some reduction measures, and this is a real advantage over moderised eagles. I think we can al agree the typhoon handles better in practicaly all flight regimes, and should be able to out turn an '15 if they were going to guns. Now if CAESAR turnes out to be a decent AESA radar, which i'm slightly doubtfull because it will be the europeans first operational model, then Typhoon will hold allmost all the cards. As it stands now, its radar really lets it down in this scenario.

Quote:

The Su, in the right hands, is a match for the F-15 in the hands of a pilot with similar abilities.

No argument, the F-15C as well as the Eurofighter. We are not talking about an F-15C though. We are talking about the new F-15s coming off the line going to Korea, and Singapore as well as the planned, funded, and already implemented upgrades to the USAFs fleet. Your problem as well as some others here is that you keep thinking about the F-15 of 2000 while I am talking about the F-15 of 2006/2009. And yes you can compare it to the Tranch 2 Typhoons.

Quote:

It was a candid admission I think, with a large dose of the truth. The other guy has caught up, especially in flight dynamics.

Not in the least. The F-22 is the future. Billions where spent on it and it is head and shoulders superior to anything else flying or projected to be flying in the next 20 years. The line is hot now for F-22s and the USAF wants to get as many of them as possible. What do you want in your air force, a very competitive airplane that can more than hold it's own today and perhaps with continued upgrades for the next 10-15 years or a shiny new jet that totally blows away anything else flying. Take a look at the USN of the 90's. They mothballed plenty of 15 year old destroyers and frigates in favor of newer more capable designs. So no, your statement above does not hold water. Why else would the AF be upgrading the Eagles?

Quote:

In addition, the F-15 is in burner whilst the Typhoon isn`t, burning much less gas. Typhoon pilots say that is a great attribute, the ability to pull higher speeds without using burner.

Show me something that says for how long, what speed and how high. The fact is EF's "supercruise" is more marketing hype. It "supercruises like a lot of other high performance jets. Second, M1.2 is not that big of a speed advantage over M.95 which the F-15 is optimized for and can do all day long. In fact even if (and I would contend that it can) the F-15 can't supercruise to the extent the EF can, it's greater range and high top cruising speed will allow it to travel farther faster.

Quote:

Blah, blah, blah.....y'all still debating this?

If you don't like it STFU and stay out of it.

Quote:

I know its been thrown arround a bit but i think everyone is underestimating the advantages held by advnaced variants of the F15, nameley radar/missile combo, comperable kinematics with more fuel. More fuel means more energy, not just more range. APG 63 (v)3 and AIM 120D

Someone gets it.

Quote:

On the other hand the typhoon does have a much smaller frontal RCS

I'm not sure it's enough to matter in a practical sense. Does help, sure but being a little stealthy is not like being a little bit pregnant. I think anyone who really knows the true RCS of the EF is not going to be able to say what it is and if it matters. However, what we all know about stealth that is in the public domain is that while you can reduce frontal RCS to an extent with RAM, leading treatments and inlet design you can only do it to a certain extent and at a small angle.

Quote:

then Typhoon will hold allmost all the cards.

First keep in mind most of the supposed performance advantages are not very great. Name one instance that you can quantify a useful performance parameter where the Typhoon is significantly superior. In fact I can think of two where the Eagle is. Top speed and range.
Second do not discount the Eagle's avionics.

Sorry but once you get past the EF induced hype you find a very capable interceptor with a still to be developed ground attack capability in a package the size of an F-18 at an astronomical cost. Buy 700 F-22s an see what the unit price would be. I guarantee it would be closer to 90 million than 122 million.
Do not discount combat persistence

Thumper wrote:

No argument, the F-15C as well as the Eurofighter. We are not talking about an F-15C though. We are talking about the new F-15s coming off the line going to Korea, and Singapore as well as the planned, funded, and already implemented upgrades to the USAFs fleet. Your problem as well as some others here is that you keep thinking about the F-15 of 2000 while I am talking about the F-15 of 2006/2009. And yes you can compare it to the Tranch 2 Typhoons.

Not at all, the main area of Typhoon advantage is in turning ability. It will out turn ANY F-15 of any era, no electronics upgrade or super duper radar is going to change that. What electronics and long range BVRAAMS will do is offset the advantage BVR. This is what the USAF is doing right now and the reasons are to try to keep the F-15 competitive with other, newer jets.

This has it`s limits though, as I have mentioned, there is only so much you can do without completely building a new jet.

I wrote:

It was a candid admission I think, with a large dose of the truth. The other guy has caught up, especially in flight dynamics.

Thumper wrote:

So no, your statement above does not hold water. Why else would the AF be upgrading the Eagles?

Very simple answer to that one. The USAF is only getting 183 Raptors. What`s left? Hundreds of F-15`s which are still slated for the air defence role.
The fact that the F-15 is being upgraded is an admission that there are threats out there that have the potential to knock the Eagle off it`s perch of A2A king.

Quote:

In addition, the F-15 is in burner whilst the Typhoon isn`t, burning much less gas. Typhoon pilots say that is a great attribute, the ability to pull higher speeds without using burner.

Thumper wrote:

Show me something that says for how long, what speed and how high. The fact is EF's "supercruise" is more marketing hype. It "supercruises like a lot of other high performance jets. Second, M1.2 is not that big of a speed advantage over M.95 which the F-15 is optimized for and can do all day long. In fact even if (and I would contend that it can) the F-15 can't supercruise to the extent the EF can, it's greater range and high top cruising speed will allow it to travel farther faster.

Typhoon can supercruise, end of story. It has demonstrated this with fuel tanks and stores, first in Singapore. Supercruise means that Tiffie can cruise at high speeds without using burner.
From Pilot comments, interviews etc, I have seen that the Typhoon can also fight at high speed without absolutely needing burners, not as much as your F-15.. I can post some of these interviews if you would like. Just ask.

Thumper, you know very well that nobody is going to post the figures you ask for because just like with the F-22, there has never been ANY official confirmation on true supercruise performance. It is ironic that F-22 fans just accept it as gospel. When it comes to the Typhoon, these claims are usually met with derision.

The range issue is obvious, but the only issue is combat persistence, not what happens after the mergw.

Ozzy wrote:

I know its been thrown arround a bit but i think everyone is underestimating the advantages held by advnaced variants of the F15, nameley radar/missile combo, comperable kinematics with more fuel. More fuel means more energy, not just more range. APG 63 (v)3 and AIM 120D

More fuel also means more weight, more fuel burned to get comparable performance because burners are lit for longer, no AIM-120 D as yet, your comments on CAPTOR are remarkably short sighted. It is a fantastic AI radar by all accounts. I cannot make comparisons between the APG-63 V and CAPTOR, the only advantage I see is in LPI operation but the Typhoon DASS should not be underestimated. I do doubt that the Eagles radar has a "significant" range advantage over CAPTOR. CAESAR, yes, a first serious attempt at a fighter AESA but Europe has been making electronically scanned radars for years, I have no doubt it will be every bit as good as the APG-63 v.

Quote:

On the other hand the typhoon does have a much smaller frontal RCS

Thumper wrote:

I'm not sure it's enough to matter in a practical sense.

So, lets get this right Thumper, all the RCS reduction methods count for not much? You know better than that. Would you say the same for the F-18?

Thumper wrote:

First keep in mind most of the supposed performance advantages are not very great. Name one instance that you can quantify a useful performance parameter where the Typhoon is significantly superior. In fact I can think of two where the Eagle is. Top speed and range.
Second do not discount the Eagle's avionics.

Tiffie performance parameters 1.Superior turning ability. You only asked for one. Don`t discount DASS.

Thumper wrote:

Sorry but once you get past the EF induced hype you find a very capable interceptor with a still to be developed ground attack capability in a package the size of an F-18 at an astronomical cost. Buy 700 F-22s an see what the unit price would be. I guarantee it would be closer to 90 million than 122 million.
Do not discount combat persistence

Every aircraft has "Hype". This includes F-22, f-15 and Typhoon. Even a Cessna is hyped. It`s called hard sell. Ground attack is immature but it is happening right now and it wasn`t a swing role aircraft to begin with. The Eagle started out as a pure A2A machine before the Mudhen was developed.

Yes, the Typhoon is expensive but somebody likes them, 700 are being produced. Cool

I think one of the main problems is that many people are not aware or at least ignore the fact that air combat is complex and depends on a varity of factors. Radar and missiles are of course highly important, but you have to view all aspects to built you the entire picture. It's worth noting that the lack of many details limits such discussions and it is difficult in many areas to come to a 100 % accurate conclusion.
The AIM-120D and AN/APG-63(V3) will wastly boost the F-15s BVR capabilities, add the IRST to that, EWS, MIDS, JHMCS and high performance and you get a formidable air superiority fighter. The F-15 was ever a very good fighter and with all its upgrades it remains so, but its future is more limited as the number of aircraft is shrinking and most nations concentrate on the next generation (F-22, F-35 etc.).
The links posted by SpudmanWP suggest that the F-15Ks IRST is based on that of the F-14D and the brochures indicate that it's neither a dual-band, nor imaging sensor. I suppose that the other components of the Tiger Eye system partitially compensate that, but at the expense of additional drag and weight.

The AIM-120D and AN/APG-63(V3) aren't operational yet, though it won't need that much time until they arrive (according the current schedules).

Strong points for the Typhoon are its lower RCS and maybe RF detectability as well depending on the situation and what you compare. Typhoon's MMI seems to be superior as well and it terms of performance the Typhoon supersedes the F-15 in most areas except for persistence and speed. Of course is it valid to ask the question how much superior the Typhoon is in this or that area and I don't assume a large superiority in all of them. You must also take into account Typhoon's comprehensive range of powerful sensors and its sensor fusion capabilities. The aircraft's DASS is one of the most complete and capable systems in the and the only fighter with something compareable in the US is currently the F/A-18E/F blk II. Single components of the F-15's EWS might come close, but the F-15's EWS just lacks to many features the DASS has. Captor has for sure its disadvantages compared to AESA designs, but I have the feeling that people tend to believe that this system is totally incapable just because it uses a MSA.

"If you don't like it STFU and stay out of it."

Well, aren't we gettin' a lil feisty! Don't be getting all riled up now, you can debate this til the cows come home, I personally don't give a sh*t. Now, it's almost time for me to step back to the line to launch my Eagle, so I'm out. Continue to work your keyboard dude, more power to ya. Cool

MarcoPolo wrote:

"If you don't like it STFU and stay out of it."

Well, aren't we gettin' a lil feisty! Don't be getting all riled up now, you can debate this til the cows come home, I personally don't give a sh*t. Now, it's almost time for me to step back to the line to launch my Eagle, so I'm out. Continue to work your keyboard dude, more power to ya. Cool

Sir, you are an Eagle man so I would love to see some serious input from guys like you! I am not a pilot nor a maintainer, if you see it, please call BS! Laughing

Come on, put us straight. Can you do it without violating TACOPSEC?

I would welcome any Pro` opinion, although I admit these X Versus Y threads are not everyone's flavour.

Cool

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Oct 27, 2007 - 04:24 AM; edited 1 time in total

Some more info on the F-15 IRST:
From the above brochures--
1. Weapons quality passive ranging
2. Longwave, track-while-scan sensor
3. high density digital recorder
4. The IRST system enhanced the capabilities of the F-14D
AN/AAS-42 IRST.
5. Proven, automatic target declaration
algorithms
6. +/- 70 degree scan range

From (1995 time-frame) http://www.eda.org/rassp/documents/newsletter/html/95q3/news_5.html
1. three dimensional IRST processing
2. 20x (of then 1995 latest gen F-14D IRST) CPU processing power
3. 4x range goal

From http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/27162/12/ARCHI/none/Dept/Production-strategy-holds-defense-technology-edge
1. Long-wavelength infrared (LWIR, 8-12 µm) was the selected waveband to maximize the detection range of near-room-temperature airborne targets
2. Baseline F-14D IRST contained "advanced infrared focal-plane arrays (FPAs). "

From http://www.google.com/patents?id=euEaAAAAEBAJ&dq=5282013
This patent deals with the passive ranging ability of 3D IRST

Things to notice:
1. In 1995 the were increasing the F-14D IRST range by 4x and adding 3D tracking ability using the sheer power of the CPU (20x current F-14D CPU). 2. F-14D IRST was a vast improvement of the IRST of previous F-14 models.

Add 10+ years of development and you have what is in the F-15K

Finding any good info on the F-14 IRST was a PAIN IN THE A$$.

More to come as I find it.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F-15 Eagle vs Eurofighter Typhoon