Typhoon vs. Flanker

It's the B and not the C5 that it is referencing.

The logic of this is simple and the key phrase is "designed to replace".

It could be interpreted that way but given that it's a very recent article and the C-5 is the current AMRAAM eventually being replaced, I choose to interpret it as meaning the C-5. There's also the fact that they'd have probably dumped the project if it was only giving 25% over a AIM-120D. It doesn't seem to logical that a ramjet capable of slowing to Mach 2 would only go 25% further than a single-impulse solid rocket doing Mach 4. The physics of that just doesn't sit easy if you think about it, especially when the Meteor is >25% heavier as well.

The Meteor was designed to replace the B and not the C5. The development of the Meteor started more than 10 years BEFORE the UK got it's first C5. For that matter, the first launch of a Meteor took place BEFORE the UK got it's first C5.

IMHO the only reason why the UK ever even bought the C5 was that Meteor development was taking SO long.

The timelines just don't support any of the development being based on a missile that was not even in service with the UK yet.

But the article was written this month and therefore could be based on the current AMRAAM.

You may have missed my edit, but they did not have access to the C5 before 2005 which was one year prior to the first Meteor launch.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... st-199775/

How could they have designed something based on something they had no access to?

btw, By the time the 120D came along the Meteor program was "too big to fail" and due to it having better NEZ range than the D, there is justification for it to continue. This is especially true due to it being a European project.

Besides, range values are classified, so I would not put much faith in hard numbers and trying to say that 3x of B is only 1.25x of D is a guessing game at best.

And finally, the "range" in the article is the NEZ. This represents the range at which a kill is a near certainty and does not represent max range. The Meteor's TDR motor allows it to maintain the powered stage of flight longer than an AMRAAM, but once the fuel runs out, the intakes act as air-brakes and the missile slows quickly.

The Meteor undoubtedly has a greater NEZ than the D but does not likely have a large increase in overall range.

You may have missed my edit, but they did not have access to the C5 before 2005 which was one year prior to the first Meteor launch.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... st-199775/

How could they have designed something based on something they had no access to?

btw, By the time the 120D came along the Meteor program was "too big to fail" and due to it having better NEZ range than the D, there is justification for it to continue. This is especially true due to it being a European project.

Besides, range values are classified, so I would not put much faith in hard numbers and trying to say that 3x of B is only 1.25x of D is a guessing game at best.

And finally, the "range" in the article is the NEZ. This represents the range at which a kill is a near certainty and does not represent max range. The Meteor's TDR motor allows it to maintain the powered stage of flight longer than an AMRAAM, but once the fuel runs out, the intakes act as air-brakes and the missile slows quickly.

The Meteor undoubtedly has a greater NEZ than the D but does not likely have a large increase in overall range.

I understand your logic but it's not necessarily correctly applied. When AirForces Monthly write an article in May 2014, are they likely to be referring back to 10 years ago when they talk about missile range, or talking about the current state of affairs? I think the latter is more likely and the physics balances better too. Design and development are also long-running (often very long running ) parallel activities, rather than separate point activities in reality.

I conclude that it's actually impossible to know which AMRAAM they were talking about. It doesn't specifically state the one used by the Euro forces, so it could just mean the latest available, which in turn could mean latest available at start of design, end of design (whenever that was), start of trials or present day. The C-7 was first tested in 2003 and fielded in 2004. The D is currently available. It could really mean AIM-120B, AIM-120C-5, AIM-120C-7 or AIM-120D. C-5 seems the most logical to me by way of physics and intuition.

NEZ can mean a number of different things. It can be to do with Pk or it can simply reference a range at which an enemy can't simply about-turn, put the burners on and out-run the missile. But I take your point, it doesn't necessarily mean a tripling of kinematic range (which is kind of irrelevant in reality anyway). And of course we're assuming stated ranges are all kinematic ranges, which might also be false.

Thank you uclass,
I never knew that there were already DIRCM resistant seekers on IR guided munitions.

If so do they compleately negate the effectiveness of DIRCM or simply offer a degree of resistance to it?

When the article was written is irrelevant since he said "designed to replace" and not simply 3x the range of the AMRAAM that it "will replace".

He was being specific for a reason. Words mean things.

What he did was a typical PR move in letting the reader assume one thing while actually meaning another. In this instance he is letting the reader assume the missile in question is the C7 (the latest export AMRAAM which is not even on the Eurofighter) and therefore that the Meteor's range is greater than it actually is, without lying about it's capability.

The JSF program is talked about in the same fashion sometimes. When costs are talked about it is often in unspoken baseline dollars, Flyaway packages, etc. Another example of this is when they talk about performance and kill ratios, they are based on F-16Blk40, F-18C, etc, not the latest F-16s, Super Hornets etc.

All this is IMHO of course

When the article was written is irrelevant since he said "designed to replace" and not simply 3x the range of the AMRAAM that it "will replace".

He was being specific for a reason. Words mean things.

What he did was a typical PR move in letting the reader assume one thing while actually meaning another. In this instance he is letting the reader assume the missile in question is the C7 (the latest export AMRAAM which is not even on the Eurofighter) and therefore that the Meteor's range is greater than it actually is, without lying about it's capability.

The JSF program is talked about in the same fashion sometimes. When costs are talked about it is often in unspoken baseline dollars, Flyaway packages, etc. Another example of this is when they talk about performance and kill ratios, they are based on F-16Blk40, F-18C, etc, not the latest F-16s, Super Hornets etc.

All this is IMHO of course

Yes but when did design actually finish? Do they mean when design started, or when it finished? Is that what they mean at all? Do they specifically refer to a user nation? "Designed," implies past tense but, "it is," and, "to," implies current or even future tense. E.g. "It is designed to replace," vs "it was designed to replace." If I was saying, "it is designed to replace the current AMRAAM," I would still use the past tense of 'designed'. However, I cannot say, "it was designed to replace the current AMRAAM," but I can say, "it was designed to replace the AIM-120B." I can't say, "it is designed to replace the AIM-120B." Or can I? Who knows?

Besides all that uncertainty, there's the problem of trying to apply pure comprehension to the English language, e.g. misses says she'll be, "ready in a minute," but we all know that means more than 60 seconds.

I wouldn't stake my life on any interpretation, unless forced to at pain of death, then I'd go for the C-5 interpretation.

Out of curiosity, how does the clipped fins of the AMRAAM C/D affect its maneuverability?

Out of curiosity, how does the clipped fins of the AMRAAM C/D affect its maneuverability?

I had the exact same question a while back, I'm guessing less maneuverability with more speed due to less drag,

now with that, the AMRAAM may have a smaller maneuvering envelope,

fortunately, the clipped Fin AMRAAMs will be launched by Stealthy Raptors that can maneuver to point the missile at the best possible angle and so close that the target will have very little room to maneuver.

Will the F-35 use Clipped wing AMRAAMs C-7, and does the D have clipped fins to?

Every AMRAAM from C3 on is a clipped fin version, D included.

The F-35 will start with the C7 and go to D in the next Block.

Out of curiosity, how does the clipped fins of the AMRAAM C/D affect its maneuverability?

I had the exact same question a while back, I'm guessing less maneuverability with more speed due to less drag,

now with that, the AMRAAM may have a smaller maneuvering envelope,

fortunately, the clipped Fin AMRAAMs will be launched by Stealthy Raptors that can maneuver to point the missile at the best possible angle and so close that the target will have very little room to maneuver.

Will the F-35 use Clipped wing AMRAAMs C-7, and does the D have clipped fins to?

Well, it's not directly adding more drag. I think clipping the fins decreases the aspect ratio, so generating the same force for turning would result in greater induced drag on the control surface. The wing (fin) area is also decrease by clipping, so the maximum force may also be less.

Thanks Disconnectedradical

Now, I have something that bothers me,
We got used to the notion that we don't need supermaneuverable fighters as long as we have supermaneuverable missiles,

but the AMRAAM C5 seems to be a step backward in that direction,

I think I read that the Aim-120 can turn up to around 40Gs

Shaw Shaw R.L., 'Fighter Combat, Tactics and Manoeuvring', Naval Institute Press, 1985
onc said that

a missile must pull at least five times the G-load of its target for a successful interception

So in theory, an AMRAAM must, (in most cases) pull 45Gs when intercepting an aircraft pulling 9Gs

if the Aim-120 can turn up to around 40Gs, then its 5Gs short, not sure if this is for the clipped fin or full fin variants though,
and one thing most people dont consider when looking at missiles is that

like aircraft, the ammount of Gs they can deliver also depends on speed, weight, altitude and other factors

Shaw Shaw R.L., 'Fighter Combat, Tactics and Manoeuvring', Naval Institute Press, 1985
onc said that

a missile must pull at least five times the G-load of its target for a successful interception

Aircraft manoeuvrability varies with altitude, missile manoeuvrability, not so much, because the speed increases vastly to compensate as thrust-to-weight isn't a problem for them. It's also likely that missile manoeuvrability is quoted at altitude anyway. Whereas not many planes can sustain 9g at 30,000+ft.

I see Typhoon having healthy advantage in weapons now and in the near future. It's difficult to say for sure if R-77 is inferior, equal or better than different AMRAAM models. At least AMRAAM has been upgraded much more frequently and I bet the later AMRAAM models are the better missiles. Meteor is most likely much superior to any current R-77 model and we have to wait and see when Russia manages to make an equal missile.

ASRAAM for sure is better than any R-73 model. It's just a matter of technology, especially in the seeker. R-73 was extremely good missile when it was fielded, but that was over 30 years ago and ASRAAM is over 15 years later missile with most modern technology available. This means that ASRAAM has higher resistance to countermeasures, has much longer ranged seeker, better HOBS capability and wider engagement envelope with LOAL capability.

I think war where fights between Typhoon and Su-35S would happen would potentially be very tough for both. I see Typhoon currently having more important advantages, but Su-35S would be very dangerous opponent for it. Especially if Sukhoi receives more advanced air-to-air missiles in the near future. A lot would also depend on the situation. If there is situation where Sukhoi could use the long range advantage, it could create difficult situations for Tiffy. I still think that Typhoon is and will be overall the better fighter.

Interesting stuff here. Rather than start a new thread, thought I'd bung it here:

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 7236.html'

According to a calculation by a senior EADS radar expert, the Captor-E, which will use 1,426 T/R modules and is scheduled to be integrated onto the Eurofighter Typhoon in 2015, is capable of recognizing the F-35 at around 59 kilometers away.

His calculation shows that the F-35’s APG-81, which allegedly has 1,400 T/R modules, will be able to recognize the Eurofighter or semi-stealth fighter at 120 kilometers or farther based on the assumption both radars have the same capability.

Now the second bit is almost as interesting as the first. Based on the radar equation, that suggests the Typhoon RCS is only about 17 times that of an F-35?????

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ommitment'

The UK MoD funding will lead to the first flight of a Captor-E prototype in 2013. But it will feature only limited radar modes, and the array will consist of Gallium Arsenide (Ga) transmit-receive modules that were developed by British company Filtronic, now part of Teledyne. The ultimate array planned for Captor-E will use more advanced Gallium Nitride modules developed for the Euroradar consortium by EADS Cassidian.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroRADAR ... aptor-e-67

Noise Jamming / High-Power Microwave: When used as a jammer, the radar transmits simultaneously at all frequencies at full strength, the radar energy is focused on the opponent's X-band antenna. On target radar thereby increases the background noise, the signal-to-noise ratio worsens, the range decreases. If the available effective radiated power of the antenna's large enough, further signal lobes airspace search, target tracking or disturbance can be formed. If the burn-through distance below, the broadband noise is pointless. If the opponent is close enough to the Captor-E, uses the HPM-Mode: The radar energy is extremely heavily focused on the target, and the transmission frequency, the pulse repetition rate and the signal pattern adapted to the target. The energy penetrates through a front door into the object, usually the viewfinder of the weapon (IR or radar), or via feedback effects of the surface and openings ( back-door ). Inside, which forms an electromagnetic field, which - interferes with the electronics of the weapon - in choosing appropriate transmission parameters. This leads to an increase in the bit error rate , and, at best, to computer crashes . [62] applications include the diversion of enemy missiles, and Suppression of Enemy Air Defences . [63] While the jammer function as soon as possible with the introduction of the Captor-E should be available, [64] is the use planned as an energy weapon until later. [65]

Bistatic Radar / Space-Based Radar: The ability to exchange data packets between radars, allows two Captor-E to use as a bistatic radar. [67] Due to the inclined, rotating antenna surface can move the machine during cooperation fly on a parallel course. Exotic possible application would be to use a satellite with the X-band in the AESA orbit as a transmitter and the CAPTOR-E as passive radar use. The principle was already in November 2007 with the satellite TerraSAR-X demonstrated. [38] The successor system of the SAR-Lupe , SARah called, should also get a satellite with AESA, which on the TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X is based. [68 ] The AESA radar prototype PACER (Phased Array Concepts Evaluation Rig) DERA, which should support the development of AMSAR, for example, only consisted of passive X-band receiver modules, and should explore, among other things, the bistatic application. [69]

Interesting stuff here. Rather than start a new thread, thought I'd bung it here:

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 7236.html'

According to a calculation by a senior EADS radar expert, the Captor-E, which will use 1,426 T/R modules and is scheduled to be integrated onto the Eurofighter Typhoon in 2015, is capable of recognizing the F-35 at around 59 kilometers away.

His calculation shows that the F-35’s APG-81, which allegedly has 1,400 T/R modules, will be able to recognize the Eurofighter or semi-stealth fighter at 120 kilometers or farther based on the assumption both radars have the same capability.

Now the second bit is almost as interesting as the first. Based on the radar equation, that suggests the Typhoon RCS is only about 17 times that of an F-35?????

That was a bit strange calculation/comparison and may be attributed to translation and definition problems. For example what is recognition? I take it means detection and not target type recognition (like NCTR). Other is the APG-81 detection/recognition of "120 kilometers or farther". What "farther" means in this context? Does it mean that radar with equal capability to Captor-E will be able to detect totally clean Eurofighter at 120km away and with weapons and other stuff hanging under it, the detection range will increase (considerably). What radar mode was used or is this just theoretical max range calculation?

If we assume that this calculation was done with the golf ball sized RCS for F-35 (early announcement by USAF), then it would mean that Captor-E would detect 1m2 target at about 300km away. That seems possible given the performance of modern AESA radars, especially cued search (small volume). It would also mean that clean EF Typhoon RCS would be rather low, in the 0.025m2 range. That seems very low given Typhoon shape and overall design.

On the other hand if we calculate the detection range with EF Typhoon usually attributed clean RCS of about 0.1m2 or so. Then the Captor-E would be able to detect 1m2 target at about 213 km away. It would also mean that F-35 has an RCS of about 0.005. Both figures might be very possible in the context of this calculation. Of course that would mean F-35 RCS to be quite a bit larger than what USAF has claimed.

What does this mean in Typhoon vs. Flanker comparison? Well, not much. Of course Typhoon has significantly lower RCS and with AESA radar will have quite a bit advantages against any Flanker variant, especially with Meteor and ASRAAM missiles. With Meteor Typhoon might well be able to shoot first before even Su-35S can detect or at least track it. I think AESA+Meteor+ASRAAM combination would give Typhoon a clear but not necessarily decisive advantage against Su-35S.