F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

What i don't get is why some guys still believe a EF, Rafale or Su-35 are in the same league or even better then a f-35. At least when you read the Danish Evaluation, it should be clear that thy are no match for a true 5 gen Fighter.

I find that internet discussions of tactical aircraft (really, any military topic) quickly devolve into nothing more than poorly-informed nationalist posturing.

Internet discussion happen between enthusiasts. Enthusiasts tend to be biased.

3. Austria is getting rid of its Eurofighters.

I also fully agree with everything you said.
The point above is in my opinion of special interest. This would be either the first case or at least one of the rarest cases (if my memory doesn't fail me) that an air force purchases a "top notch" fighter aircraft only to ditch/getting rid of it very soon afterwards. This by itself is a "very bad sign" for the Typhoon...

I want to make very clear that the Eurocannards are great birds for what they were designed for.

I generally agree but if I'm allowed I would add the following to your sentence above:
"the Eurocannards are great birds for what they were designed for but they came too late"

Well if they came up (entered in service) in the early to mid 1990's like if I'm not mistaken was the initial plan, they would be excellent aircraft to be reckoned with. However they didn't and when they finally entered in service a far more advanced (US) aircraft was also entering in service (the F-22) and another even more advanced aircraft was well within its development phase (the F-35).
This is only one more evidence of what has been said here, not only in this thread but also in many other threads -> The European aerospace technology in terms of combat aircraft lags way behind (decades behind) its US counterpart.

They should be useful and potent multirole aircraft for some time yet to come. But in the air-to-air and strike roles, they are outclassed by the F-35. At the end of the day, investment matters. The European countries haven’t invested anywhere near the resources and time that the US has into combat aircraft development and it shows.

I just want to point out and add the following:
- The fact that the US combat aircraft technology is way ahead of its European counterparts it's very far from a recent phenomenon!
For example in the early 1980's when the F/A-18A entered in service what was the most advanced European aircraft at that time? The first version of the Tornado IDS, named in the UK as GR1. And seriously, anyone wants to really compare a F/A-18A with a Tornado GR1? If one really want to make such a comparison I serious advise to take a look into the cockpit of each aircraft/variant.
Or receding even more in time, a decade earlier or more precisely in the 1970's when the US built the F-14A, F-15A and F-16A what was Europe's best fighter aircraft at that time?? The Mirage F1. Does anyone here sane enough wants to seriously compare the Mirage F1 with any of the US aircraft mentioned above (F-14A, F-15A and F-16A)??
Or receding a decade more in the 1960's, what did the Europeans had that could match the F-4 Phantom??
Or in the very late 1940's to early 1950's (note early 1950's) that did the Europeans had that could match the F-86 Sabre??

I mean i like the Eurocanards. Especially the Rafale. For the resources the French have, the build a very good 4 gen Fighter. As some very knowledge guys here on F-16.net mentioned it is probably the best 4 gen out there.

I tend to agree with you.
Nonetheless one should not dismiss the Super Hornet when it comes to 4th or more precisely 4.5th fighter aircraft subject.
I believe that if we look at the Super Hornet in terms of some of the most important sensors such as Radar, a possibility of having a dedicated EW variant, likely the most comprehensive RCS reduction in a non-stealth aircraft and above all the weapons capability and variety of weapons that can be carried in the aircraft probably makes it one of the best 4.5th gen fighter aircraft available.
But yes, if we add things to the mix such as acceleration and limited supercruise performance and above all if having mostly French weapons (and as such not having for example an AMRAAM requirement) is not an obstacle than the Rafale should be an excellent contender to be the best 4.5th gen fighter aircraft.

At least and in my personal opinion, I agree that the Rafale is the best Eurocannard.

@swiss. I'm pretty sure there isn't a consensus here, that the rafale is better than the super hornet. As said above, for a start it has better radar, but that is now like calling a smart phone, a phone. It does more than that and was boeing's radar for the f-35 comp.

These 6 words are also very telling. The super hornet has better weapons.

@swiss. I'm pretty sure there isn't a consensus here, that the rafale is better than the super hornet. As said above, for a start it has better radar, but that is now like calling a smart phone, a phone. It does more than that and was boeing's radar for the f-35 comp.

These 6 words are also very telling. The super hornet has better weapons.

Before the Swiss leaks "everybody" (apart from the French) believed Typhoon would score much higher than Rafale, at least for some missions

However the Rafale scored consistently higher than the Typhoon for all missions. This was a big surprise to most people.

Since then the Typhoon has evolved but so has the Rafale.

If you look at the Danish competition they ranked Typhoon higher than the SH for some missions, and the SH higher than the Typhoon in others; overall they were found to be in the same ballpark.

So I agree one should be a bit cautious about making statements about "which is best"...it also depends on context.

SH weapons are certainly cheaper than what is offered for Rafale, bu are they so much better?

The Indian chief of air force said the US had better radars and weapons of the eval. When the hornet and f-16 were eliminated. I'd take his opinion as valid. I'll try and google it, but it was well reported and talked about at the time

Two things.

First - I didn't realize PIRATE was a staring IIR array.

Well, it doesn't have staring array (unless it has been upgraded recently), but instead has scanning array. Both technologies create infrared images that look similar, but scanned array does it using detector array of say 4x1024 which is scanned over the whole scene and end result is 1024x1024 pixel image. Staring array does the same using a staring detector array of 1024x1024 pixels. It's bit like difference between CRT monitors vs. LCD monitors.

Modern staring array like used in EOTS, EODAS, DDM-NG or numerous latest targeting pods has higher sensitivity (better range), higher thermal contrast (crisper images) and have better reliability and robustness. They also use less power. But when Pirate IRST was designed, staring array technology was not yet sufficiently mature and scanned arrays outperformed them. F-22 IRST would've also used scanning array technology because of this.

Russians use single-detector IRST systems, which are incapable of making a real image. They can detect sources of heat, but they use more like old radar c-scope presentation because of inability to make images. Similar to old 1960s and 70s Western IRST systems.

All the stuff you are posting does not disgree with what I said. Both Rafale and Typhoon merge angular and range information to get new consolidated more accurate tracks as explicitly spelt out in both their documentation. What is then removed are the original unmerged tracks which is totally different to what LMT is saying which is a choice between tracks is being forced upon 4th gen fighters. Frankly I trust the original manufacturers to know their own product better than a competitor ! However considering the anti-European and the F-35 uber alles bias that exists on this site I am not surprised by this constant disbelieving of what European manufacturers say about their products.

From what I've seen from LM is very similar to what is described by Dassault and Eurofighter partners.



This is from LM and it describes how the tracks from different sensors are correlated and extra tracks discarded. I don't see any claim that only one track of each is selected. Correlation in sensor fusion terminology means that for each measurement (like range, azimuth, temperature, RCS, RF signals), best source is selected and that data chosen. IRST almost always gives the best data for azimuth and temperature. Radar does the same for range and RCS and ESM system for RF signals. Sometimes however some other system than radar could give better range information if radar gives multiple returns at different ranges. Then next best sensor could be selected for range information.

Correlation in sensor fusion terminology means that for each measurement (like range, azimuth, temperature, RCS, RF signals), best source is selected and that data chosen.

This sentence seems important to me, since it clarifies what seems to have been a misunderstanding amongst many people of an important aspect of "4 gen" sensor fusion.

Interesting commentary with respect to European designs lagging behind the U.S.

When Typhoon's air to air capabilities were finally vetted, it looked like they finally eclipsed the F-15C. Being designed a generation later though, that's what you'd expect. You rarely hear comparisons between the Rafale and F-15C, for what reason I'm not sure. Now that the F-15 has new monster AESA's fitted though along with the 9x, we're back to parity IMO.

But the F-15C is old news. The F-22 is the new benchmark air to air, and the Eurocanards are hopelessly outclassed, unless they can make it to the merge. More pertinent IMO is the comparison to the F-35. The best comparison was a graphic I saw on here recently showing the F-35 vs Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen I think it was.

F-35A carrying 5,000lbs of air to air/air to ground weapons is capable of mach 1.6+, 9g turns, has exceptional range and 50 degree AOA, all with stealth baked in. And of course, it's beyond compare in the SA dept AND it'll be cheaper ($80 million/copy)

The others? Nope...

Correlation in sensor fusion terminology means that for each measurement (like range, azimuth, temperature, RCS, RF signals), best source is selected and that data chosen.

This sentence seems important to me, since it clarifies what seems to have been a misunderstanding amongst many people of an important aspect of "4 gen" sensor fusion.

Ye, but in the end it is LM sentence. BAe, DA or SAAB would probaly disagree.

Two things...

Well, it doesn't ...

Thanks for the clarification hornetfinn

Ricnunes: the only fanboy here is you although for the life of me I don't know why considering neither country you associate with is going anywhere near a F-35 soon. I am just trying to get to the rational bottom of how F-35 compares to previous fighters and no analytical good comes from exaggerating or denigrating fighters ability compared to reality. I have no dog in this hunt apart from maybe both of them, I'm from the UK, so we will soon have as many F-35s as Typhoons, more in the end when the latter starts being retired.

The fact remains that Rafale/Typhoon documentation explicitly stated that track sensor information is merged not chosen between. These companies can be sued by customers if their documentation is misleading. All the LMT documentation says is 4th generation which could mean other fighters as Rafale and Typhoon are generally considered 4.5/4 plus gen fighters and anyway you cannot be sued for such a generic label. As to the supposed range/bearing inaccuracy of the EADS diagram, seriously ? It's a PowerPoint slide without units made to demonstrate a point not to allow you or competitors to work out their sensor accuracy !

All the stuff you are posting does not disgree with what I said. Both Rafale and Typhoon merge angular and range information to get new consolidated more accurate tracks as explicitly spelt out in both their documentation. What is then removed are the original unmerged tracks which is totally different to what LMT is saying which is a choice between tracks is being forced upon 4th gen fighters. Frankly I trust the original manufacturers to know their own product better than a competitor ! However considering the anti-European and the F-35 uber alles bias that exists on this site I am not surprised by this constant disbelieving of what European manufacturers say about their products.

From what I've seen from LM is very similar to what is described by Dassault and Eurofighter partners.



This is from LM and it describes how the tracks from different sensors are correlated and extra tracks discarded. I don't see any claim that only one track of each is selected. Correlation in sensor fusion terminology means that for each measurement (like range, azimuth, temperature, RCS, RF signals), best source is selected and that data chosen. IRST almost always gives the best data for azimuth and temperature. Radar does the same for range and RCS and ESM system for RF signals. Sometimes however some other system than radar could give better range information if radar gives multiple returns at different ranges. Then next best sensor could be selected for range information.

Single best source ....
Targeting solution relies on primary source ...
SA based on PARTIAL information ....

They are implying different sensor tracks of the same target are compared and only the best one is chosen.

Austrian Typhoons are tranche 1 versions, they cannot be upgraded with the Captor-E aesa radar or some other later modifications but they knew that when they bought. They also think the future maintenance cost of Typhoon will be too high for their liking due to being tranche 1, I think they have their eye on some cheapish Gripens/F-16s if they don't pick F-35.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 20-439130/
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/07 ... -typhoons/