Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Snypa,
As much as I would love to impart my .02 I will be honest in that I don't know enough relevant info. to make an assumption about the Typhoon's capabilities, nor do I really care. It sure does look neat with those little canards, though. I'm sure it will work as intended for those countries that bought it and had a hand in it's design and construction.
The problem with debates such as this is that there is no winner or loser. It is my personal opinion that these are just internet pissing matches of "I know more about a plane that I have no operational experience with than you do." I mean, no disrespect to y'all, but c'mon. These things could go on forever if you let it, "Yeah well, the Typhoon is named after a force of nature, while the Eagle is just named after a bird, so obviously the Typhoon is better." It's like the Energizer bunny, it just keeps going and going and going....................................But if that's your thing by all means don't let me stop ya, my original post was just meant as a light remark until Thumpie decided to tell me my business, whatever dude. Enjoy yourself.

F-16.net Sponsor

Point well received Marco`, I see these threads as a bit of banter, something to while away the hours at work! (Only sometimes boss!). Laughing

@SpudmanWP,
well done and thanks for the info. I suppose we'll have some difficulties to find more about the F-15Ks IRST. Maybe we can find some info using the Tiger Eye as the "key word". Interestingly there are brochures about the SHs planned IRST which is even newer.

According to this Lockheed Site the Tiger Eyes combines "an evolution of combat-proven LANTIRN and U.S. Navy IRST technology".

The latest LANTIRN product card (pdf) even show a F-15k on the inside.

While on the Lockheed site I found this snack about the SNIPER pod's (pdf) ability to do "Air-to-air target detection and tracking". No details though Sad

I will post anything I find.

snypa777 wrote:

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.

And what will Typhoons better turning ability bring to the BVR fight? It might allow better survivability when dodging missile shots, but thats the only thing i can think of. A slightly better turn radius or roll rate its not going to serve you nearly as well in a BVR engagement as a better RADAR/Missile combo and ECM.

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.

It means a couple of hundred k's higher cruising speed, it does not mean Typhoon would spend any less time on burner attempting to gain an advantage, only Raptors supercruise does that. Therefore any fuel saving is negligible because both would be using their burner plenty, and Eagle bk 2 has plenty more to burn.

Quote:

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

Its not only about persistence, its about time spent on burner, therefore its about energy. Anyway what do you mean by "after the merge"??? You seem to think in WVR. There wouldn't be any merge because the combat would have happened BVR or one of them would have taken a head on WVR missile shot and ended the fight right there.

Quote:

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.

I've addressed the point on fuel. As far as more weight, the question is which platform has a better T/W ratio with the same amount of fuel on board compared to relative fuel consumption on burner, and i would bet my car that it is Eagle (without being bothered doing the calculations).

AIM 120D is in PRODUCTION, which is further along than METEOR is ATM, IOC is projected to be next year so its just around the corner.

As for CAPTOR. I have no doubt it is a very good MSA radar. However without commenting on how good it is, there are several generic disadvantages MSA's suffer compared to AESA's or even PESA's. These include (for comperable systems) better detection and track radii vs RCS, (as you mentioned) LPI, instantaneous scan rates, multiple target engagements at wide barrings, true multi-mode air and sea search, mean time between failure rates and the big one, resistance to and ability to employ ECM. Now on all of these points even APG 63 (v) 2 would hold a significant advantage over CAPTOR. APG 63 (v)3 on the other hand (which by all accounts is pretty much as technologically evolved as the APG 79) has a serious advantage in (i would argue) all of these area's including track radii vs RCS. The real advantage in a one on one would be the APG 63 (v)3's LPI, ECCM, and EA capability which give F15E bk 2 a real and significant advantage over Typhoon tranche 1's. That give F15 E block 2 the ability to detect enemy emissions while your's remain undetected, see first and choose if and when to fight, launch missiles without being detected (if done properly) and then degrade Tiffie's radar performance or interrupt its data-links. That is a HUGE advantage in BVR.

As for you notion that CEASAR will be "every bit as good as APG 63 (v)", well, let me just say i'm slightly skeptical of that claim. What was the justification again? Oh that Europeans had been building AESA's for years? Hmmm, you know the Americans had been building AESA's for years too, before they got something as advanced as the APG 79, i wonder why it took them several generations of fighter sized AESA's to achieve something that capable, but Euroradar will do it first time around? Maybe you European's are just smarter huh??? No i don't think so. The fact is that a ground based system and a fighter system are two totally different beasts, and for CAESAR will be as capable as the APG 36 (v) 3, the European's would have to leapfrog several steps in that technology's evolution, and unless they have several eureka moments, i'm not sure exactly how thats going to happen. Anyway CAESAR is simply an active phased array antenna for the CAPTOR radar, so i dont doubt it will be as capable as the APG 63 (v) 2, but an entirely new system would be needed for something as capable as APG 79.

Quote:

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?

I guess it all comes down to your RCS vs the other guys radar and visa versa, meaning a small difference in radar capability can be offset by a small difference in RCS. Its hardly the stealth engagement that an F22 can accomplish but i'm sure it helps out with who detects who first.

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:

And what will Typhoons better turning ability bring to the BVR fight? It might allow better survivability when dodging missile shots, but thats the only thing i can think of. A slightly better turn radius or roll rate its not going to serve you nearly as well in a BVR engagement as a better RADAR/Missile combo and ECM.

Super sonic maoeuvrability is for sure not the most important factor for BVR engagements, but it is one of many small factors. It helps the pilot to manoeuvre into a tactical position more quickly, allows the pilot to separate faster after missile launch and improves the chances to dodge an incoming missile.

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.

It means a couple of hundred k's higher cruising speed, it does not mean Typhoon would spend any less time on burner attempting to gain an advantage, only Raptors supercruise does that. Therefore any fuel saving is negligible because both would be using their burner plenty, and Eagle bk 2 has plenty more to burn.

Quote:

Its not only about persistence, its about time spent on burner, therefore its about energy. Anyway what do you mean by "after the merge"??? You seem to think in WVR. There wouldn't be any merge because the combat would have happened BVR or one of them would have taken a head on WVR missile shot and ended the fight right there.

The Eagle's internal fuel load isn't much higher, if you take into account the aircraft's higher weight and fuel consumption. The Eagle just enjoys an advantage with external fuel, of which it can hold much more.

Quote:

As for CAPTOR. I have no doubt it is a very good MSA radar. However without commenting on how good it is, there are several generic disadvantages MSA's suffer compared to AESA's or even PESA's. These include (for comperable systems) better detection and track radii vs RCS, (as you mentioned) LPI, instantaneous scan rates, multiple target engagements at wide barrings, true multi-mode air and sea search, mean time between failure rates and the big one, resistance to and ability to employ ECM. Now on all of these points even APG 63 (v) 2 would hold a significant advantage over CAPTOR. APG 63 (v)3 on the other hand (which by all accounts is pretty much as technologically evolved as the APG 79) has a serious advantage in (i would argue) all of these area's including track radii vs RCS. The real advantage in a one on one would be the APG 63 (v)3's LPI, ECCM, and EA capability which give F15E bk 2 a real and significant advantage over Typhoon tranche 1's. That give F15 E block 2 the ability to detect enemy emissions while your's remain undetected, see first and choose if and when to fight, launch missiles without being detected (if done properly) and then degrade Tiffie's radar performance or interrupt its data-links. That is a HUGE advantage in BVR.

One of the main questions is how well the AN/APG-63(V3) performs in various areas. Details are unknown, therefore no fair comparison is possible. No one can guarantee that its EA capabilities can jam the Typhoon's communications or radar system, there is no guarantee that the LPI features are good enough to not be detected by Typhoon's ESM. I basically agree with your conclusions, but there is a lot of guessing involved, to much to alledge all will work that way.

One interesting aspect is the EWS. Interestingly you guys seem to assume, that the F-15's ECM is superior and my question is why? Comparing available information for DASS and TEWS I hardly see any advantages for the TEWS. DASS is a fully integrated complete system including multiple sensors for threat detection like ESM, LWR and MAWS and a range of advanced counter measures including DECM, TRD and automated chaff/flare dispensers.

Last edited by snypa777 on Oct 31, 2007 - 01:27 PM; edited 1 time in total

Ozzy, Scorpion adressed most of the points very well so I don`t have much to add. I will add to the radar part of the debate. By the way, I say again, no F-15 is carrying AIM-120D, it doean`t matter that is "Just around the corner", I have never mentioned Meteor and I wouldn`t even if it was going into full scale production tomorrow. For now, forget the "D", it is still being captive tested.

The CAPTOR v APG 63v. I don`t know where you are getting your data from regards CAPTOR performance? Your making a hell of a lot of assumptions there if I may say. I would agree with only some of them, including electronic attack capability with an AESA versus an MSA, wider angle target acquisition off the nose, MTBF rates, (maybe). Are you talking LRU`s or general radar failures v T/R module antenna elements? I don`t have any data regarding reliability of CAPTOR so I will leave that open.

However, the CAPTOR CAN interleave modes very well, maybe not as efficiently as an AESA but certainly enough to be able to do the job proficiently. Range is also a big issue. To preserve and operate in LPI mode, an AESA range is artificially limited, as on the F-22. With huge power output LPI becomes a game of diminishing returns, pardon the pun. I would actually suspect that the CAPTOR would have a range equal to any AESA unit but it would light the Tiffie up like a Christmas tree, much like max` power output on the APG-77.

The CAPTOR AFAIK doesn`t employ LPI, although LPI MSA radars have been around for years. My ideal would be an MSA AESA, which would give a fighter an even greater tracking and search area....

Yes, Europe is well versed in AESA technology, a ship based AESA radar works on exactly the same principles as an airborne one, the issue has always been miniaturisation to allow fit into a fighters nose. The SAMPSON is a good example which evolved from MESAR 1 and 2, a collaboration between Marconi, Roke Manor and BAE. The MESAR effort started in the mid` 1980`s. Don`t worry, Europe is up there on AESA dvelopment, not a sneering Euro` attitude, just history. The CAESAR will be called the CAPTOR-D and has been in development since 1993. (That`s 14 years of development). The present CAPTOR is based on the Blue Vixen architecture with brand new components, Blue Vixen was as good as any fighter AI radar around at the time. I stress again, CAPTOR uses more modern components.

I have never said that "we are better than you" at AESA technology, it just amazes me that some folk think certain technology can only be mastered by Uncle Sam. Now that`s arrogance. (not directed at you personally) I have never said that CAESAR will be the equal to APG-63v off the bat, but I will bet MY car and house that it will evolve into a system every bit as good as the APG-63v. What car do you have Ozzy`, and are you ready to give it up? I`ll take part-ex Laughing

Yes, the CAESAR is an active array that fits onto the existing CAPTOR back end, so what? Why will that make it less capable? What is it about the CAPTORS power supply, processors, filters and Algorithmic logic that will make it a poor performer? I would be interested in your views on that, honestly.

Thumper3181 wrote:

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.

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

Hope your joking about electronics... And that AIM-120C8 since you can count those eagles with your fingers and that the C8 is still in trials just like the meteor is wich has a greater range and kinetic ability (rocket verus ramject, rocket looses every time).

The upgraded eagles are the ones to run after Eurofighters in numbers in the production lines, and by the time they do, AESA for the Euro will be arround the corner (arent we comparing an APG-63V3 wich isnt in service yet?) and meteor already being carried. I hope you dont want to compare F-15's RCS with that of the typhoon or try to imply the captor radar mech array lacks anything in terms of range and target discrimination because you would be surprised big time.

On another note your claim about range and speed sounds like a joke because comparing F-15's top speed with that of the typhoon when the eagle will be using Afterburner to keep up with the Eurofrauder as you put it in dry thrust. following your thinking an F-18 would finish the line at the same time as F-22 in a race Laughing

F-15 is more than 30 years old now. Eurofighter is new. Your just kiding yourself and trolling arround.

snypa777 wrote:

Are you talking LRU`s or general radar failures v T/R module antenna elements? I don`t have any data regarding reliability of CAPTOR so I will leave that open.

Several hundred T/Rs are more reliable by nature. Every one of it acts as transmitter and receiver, if some fail the radar will still work and its performance is not to be significantly degraded even if 5 or 10 % of them fail. Mechanical components are more prone to failure and if a MSA radar's antenna or transmitter fail the entire radar is out of operation. Single T/R modules can be replaced within planned maintainance schedules and its significantly cheaper.

Quote:

However, the CAPTOR CAN interleave modes very well, maybe not as efficiently as an AESA but certainly enough to be able to do the job proficiently.

An even more important argument for me is the fact, that if the aircraft performs air defence or air superiority missions, such interleaved AA and AG modes are out of relevance.

Quote:

The CAPTOR AFAIK doesn`t employ LPI, although LPI MSA radars have been around for years. My ideal would be an MSA AESA, which would give a fighter an even greater tracking and search area....

Captor includes some LPI features such as data adaptive scanning and power output management, but AESA radars are much more flexible and efficient here, at least theoretically.

Quote:

The CAESAR will be called the CAPTOR-D and has been in development since 1993. (That`s 14 years of development). The present CAPTOR is based on the Blue Vixen architecture with brand new components, Blue Vixen was as good as any fighter AI radar around at the time. I stress again, CAPTOR uses more modern components.

Some corrections and backgrounds. At the time decision makers had to choose the antenna technology for the Captor AESA was far away from being mature for fighter operations, it has to be taken into account that political think thank led to significant delays. It was felt the an end generation MSA radar would be better than a first generation ESA solution and PESA was neither that mature at that time, nor did it offer so much advantages unlike AESA. It was planned from the beginning to replace the MSA with an AESA at a later stage.
In 1993 Germany, France and the UK initiated the AMSAR (Airborne Multi-Mode Active-Array Radar). AMSAR is often misunderstood by people. The aim of AMSAR was to study, research and develope the AESA technology for fighter radars. AMSAR is government funded, but a number of industry and other government funded projects were run concurently to develope key technologies and to lower the risks. One example for this is the German/British CECAR. The AMSAR is only a development and demonstration programme to gain the required experience and develope the necessary technologies in order to complete new AESA radars. AMSAR was never intended to be fitted to any operational platform at all. CAESAR was started in april 2002 as an industry funded project. Its aim was to prove that it is possible to replace Captors current MSA with an AESA within reasonable cost and time and to develope an AESA radar for the Typhoon at all, prior official requirements being defined by the customers. The demonstrator is based on the tranche 2 examples Captor-D radar retaining the receiver and computer (which is already prepared to control AESA systems). New components include the array itself with new fluid cooling, the ACU and a new power supply. The productionised version might be dubbed Captor-E and might receive a new multi channel receiver. According industry sources a production model could be ready by 2011 (depends on funding). There is currently no order, but the Saudi contract might bring the much needed cash to complete the system. In the recent german defence procurement plan for 2007/2008 an AESA radar for the Typhoon was classed as required, but not fundable right now. The RAF seems to have a serious interest as well. I'm relative sure that the Captor-E will make it into the Typhoon, but it might be a little bit later than theoretically possible (~2014+).

About the Europeans developing compareable fighter radars, well the most challanging task was to develope and master the hardware components, this goal has been achieved and there is a reason why the T/R modules for the MEADS airdefence system will be produced in Germany. Developing the system to enable capabilities like EA or DL functions is more a software issue, it will take some time, but it's nothing which can't be done as good as the US has done it. The Europeans keep an eye on american developments and vice verca. Let alone the fact that such capabilities are studied/in development since years. BTW does the AN/APG-63(V3) or AN/APG-79 feature the EA capability right now? I mean to remember this won't available for quite some time. Read something about that in the very interesting and comprehensive Super Hornet special in air international earlier this year. It's very much the same as with the critics about the Typhoon, many people speak about capabilities not yet available, for the simple fact that the brochures etc. often speak about the final system, so the lack of certain features/capabilities in initial versions of various platforms/systems is often not recognised.

To be honest in terms of AIM-120D and AN/APG-63(V3) not in service right now, these programmes are funded and will be fielded within the next 1-2 years. And a small outlook in the future isn't bad either.

[/quote]

Thanks Scorpion, a couple of questions when you have the time.

The upgrade from CAPTOR-M to the "E", involves the following changes AFAIK.
1. Antenna mounting.
2. Power supply.
3. All 6 LRU`s.
4. Few if any changes are required in the aircrafts avionics themselves, which I find hard to swallow in a way. AIS uses pretty fast processors but there is a hell of a lot of data coming from 1500 T/R transceivers. Will the basic radar processors be doing the data handling/conversion/distribution themselves?

The extra cooling capacity is a no brainer I guess.

As I understand it, Tranche one radars can not as now be converted to CAPTOR-M because they use older, slower processors?

As far as funding goes, the RAF seem to be able to upgrade their aircraft systems quietly with little publicity and manage to get the required funding. This has been the case in the past although the spotlight is admittedly far brighter these days. I cite as an example, Tornado GR.4 systems which are top notch nowadays, along with the F.3, which is far more capable an interceptor than it was originally.

snypa777 wrote:

Thanks Scorpion, a couple of questions when you have the time.

The upgrade from CAPTOR-M to the "E", involves the following changes AFAIK.
1. Antenna mounting.
2. Power supply.
3. All 6 LRU`s.
4. Few if any changes are required in the aircrafts avionics themselves, which I find hard to swallow in a way. AIS uses pretty fast processors but there is a hell of a lot of data coming from 1500 T/R transceivers. Will the basic radar processors be doing the data handling/conversion/distribution themselves?

Tranche 2 examples will get new more capable mission computers, I assume this includes that of the AIS as well. Many Tranche 2 aircraft systems are prepared for potential upgrades, this includes the new DECMU supporting TVC and the Captor-D processors and even software to support AESA. The CAESAR demonstrator features 3 new LRIs, which replace existing ones (as mentioned in my post above).

Quote:

The extra cooling capacity is a no brainer I guess.

Some changes were made for tranche 2 aircraft and this shouldn't be an issue. CAESAR performed well in DA5 according my knowledge, though I don't know much about this tests.

Quote:

As I understand it, Tranche one radars can not as now be converted to CAPTOR-M because they use older, slower processors?

The processors are one reason, though I think there're more components/issues. I talked to a Captor technican who was involved in testing the radar and developing it. There seem to be some cooling/electrical changes as well, but I don't know more specific details about this.

Quote:

Super sonic maoeuvrability is for sure not the most important factor for BVR engagements, but it is one of many small factors. It helps the pilot to manoeuvre into a tactical position more quickly,

Not if you are running out of gas it does not. Eurofighter “supercruise” of M1.2 is measured in minutes. The F-15 maneuvers at M.95-.99 for hours.

Quote:

The Eagle's internal fuel load isn't much higher, if you take into account the aircraft's higher weight and fuel consumption. The Eagle just enjoys an advantage with external fuel, of which it can hold much more.

The Eagle’s range is much greater, period. With or without external tanks. I can go further with my externals and once I drop them I have more fuel to burn internal. It really is that simple. No amount of spin changes that.

Quote:

Comparing available information for DASS and TEWS I hardly see any advantages for the TEWS

Please by all means share that information with us. Let us see what you see. I am sure we will come to the same conclusion. Until then it’s just more Euro propaganda.

Quote:

DASS is a fully integrated complete system including multiple sensors for threat detection like ESM, LWR and MAWS and a range of advanced counter measures including DECM, TRD and automated chaff/flare dispensers.

All very nice, the EF was not the first fighter with this though. The Eagle’s has had a fully integrated system since day one and it has been updated on a periodic basis ever since 30 years ago.

Quote:

By the way, I say again, no F-15 is carrying AIM-120D,

IOC for the D model is now Dec 2007, next month. Meteor is not expected to be fielded until at least 2012, there is a difference.

Quote:

A ship based AESA radar works on exactly the same principles as an airborne one; the issue has always been miniaturisation to allow fit into a fighter’s nose.

Ruggesdization and economics. Building a few ship sized AESA radar for a ship is not at all the same as one for AC. If that where the case the Eurofrauder would have had one already.

Quote:

I have never said, "we are better than you" at AESA technology, it just amazes me that some folk think certain technology can only be mastered by Uncle Sam.

As of today and for the foreseeable future when it comes to airborne AESA radar, yes. It’s Uncles sole domain.

Quote:

About the Europeans developing compareable fighter radars, well the most challanging task was to develope and master the hardware components,

So why will it take until 2014 to field? Who are you kidding?

It seems that Eurofighter fanboys are convinced that DASS EW suites is comparable, if not better than later US made ones (for F 15 K, F 15 SG, F 16 E/F. Well, let's see.

A EW suite has two parts, a passive system and a jammer.

The pasive system is formed from a radar warning receiver (RWR) and an ESM.

The latest RWRs are digital. However only two countries US and Israel are known for building digital RWRs. Raytheon has the ALR 67 (V)4 (for SuperHornets) and ALR 69 (V)A (the first are being installed in USAF F 16 C), NorthropGrumman has Falcon Edge (for UAE F 16 E/F), the Israeli has the Elisra SPS-2110 (F 16 I, F 15 I).

The ESM offer geolocation (establishing the range, not only bearing of the emmiter like an RWR). Here the number of potential suppliers narrows: up to now, only two companies are known to offer such a thing: Northropgrumman (Falcon Edge for the F 16 E/F) and the same Elisra SPS 2110 (F 16I and F 15I. An interesting detail: all USAF F 16 CJ that have HTS (HARM Targeting System) have this capability ([url] http://www.raytheon.com/products/hts_e/[/url] ).

An up-to-date jammer must have: PowerPC based computers, MPM (microwave power transmiter, that reduce the transmiter volume with 80 %) and monolithic microwave integrated circuits (that's the equivalent for jammers of what AESA technology is for radars) that allow reactive jamming, instead pre-emptive jamming. Here, there are 4 systems that are known to offer this: the ALQ 135 M (for F 15 K, F 15 SG and possible upgrade for US F 15E), the Falcon Edge (the EW suite for F 16 blk. for UAE), the mentioned ELISRA SPS 2110 (F 15 I and F 16I), and the Spectra on the Rafale.

Here are some info: http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/sas/documents/asset/cms01_058055.pdf http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/sas/documents/asset/alr67.pdf http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/rf/nexgen.html http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/b ... LQ135M.pdf http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/rf/Falcon.html

So, we have:

- a few fighters that have digital RWRs: F 16 C (USAF) , F 16 I, F 15 I (Israel), F 15 K (from 2008 Singapore F 15 SG), F 16 E/F (UAE), F 18 E/F (US Navy);

- 3 fighters that have ESM and capable of geolocation: F 16 E/F, F 16I, F 15 I; also F 16 CJ have this capability pod in a attached pod.

- 5 fighters that have jammers capable of the so-called coherent jamming: F 15 K (from 2008 F 15 SG), F 15 I, F 16 I, F 16 E/F (UAE) and Rafale

The DASS is more comparable with older systems installed on present USAF F 15 C/E (ALR 56C and TEWS) and F 16C (ALR 56 and ALQ 184).

Can you provide some info proving the contrary?

Guess not. In EW, I'm afraid, Europe is a little beyound US...or Israel, for that matter...

Thumper3181 wrote:

Not if you are running out of gas it does not. Eurofighter “supercruise” of M1.2 is measured in minutes. The F-15 maneuvers at M.95-.99 for hours.

I want to note something first, before I start with my reply.
Please don't mix up my posts, with what others have said! In your last post you haven't differentiated between my and snypa77s posts.
--------------------

According a presentation to Norwegian officials, Typhoon can supercruise on internal fuel with 8 AAMs on a 250 nm radius and fly a 30 min CAP, before returning home. The same presentation gives data about sub sonic radius. 250 nm and patroling 120 min with 8 AAMs and 3 drop tanks. Or 500 nm and patroling for 60 min in the same configuration (all at sub sonic speed). Not that bad at all and you can refuel the aircraft in the air as well. The Eagle can't burn much gas as well if it is low on fuel, the situations are unpredictable and air combat is dynamic.

Quote:

The Eagle’s range is much greater, period. With or without external tanks. I can go further with my externals and once I drop them I have more fuel to burn internal. It really is that simple. No amount of spin changes that.

Prove that the Eagles range is "much greater" on internal fuel! I agree that it is much greater on external fuel as the F-15 is able to carry about 3-4 times more fuel externally (including CFT). Without CFT F-15s external fuel load is about 6900 l, Typhoon is currently limited to 3000 l.

Quote:

Please by all means share that information with us. Let us see what you see. I am sure we will come to the same conclusion. Until then it’s just more Euro propaganda.

Honestly I provided information and posted some links on the first page, it's time for you to provide something to prove your point. Please don't call for things which you aren't ready to do as well. And safe your accusions about Euro propaganda, the same could be said about the US, but that would be a pissing contrast. I'm interested in serious discussions on a good level.

Quote:

All very nice, the EF was not the first fighter with this though. The Eagle’s has had a fully integrated system since day one and it has been updated on a periodic basis ever since 30 years ago.

That's true, my point simply is that the F-15s TEWS is not as comprehensive and therefore not as effective as the DASS. The upgraded ECM and RWR might be similar (impossible to judge about as closer details are classified for all systems of this kind).

Quote:

So why will it take until 2014 to field? Who are you kidding?

I'm not kidding, I'm just objective and realistic on this case, let me explain for your understanding. Industry sources say a production model of a Captor AESA could be ready by 2011. But fact is that it is the Captor-D with MSA which is ordered for ALL tranche 2 examples. Deliveries of tranche 2 will last until at least 2013. I don't expect tranche 3 deliveries to start before 2014 at all, therefore I see little chance that the Captor AESA will be fitted before. It will be possible to upgrade tranche 2 examples with AESA, but I don't think it will happen that early for financial reasons. I see only 2 possibilities for the Captor AESA to be added before:
1.) An export customer is an urgent need to fit it earlier
2.) The partner nations decide a requirement change to incorporate an AESA system already with the later tranche 2 examples

Honestly I'm not very optimistic about that.

Last edited by Maffa on Nov 01, 2007 - 02:23 PM; edited 1 time in total

Scorpion do you believe there will be a T3 at all? Who really wants it? The only chance of a T3 would be some big commercial hit like Japan, so that some Eurofighter consortium country can get rid of some of its own T1-T2 aircrafts and force the others to commit to T3 funding.

At present, though, no one is interested in a T3.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F-15 Eagle vs Eurofighter Typhoon