PDA

View Full Version : Is this the right decision for Australia



WTE_Ibis
05-09-2007, 05:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPIF2JvVpek&mode=related&search=

thoughts?

.

The-Pizza-Man
05-09-2007, 06:06 AM
Yes, the F-35 is the only choice.

-The F-22 is not for sale to anyone - period
-The F-35 is the only aircraft that fullfills our requirements, that's including the F-22
-Eurofighter and Rafael offer little to no advantage over new F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s.
-The F-35 is head and shoulders above those types in terms of combat capability.

mynameisroland
05-09-2007, 06:14 AM
How many F-35s have been test flown against Rafael and Typhoon ? Let alone F-15s, F-18s and Su 27s ect.

Sounds like a lot of BS to me. The Typhoon is an air superiotity fighter first and foremost, the F-35 is a multi role bomb truck.

The-Pizza-Man
05-09-2007, 06:33 AM
None, I'd presume. However, F-22s have flown against F-15 and F/A-18 and the F-35 possesses many of the same advantages as the F-22 has over those types. Stealth, radar and networking.

The F-35 will see the enemy first and will shoot first.

MadRuski
05-09-2007, 06:53 AM
and when will Australia actully see REAL full time combat where all 100 planes are needed?

this is a good choice, as Australia will not be a leading superpower in the war against who ever, best example is they will hold the line until US gets there, or just help out ...once again. so 100 F-35s will be more then enough to help out USA's 3000+ aircraft.

HuninMunin
05-09-2007, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
None, I'd presume. However, F-22s have flown against F-15 and F/A-18 and the F-35 possesses many of the same advantages as the F-22 has over those types. Stealth, radar and networking.

The F-35 will see the enemy first and will shoot first.

big lol.

By your statement that alone that
"Eurofighter and Rafael offer little to no advantage over new F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s."
you show that you have not really informed yourself about these aircraft.

The combat capabilities are a no brainer - the
EF can carry more payload then the F-35, it is just as save against enemy fire ( PIRATE, DASS)
and outdances the Lightning II on all speeds.
Meteor probably beeing the most advanced air-to-air weapon in aviation history.

Don't let me even start about economics...

Freelancer-1
05-09-2007, 06:56 AM
Kind of like buying a hundred million dollar condo.


You see the 'model suite' and trust that the company will build it right the first time.


Not the way I would go about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
05-09-2007, 07:02 AM
Sounds like a lot of BS to me. The Typhoon is an air superiotity fighter first and foremost, the F-35 is a multi role bomb truck.

+1

However, Tranche III Tiffies will pwn teh sh1t out of any F-35. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

mynameisroland
05-09-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
None, I'd presume. However, F-22s have flown against F-15 and F/A-18 and the F-35 possesses many of the same advantages as the F-22 has over those types. Stealth, radar and networking.

The F-35 will see the enemy first and will shoot first.

What air to air qualities does the F-35 share with the F-22 ?

The Typhoon is capable of pi**ing all over the F-35 in the air to air role and at a lower unit cost. As Bremspoller pointed out if the Aussies bought the Tranche 3 Typhoon with all of its additional goodies it would be a better multi role combat aircraft too.

The real reason the F-35 will be bought is because of Australias relationship with the USA. Just like when they opted for the F-111 over the superior TSR 2. Its politics and the marketing man - not the aircraft that wins the deal.

WTE_Ibis
05-09-2007, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
None, I'd presume. However, F-22s have flown against F-15 and F/A-18 and the F-35 possesses many of the same advantages as the F-22 has over those types. Stealth, radar and networking.

The F-35 will see the enemy first and will shoot first.

What air to air qualities does the F-35 share with the F-22 ?

The Typhoon is capable of pi**ing all over the F-35 in the air to air role and at a lower unit cost. As Bremspoller pointed out if the Aussies bought the Tranche 3 Typhoon with all of its additional goodies it would be a better multi role combat aircraft too.

The real reason the F-35 will be bought is because of Australias relationship with the USA. Just like when they opted for the F-111 over the superior TSR 2. Its politics and the marketing man - not the aircraft that wins the deal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
--------------------
Well I tend to agree and was hoping people here with more knowledge than I on the subject
could steer me to a definitive conclusion.
I just naturally distrust politicians and like to know the truth.
Taylortony, would you have an opinion on this.
Cheers.
ps. I also liked the TSR2 but the F111 have served us well.

.

VW-IceFire
05-09-2007, 09:51 PM
The F-22 might be for sale...there's pressure in the USAAF to bring the cost down and selling more F-22's would do that. Japan has also apparently floated the idea...not impossible. Obviously there would probably be something of an "export" version with not quite all of the capabilities but that'd still make it pretty good.

From the analysis done, the F-35 is as good as the F-16 and F-18 for most capabilities. Plus it has stealth. But the stealth isn't as good as the F-22's. Range is apparently a concern...although I'm sure they could devise fuel tanks with minimal radar signatures...if you can stealth a plane you can probably stealth an external fuel tank.

Its a shame the Typhoon isn't being considered. It'd be far in excess of what the F-16/F-18 generation offers and aside from the stealth aspect of the F-35 the Typhoon would offer them allot more I think.

The F-35 seems to fit better in a setup where its operating in concert with the F-22. The F-35 is the first strike with stealth loadouts and then once the enemy air defenses are compromised and their aircraft out of commission (in theory) then both F-22 and F-35 begin the attack operations with less stealthy payloads and greater carrying capacity.

bengal
05-09-2007, 10:18 PM
Yes.

It's the same reason Brittain is involved in this program.

"Look too your Moat"

Bengal

Blottogg
05-09-2007, 10:58 PM
I'm not sure I understand the misgivings. Australia has been a participating member of the JSF team for years, investing Australian tax dollars into the program, making their inputs into the aircraft's development, with the intention of helping to guide the development of the fighter for Australian needs. Now some of you are asking why they don't write off that investment, and buy another aircraft which they've had no influence developing? If they'd wanted to go the route of a competitive bid, then joining the JSF team wasn't the way to go about it. FWIW, I think they made the better choice with the route they've taken. A disaster in the testing of F-35 could prove both of us wrong, but barring that, I think Australia will get the best aircraft for the jobs they need it to perform.

I don't know the details surrounding the retired Air Marshall's beef with the F-35, but I tend to think he has his own axe to grind. What F-22 has over the F-35 is P/W ratio, thrust vectoring, top speed, and perhaps some radar performance. Both have all-aspect LO, highly integrated avionics, HMS, AIM-9X, and gobs of gas (assuming the Aussies opt to buy the A or C variant of the F-35.)

While the legacy of Britain's white paper of the 50's has made us gun-shy about saying it (pun intended), close-in dogfighting is, if not dead, at least on life support. Going to the merge is stupid, and has been for the last 10-15 years. Developments may make it necessary again, but for the time being, it's not the place you want to be. As such, the F-35's lack of thrust vectoring, and its weaker T/W ratio compared to the F-22 are not great sacrifices. As far as EF or Rafale go, they are the pinnacle of the current "brute-force" thinking of air combat. They were designed under the assumption that they would see and be seen. I don't think the first part of that assumption will be valid in the near future.

As far as other potential contenders for the Aussies' dollars, I tend to agree with Gen Jumper (ret) comparing the F-22 (and by extention the F-35) with the EF. Words to the effect of "they're different aircraft, designed to different standards." Both good at what they do, but with different tactics in mind. EF is going to need more in the way of support (stand-off jamming, SEAD, tanker support etc.) than F-35, so factor that into cost calculations, too. I don't know where the reporter got the $100 million price tag for F-35, but that sounds closer to the fly-away costs for the F-22 I've seen. Depending on the numbers game you play, F-35 could cost anywhere between $35-100 million a copy (how much of the development costs you factor in to the price, how many aircraft you amortize that cost over, how many people you account for sharing the R&D, etc.)

The EF's radar is currently mechanically scanned. It's performing better than other planar array radars (APG-68, APG-63), though the AESA's mounted to some F-15's and F/A-18E/F's (as well as the F-22 and F-35) seem to have advantages in detection range, mode agility, and growth capability (HPM weaponization, wide bandwidth datalink, ECM etc.) These advantages are mentioned in unclassified sources, leading me to believe that they've been under development for some time. EF is getting it's own AESA, but it's still in the early stages of development.

PIRATE is the latest development in a long lineage of passive IRST's. It's a great capability, but it's not a panecea for LO. LO isn't just radar, it's low observabilty across the EM spectrum. F-22 and F-35 are going to be hard to find in the IR spectrum, too. And PIRATE won't work in the clouds, either. Not all combat occurs in the desert, and even the desert has its share of overcast days (trust me.) By way of comparison, F-35 will have a 360 degree electro-optical system, to include target designation through the front aperture (basically a targetting pod capability without the pod or its RCS hit, which is cool.) F-35 can also carry 2000 lb. class weapons internally, vice the F-22's 1000 lb. class limit. This (in combination with the A/G target designation capability) makes the F-35 more useful as a multirole aircraft than the F-22, adding to my confusion over the Air Marshall's misgivings. F-22's 1000 lb limitation, as well as being limited to dumb or GPS guided A/G bombs only, makes it most suited to the SEAD role, not interdiction, and certainly not CAS.

It would be nice for the F-22 program if they could be cleared to sell to foreign countries. It would reduce unit costs, and let the USAF buy more. They've demonstrated the willingness to sacrifice almost every other procurement project to one degree or another to get more F-22's, so you know they're lobbying to sell them to the Aussies, the Japanese, the Israelis, and anyone else they think might be interested and can be trusted. But that just ain't gonna happen. F-35 is going to have the same level of integrated avionics, and in some respects (electro-optical, A/G ordinance) more capability, so don't ask me why F-22 sales are so restricted, ask the State Dept. JSF was multi-national from the get-go, so my guess is that State never had a chance to strangle it.

I think that history will eventually place the EF and the Rafale in the same category as the F-104. Excellent designs that took the existing design philosophy to the next step, instead of seeing the need for a change in that philosophy, and making it. Barring any catastrophy in testing, I think the F-35 will prove to be the best aircraft for the Aussies, and the rest of the countries of the JSF team.

Ratsack
05-09-2007, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
...
ps. I also liked the TSR2 but the F111 have served us well.

.

Yes, they have served us well. Compared to the F-111, the F-35 will be a real step backward in strike capability in many respects. It has a far smaller bombload on internals, and less range. If you double the bombload by adding externals, you reduce the range, and lose the dubious forward-aspect stealth.

It has been calculated that it will require triple the number of in-air tankers to maintain the same strike capability that we currently have with the F-111.

As far as air to air is concerned, the F-35 is reported to have characteristics similar to an F-16C. An F-16C fully loaded for ground attack, that is.

The only rationale on which the F-35 can be said to make good sense is integration with U.S. strike packages. As far as cost and performance go, it's not a sure-fire winner by any stretch of the imagination. This is not to say it's a dog, and it's not to say the RAAF boys aren't really angling for the F-22 further down the track (when the JSF goes belly up / over budget / terminally delayed / underperforms, etc, etc, etc).

It bears remembering, too, that the then Minister for Defense - Robert Hill - announced the decision to buy the JSF without the usual competitive process. He just came out and said we'd go with JSF, irrespective of any of the normal Commonwealth procurement procedures. There were some rumblings from offices at Russell about this at the time: something about being gezumphed. Some of the Aussies may remember the run-off of the last such process in 1979-80, when we selected the F/A-18 over the F-16. The decision to buy the F-35 is a bit of a contrast, particularly when you consider that the same government pulled the pin on the $300 million up-front fee to be a second-tier player in 1996. The tangled web we weave...

Ratsack

Badsight-
05-10-2007, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
-Eurofighter and Rafael offer little to no advantage over new F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s. LOL

the truth is :
australian politicians are so far up the behind of the white house that no other option is possible

WTE_Ibis
05-10-2007, 12:35 AM
Mmm, well I'm sure the reason we are getting the F35 is as Ratsack says, it fits in with the US packages, plus our governments obsession with having the US as an "obligated" friend if we should need one. I just didn't quite know if it was the best for the RAAF.
Blottogg thinks it's the right decision and his post is most informative but what happens if the F35s run up against fome late model Russian stuff, will they be able to handle it?
As you can see I'm not up on the latest theories in our defence thinking and dismiss anything our politicians say, they don't think beyond their next four years in office.

.

Bewolf
05-10-2007, 12:54 AM
Just to throw that in, Dogfighting or at least close combat is far from dead. BVR is an option in a clear war environment, with clear frontlines and exact knowledge what to expect as ina cold war environment. In todays wars though, that is not a given. This means visual identification of potential target aircraft is, and prolly will be for quite some time to come, a must. And to get a visual you have to get pretty close.

As to Radar, the EF will get its own AESA in its second or third trench. The EF also is highly modular, which means upgrade and maintenance are extremly easily done. It is a very cost effective plane with much room for future developments.

Gumtree
05-10-2007, 01:43 AM
Hmmmm.... let me see trust the Politician who belongs to a party of sycophant Bush apologists or the Air Marshall... tuff decision.

After great consideration I think Ill go with the professional flyer. Go figure

F19_Orheim
05-10-2007, 01:58 AM
they'll end up with the Jas Gripen in the end anywayhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

whiteladder
05-10-2007, 02:23 AM
Blottogg and the Australian Armed forces assesment of the various capabilited of EF and F-35 are largely true, but that is based on the spec that the US military will be recieving. It is still not certain that the partner countries will have all of the technology transfers they need to have full capability, specifically in areas of stealth and radar performance.

This may result in the UK pulling out of the partnership all together.



Quote

"A review (apparently started Spring 2005) of the UK's F-35 variant selection for its JCA requirement also continues. American decisions (particularly the failure to agree a ITAR technology transfer waiver for JSF to the UK, and the proposed cancellation of the alternative F-136 engine being developed by GE and Rolls-Royce) have already had a large impact on UK thinking, and this looks set to continue.

In special hearings before the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 14 March 2006, British, Australian and Italian officials expressed their unhappiness about the lack of consultation in U.S. handling of the JSF program and technology transfer delays. Minister for Defence Procurement Lord Drayson issued a stark warning that unless Britain's technology access needs are met, it will quit the JSF program. The British government's stance appears uncompromising. Either provide the U.K. with "operational sovereignty" on its Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, or watch London pull out. "

" without the technology transfer to give us the confidence to deliver an aircraft fit to fight on our terms, we will not be able to buy these aircraft," Drayson cautioned. "I am spelling this out because it is so important to make our intentions clear. I know the British can be accused of understatement." Even a navalised variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon is now being seriously re-considered as "Plan B" if the UK pulled out of the JSF project at the end of 2006, something that would have been unthinkable in 2003 or 2004. "

"On 27 April 2007 the Ministry of Defence said that it "remained fully committed to the carrier program"Ě but added, "The department continues to closely monitor the U.S. STOVL requirements and the performance of the [F-35B] STOVL variant."Ě British support for the F-35B is seen by many observers as a key element in the survival of the variant in the American 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). A British government official said Pentagon officials "periodically seek updates from the British government on the status of the carrier program "Ē a move that some have suggested has less to do with Britain's interest in building the ships than whether London is wavering on the raison d'Ítre for the JSF STOVL program."Ě

WTE_Ibis
05-10-2007, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
-Eurofighter and Rafael offer little to no advantage over new F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s. LOL

the truth is :
australian politicians are so far up the behind of the white house that no other option is possible </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

--------------------------------------

Badsight I couldn't agree more and I love your country, I visit there often.
No offence meant but if you are attacked by a flock of penquins from down south you might end up looking for some help too m8.
Unless of course your pollies are ordering 100
F22s in which case we may call on you.
Cheers, Ibis.

Xiolablu3
05-10-2007, 03:58 AM
The F35 is not meant as a high performance fighter, but as a 'workhorse' so I have gathered.

It will be able to perform lots of roles at a cost effective price.

Any war Oz is likely to be in, is very likely to have its Allies in the UK and Canada, NZ which would be quite a formidable force. Maybe include the USA too. As long as whatever it buys suplements its Allies forces then it will be fine.

Can anyone here imagine a war in which Oz was involved but the UK and Canada not? If Oz got in any kind of trouble it would have Allies rushing in to help.

HotelBushranger
05-10-2007, 05:38 AM
What I don't like is that it's a single engine aircraft, none of our ACG are currently singles. Australia is a BIG country, and if you're flying over the Nullarbor and you're single engine F-35 quits, your fk'ed mate.

Bremspropeller
05-10-2007, 06:20 AM
We're not flying Sabres anymore. Modern engines are quite reliable.

HotelBushranger
05-10-2007, 07:52 AM
Better safe than sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The-Pizza-Man
05-10-2007, 07:58 AM
Looks like I have to explain a bit more, although blottog covered a lot of it.


What air to air qualities does the F-35 share with the F-22 ?[quote]

As I said, radar, stealth and networking. Those are probably the 3 most important things in an air to air contest these days as good radar and networking increases your own SA and stealth degrades your enemies.

I also stand by this statement
[quote]Eurofighter and Rafael offer little to no advantage over new F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s

The newest F teens all have AESA radars, right now, as opposed to 'some time in the future'. The rest of the avionics is at least as good, probably better in the case of the Superhornet.

They are integrated with a far wider variety of munitions and have genuine multirole capability, neither Typhoon or Rafael have that.

Basically, all Typhoon and Rafael offer is at best the possibility to realise an incremental increase in performance over F-teens.


Meteor probably beeing the most advanced air-to-air weapon in aviation history.

And it's will be integrated onto the F-35 as well, as will the ASRAAM.


EF can carry more payload then the F-35, it is just as save against enemy fire ( PIRATE, DASS)

Can it? How many more support jammers, tankers, SEAD aircraft will a Typhoon strike package require compared to an F-35 one? I doubt tonnage per aircraft would be any better? The F-35 can also carry external ordnance if it doesn't require stealth as well. It has a 5000lb and a 2500lb class hard point on each wing. So all loaded up it could in theory carry 19,000lbs of bombs and 2 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s/ASRAAMs.


Hmmmm.... let me see trust the Politician who belongs to a party of sycophant Bush apologists or the Air Marshall... tuff decision.

Or you could ask the current CDF Angus Houston, who actually has access to all of the information and isn't trying to drum up a public profile so he can get some consulting work. Alternatively read the ASPI report on the subject.

whiteladder
05-10-2007, 08:36 AM
Can it? How many more support jammers, tankers, SEAD aircraft will a Typhoon strike package require compared to an F-35 one? I doubt tonnage per aircraft would be any better? The F-35 can also carry external ordnance if it doesn't require stealth as well. It has a 5000lb and a 2500lb class hard point on each wing. So all loaded up it could in theory carry 19,000lbs of bombs and 2 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s/ASRAAMs.

Yes actually it can,

The maximum payload for the F35A/B will be 13000lb only the US navies F35C will have a larger payload at 17000lb, and it will only reach this if the problems with gains in wieght are sucessfully addressed.

Tranche 1 Eurofighters payload is 14330lb.

Xiolablu3
05-10-2007, 08:56 AM
You cannot compare the F35 with the EF or the F22, they are completely different design concepts.

The F35 is certainly no air superiority fighter, its a cost effective fighter, meaning you can have lots of them for a low cost.

Bewolf
05-10-2007, 09:05 AM
"low" cost is relative, though. AFAIK the F35 ran into some serious cost problems.

mynameisroland
05-10-2007, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Looks like I have to explain a bit more, although blottog covered a lot of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What air to air qualities does the F-35 share with the F-22 ?[quote]

As I said, radar, stealth and networking. Those are probably the 3 most important things in an air to air contest these days as good radar and networking increases your own SA and stealth degrades your enemies.

I also stand by this statement
[quote]Eurofighter and Rafael offer little to no advantage over new F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s

The newest F teens all have AESA radars, right now, as opposed to 'some time in the future'. The rest of the avionics is at least as good, probably better in the case of the Superhornet.

They are integrated with a far wider variety of munitions and have genuine multirole capability, neither Typhoon or Rafael have that.

Basically, all Typhoon and Rafael offer is at best the possibility to realise an incremental increase in performance over F-teens.


Meteor probably beeing the most advanced air-to-air weapon in aviation history.

And it's will be integrated onto the F-35 as well, as will the ASRAAM.


EF can carry more payload then the F-35, it is just as save against enemy fire ( PIRATE, DASS)

Can it? How many more support jammers, tankers, SEAD aircraft will a Typhoon strike package require compared to an F-35 one? I doubt tonnage per aircraft would be any better? The F-35 can also carry external ordnance if it doesn't require stealth as well. It has a 5000lb and a 2500lb class hard point on each wing. So all loaded up it could in theory carry 19,000lbs of bombs and 2 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s/ASRAAMs.


Hmmmm.... let me see trust the Politician who belongs to a party of sycophant Bush apologists or the Air Marshall... tuff decision.

Or you could ask the current CDF Angus Houston, who actually has access to all of the information and isn't trying to drum up a public profile so he can get some consulting work. Alternatively read the ASPI report on the subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why dont you focus on your initial comment where you claim that the Typhoon offers no increase in capability over the teen fighters - total BS I may add, and that the F-35 is a better fighter.

You clearly show a lack of knowledge with regard to the Typhoon which has shown to be the most capable dogfighter in the world second only to the F-22 and even then it surpasses the F-22 in the realm of supersonic manuverability. It is modular, in service, has a planned series of upgrades and in its CURRENT form is far superior to any teen series of fighter in service anywhere let alone in its soon to be improved form.

Add to this that it has twin engines
comes at a lower unit cost
comes with FULL avionics suite
and that the Typhoon consortioum dont expect political backing the next time Europe goes to war if you buy it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You seem to assume that the F-35 will follow the precedent set by the F-15 to F-16 relationship where countries got to buy a cheaper almost as competative fighter. Well the F-35 is no where near as capable as the Typhoon in air combat and bears no resemblence to the dogfight capabilities the F-16 offered when it first appeared over contemporary rivals , it is no where near as affordable as the F-16 was when it was introduced and is also designed to be a bomb truck with fighter role added on rather than a fighter with bombs stuck on. This is clearly the wrong way to go about developing a fighter aircraft. F-111 and Tornado F.3 anyone?

jarink
05-10-2007, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Yes, they have served us well. Compared to the F-111, the F-35 will be a real step backward in strike capability in many respects. It has a far smaller bombload on internals, and less range. If you double the bombload by adding externals, you reduce the range, and lose the dubious forward-aspect stealth.

It has been calculated that it will require triple the number of in-air tankers to maintain the same strike capability that we currently have with the F-111.

I wouldn't be overly concerned about lower bombloads. With the advent of true precision strike munitions in the past 10-15 years, it makes more sense 90% of the time to use smaller PGMs than dropping a huge load of dumb bombs.

The lack of range is a concern, especially for a wide-open country like Oz.

Do the debates over the F-35 remind anyone else about similar debates when the F-18 was coming into service (low payload, short range, perceived lack of AA capability)?

Rammathorn_
05-10-2007, 09:58 AM
Fighter jets spend over 99% of their time out of combat. The political implications of a decision like this probably have a lot more of an effect than the minor performance differences.

Viper2005_
05-10-2007, 10:03 AM
I think that it's all about horses for courses. Part of the trouble is know what the course is going to be. Most of the aeroplanes we fly in this game were designed with WWII in mind. JSF, F-22, Typhoon and the other fighters of this new generation will be in service for many years, and nobody can have any way of knowing what wars they will be called to fight during that time. As such, it's very difficult to know if they are the "right" aircraft at this point.

Politics also come into play.

For example F-22 may well be the best 1v1 fighter in the world. But since it is also extremely expensive it may not be the best aircraft. If it is twice as good as the next best alternative, but costs three times as much, then it isn't the best investment in a war of attrition.

OTOH, if you've got lots of cash and are certain to win anyway, it's the best choice of aircraft for minimising casualties.

If you end up fighting an enemy who lacks an effective airforce then any a2a capability is rather a waste of money; a simple B-52 type bomb-truck, perhaps combined with a Skyraider type CAS platform would give a lot more bang for your bucks.

Then again, in terms of deterrent effect, I'm not really sure whether 300 F-22s or 1000 F-16s is the more scary. Quantity has a quality of its own!

It's all something of a poker game, and I for one hope that we never have to find out what hands everybody really has.

Blottogg
05-10-2007, 10:11 AM
Don't get too hung up on gross bomb tonnage. The days of sending multiple aircraft against one target are over. The question planners ask now is "how many targets can we assign to each fighter?" Number and type of weapons, as well as endurance, are more important than tonnage. The F-35 can carry 2x2000 lb PGM's internally, or more externally if LO isn't a priority. Two targets per sortie in a high-threat environment is as good as the soon to be retired F-117, with the added bonuses of LPI radar, 360 EO coverage, and a healthy A/A capability. How many targets per mission are Aussie 'Vark crews currently training to kill? F-111 and EF can perform the mission, but with considerably greater support required to make the mission even remotely survivable for those crews.

The F-35 doesn't have the legs of a F-111. Very little does, and its long range was one of the reasons Canberra bought it (conspiracy theories of U.S. appeasement notwithstanding.) The F-35's range performance is much better than the F/A-18, F-16 and AV-8 it was designed to replace. Any increased tanker support the F-35 will require to replace the F-111 will be more than offset by the reduced jammer, AWACS, A/A escort and maintenance requirements compared to those of the F-111. I like the 'Vark too, but the F-35 will do the job better, and is a better replacement in that role than the EF or F-22.

As far as the single engine argument goes, the accident rate for the single-engined F-16 is higher than the two-engined F-15, but very little of this increase is due to engine failure rates. More of it is do to the more diverse, higher risk mission set of the Viper. A quick Google of accident rates (http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2004/08/bush_and_the_f1.html)produced this snippet:

"...the F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14, the F-15 is at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9"

I don't know what the reliability of the F-135/136 engines is now or will be later, but I would guess that they'll be at least as reliable as the engines in the F-16, which are pretty damn reliable. The F-35B will have the increased complexity of the lift-fan, which will no doubt reduce reliability. In comparison to the abysmal safety record of the AV-8 it is replacing though, I'm sure it will be a big improvement. I'd fly an F-35 in a heartbeat, with no concerns (and I used to fly Vipers...over the Sea of Japan... in March... at night....closer to Vladivostok than Tokyo.)

I don't like the politics (budgetary and otherwise) going on concerning the F-136 engine, and hope that nonsense blows over, and the British opt for this motor for their aircraft. I'd also like to see it used in the U.S. fleet, as the F-110 and F-100 are today in the F-16 fleet. In related news, the technology transfer issue with Great Britain has been resolved, if not to everybody's overwhelming joy, then at least to their mutual grudging acceptance. Australia will probably reach as similar agreement now that the trail has been blazed.

Another related political point that hacks me off is the concept of "industrial offsets" and work share agreements. I know it's unavoidable given the sums of money we're now talking about, but having to jump through hoops to make sure everybody gets to produce a certain dollar (or Euro) amount, regardless of industrial capability or competence, chaps my hide. EF production is arguably more politicized than F-35, but the JSF still has time to further Balkanize its production base.

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that the F-35 is a simple bomb truck with little capability A/A (perhaps from the F-22 SPO.) It doesn't have the P/W of an F-22, but that is like the range comparison with the F-111. The F-35's P/W is as good as or better than the aircraft it's intended to replace. NOTHING has the P/W of an F-22, not even the EF (unless you start monkeying with fuel and payload weights.) And in a world with HMS and AIM-9X/IRST/AA-11/ASRAAM etc., post-stall maneuvering won't affect anything other than what aspect the missile hits you pre-merge. Pugachev cobra maneuvers are fun at airshows (or in some wild LOMAC videos) but slowing yourself down while throwing out as much heat as possible is not usually a recipe for A/A success. As we used to say in the F-16 when hitting the pickle button simulating a Sidewinder launch during training "Fox 2... BFM this!"

For the EF, its best strength A/A is its ability to supercruise, its high altitude performance, and its long range radar/missile combo (even longer when the AESA and Meteor come on line.) It can throw a big honkin' F-pole out there, and that's how it's going to kill and survive. Stiff-arm the bad guys until they blow up. F-35 is going to have to get a little closer (even with the AIM-120D), but it can do that with at least as much survivability as the EF. And it can loiter more safely, closer to the fight, than the EF can. It is NOT a second-rate A/A platform.

As far as the F-35's capability against current Russian hardware, I'll give you the standard Fighter Weapons School answer, "It depends." These systems are getting so complicated that accurately predicting how they will interact is difficult without actually putting them head-to-head in a shooting contest. Could the Su-30 ECM detect and negate the F-35's (or EF's) radar? I don't know. Can the Su-30 RWR or jammer detect the F-35's LPI waveform? I don't know that either. My educated guess is no to both, at least for the near future. The F-35's sensor fusion and networking abilities add alternatives should the Russian electronics be surprisingly good. And we come back to the LO card and it's associated tactics. The F-22 is kicking butt in exercises, and the F-35 has the same features that are allowing the F-22 to do this.

One thing that does worry me about the F-35 is the concept of testing while producing. As far as I can tell, this is driven by the bean-counters who are trying to stack the USAF systems production budgets to minimize any overlap, with little or no regard to the actual hardware, or the bodies that fly it. I agree with Congress that this approach increases the risk to the operational crews, and will increase the cost to fix problems found during testing. Lockheed Martin is working to reduce this risk, but this is pretty much uncharted territory for a weapon this complex. Experience gained from the F-22 can also be used to reduce risk however.

csThor
05-10-2007, 10:25 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the F-35 initially designed as a low-cost multi-role combat aircraft (to replace the F-16 and F-18) ??? If so are rumors true that it has run into some serious cost issues lately?

WOLFMondo
05-10-2007, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:


Then again, in terms of deterrent effect, I'm not really sure whether 300 F-22s or 1000 F-16s is the more scary. Quantity has a quality of its own!


1000 F16's can carry allot more ordanance. Besides, every time you loose and F22 you loose the equivlent cost to a large state of the art hospital.

The F22 is an incredible waste of money, to expensive to loose on in combat and too few to ever make an impact if there was another global war. 1000 F16's is far more of a threat if the US was to ever go to war with someone like China.

Jaws2002
05-10-2007, 10:31 AM
F-35 is a good decision. It is the only next generation affordable fighter. The Typhoon, Rafale, Su30 and any other non stealth aircraft are not in the same league. This is an investment for the future. When make investment for the future you don't want to spend billions on yesterday's technology.

Even the Russians got to the conclusion that is not worth designing or upgrading non stealth combat aircraft because they are at great disadvantage against stealth fighters as so many tests demonstrated.

Dance
05-10-2007, 10:39 AM
Enjoyed your views Blottog, one of the best posts I've read in a while. Unbiased, informed and informative.

If only politicians listened to pilots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HuninMunin
05-10-2007, 10:51 AM
Stealth is prestige.
As much as the politics and DARPA want to tell the world: Brute force is the only way of war.
Wether carried out by laser guided missiles or iron bombs - that fact stands.
Did the F-117s really make a difference in the first Gulf war?
Or were it the heavy blows of hundreds of other combat aircraft?
What does the F-35 have over the Typhoon or F/A-18 or Su-30 if there is a civil war in Africa?

If you do the math and evaluate the effectivnes of these weaponsystems you will much likely tend to think of the Lighting II as beeing the wrong method.

Stealth exists because the United States want to be best in the world of air warfare.
And for exactly that reason PAFKA exists to beginn with aswell.

The Typhoon and Rafale are children of another era - but have made the step to be usefull and justyfied instruments of modern warfare.

What you claim to be the next step in aircraft development is no real next step.
The stealth designs are nothing more then children of the cold wars mentality.

The Suchois, Eurofighters, Saabs and Superhornets are the real deal in future conflict.

LStarosta
05-10-2007, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Stealth is prestige.
As much as the politics and DARPA want to tell the world: Brute force is the only way of war.
Wether carried out by laser guided missiles or iron bombs - that fact stands.
Did the F-117s really make a difference in the first Gulf war?
Or were it the heavy blows of hundreds of other combat aircraft?
What does the F-35 have over the Typhoon or F/A-18 or Su-30 if there is a civil war in Africa?

If you do the math and evaluate the effectivnes of these weaponsystems you will much likely tend to think of the Lighting II as beeing the wrong method.

Stealth exists because the United States want to be best in the world of air warfare.
And for exactly that reason PAFKA exists to beginn with aswell.

The Typhoon and Rafale are children of another era - but have made the step to be usefull and justyfied instruments of modern warfare.

What you claim to be the next step in aircraft development is no real next step.
The stealth designs are nothing more then children of the cold wars mentality.

The Suchois, Eurofighters, Saabs and Superhornets are the real deal in future conflict.


Sounds like a kid who's jealous he doesn't have the coolest and most awesome toys in the neighborhood. Or are you just anti-American?

Grow up.

Jaws2002
05-10-2007, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Stealth is prestige.

Stealth is not prestige. is survivability. It helps you to do the most damage to the enemy with the least danger and loses to your forces.


The Suchois, Eurofighters, Saabs and Superhornets are the real deal in future conflict.



You see. you don't buy this planes for the next five years. you buy them for next 25 or even more.

Bewolf
05-10-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Stealth is prestige.
As much as the politics and DARPA want to tell the world: Brute force is the only way of war.
Wether carried out by laser guided missiles or iron bombs - that fact stands.
Did the F-117s really make a difference in the first Gulf war?
Or were it the heavy blows of hundreds of other combat aircraft?
What does the F-35 have over the Typhoon or F/A-18 or Su-30 if there is a civil war in Africa?

If you do the math and evaluate the effectivnes of these weaponsystems you will much likely tend to think of the Lighting II as beeing the wrong method.

Stealth exists because the United States want to be best in the world of air warfare.
And for exactly that reason PAFKA exists to beginn with aswell.

The Typhoon and Rafale are children of another era - but have made the step to be usefull and justyfied instruments of modern warfare.

What you claim to be the next step in aircraft development is no real next step.
The stealth designs are nothing more then children of the cold wars mentality.

The Suchois, Eurofighters, Saabs and Superhornets are the real deal in future conflict.


Sounds like a kid who's jealous he doesn't have the coolest and most awesome toys in the neighborhood. Or are you just anti-American?

Grow up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, the good old "bash them to death" anti american argument as soon somebody is of different opinion.

Grow up.

That said, HuninMunin is spot on in his assesment. Every war in the last 30 years, prolly even longer, was against some backwater country. Stealth is a nice thing to have in that for first strikes, but alltogehter a complete waste of money, as modern ballistic missles are exact enough to hit targets with similiar results. Stealth aircraft both in the guld war and in Yugoslavia were there to test the concept more then making a real impact. The next generation of fighters, already seen with Predetor drones and other vehicles currently in development will be pilotless anyways and perfectly suited for operations as we have seen them lately. The F22, 35, even the EF are a last of a kind. Insofar the excess cost F22 and F35 indeed are more or less prestige objects to project power, but nothing to be seen in large scale warfware.

LStarosta
05-10-2007, 11:46 AM
Jaws has it spot on.

Just because your air force isn't as advanced as another country's doesn't mean you have to bash it.

Grow up.

csThor
05-10-2007, 12:00 PM
No need for the "my Daddy's d*ck is longer than the one of your Daddy" routine, LStarosta. Neither the F-22 nor the EF nor the Rafale nor the F-35 nor the Gripen (which should be considered in the same "generation") have yet proven anything in a real combat so all we're posting here is pretty much the stuff their makers have released - and we all should be aware what advertizment means.

Stealth, as Bewolf and Hunin said, is a concept of the Cold War. With Eastern Europe being a forest of SAM and AAA stealth was a very sound concept for intruding the defended airspace without suffering heavy losses. The question is simply - what do we need Stealth for today? A country like the USA with its geopolitical orientation will certainly find Stealth to be useful should military force be necessary. But a country like Germany, which does need replacement for its aging fighter and strike component, which has no interest in being "the world's policeman" (outside of UN/NATO mandates) and which is surrounded by allies -what would it need stealth aircraft for? Us Jerries won't start a war on our own so all potential military engagements will be within the limits of UN or NATO - in combination with other partner forces. Desert Storm proved that conventional aircraft can evade ground-based defense systems very well so the EF will be certainly fit to face the challenges of the next two or three decades. Unless the Marsians invade, that is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Bewolf
05-10-2007, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Jaws has it spot on.

Just because your air force isn't as advanced as another country's doesn't mean you have to bash it.

Grow up.

Learn to define "bashing" and "arguing". Then show me were I "bashed" anything.

Grow up.

LStarosta
05-10-2007, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
No need for the "my Daddy's d*ck is longer than the one of your Daddy" routine, LStarosta

Fair enough. MY d*ck is bigger than you and your daddy's combined.



Stealth, as Bewolf and Hunin said, is a concept of the Cold War. With Eastern Europe being a forest of SAM and AAA stealth was a very sound concept for intruding the defended airspace without suffering heavy losses. The question is simply - what do we need Stealth for today? A country like the USA with its geopolitical orientation will certainly find Stealth to be useful should military force be necessary. But a country like Germany, which does need replacement for its aging fighter and strike component, which has no interest in being "the world's policeman" (outside of UN/NATO mandates) and which is surrounded by allies -what would it need stealth aircraft for? Us Jerries won't start a war on our own so all potential military engagements will be within the limits of UN or NATO - in combination with other partner forces. Desert Storm proved that conventional aircraft can evade ground-based defense systems very well so the EF will be certainly fit to face the challenges of the next two or three decades. Unless the Marsians invade, that is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

However, don't forget that such 3rd world "backwater" countries do make use of SAMs, and quite well. Back in Vietnam, when the U.S. was fighting one of these so-called backwater countries, the SAM threat was extremely high, forcing the USAF on the defensive with the Wild Weasel sortie. Now, assuming that conflict will be restricted to 3rd world countries (which is an absurd assumption) with the potential for acquiring cheap SAM technology, can you begin to see why stealth technology might be considered useful? The United States Air Force can afford to obtain such technologies (albeit at the price of force-shaping), and therefore they sure can find ways to use them. Do you think Iran lacks radar guided anti-aircraft weaponry? How about North Korea? Yeaaaaah...

As I said, technology-to-warfighting is an amazing thing that not everyone can have.

Bremspropeller
05-10-2007, 01:30 PM
However, don't forget that such 3rd world "backwater" countries do make use of SAMs, and quite well. Back in Vietnam, when the U.S. was fighting one of these so-called backwater countries, the SAM threat was extremely high, forcing the USAF on the defensive with the Wild Weasel sortie. Now, assuming that conflict will be restricted to 3rd world countries (which is an absurd assumption) with the potential for acquiring cheap SAM technology, can you begin to see why stealth technology might be considered useful?


We have SEAD sqaudrons to deal with that.


Besides, Vietnam was lost due to d1ckheads reigning in Washington that didn't know sh1t of what was going on. Read about ROE in Vietnam.

SAMs didn't prove most deadly, AAA was.
Stealth might impose difficulties upon radar-guided AAA stations, but at common AAA-ranges, stealth doesn't help you anyway, because you're not invisible at all.
Stealth neither prevents losses due to small arms fire. See Vietnam vor reference.

ploughman
05-10-2007, 01:47 PM
Brems, that's just silly. No stealth platform today, with PGMS, need expose itself to AAA or small arms fire. They can simply float around at high alt blowing stuff up in an "I am GOD!!!" sort of way. In fact, most un-stealthed platforms can do the same as contemporary munitions have a stand-off range that is proportional to the altitude they're dropped from. Even quite alot of SAM envelops are currently insufficient to even protect themselves, stuff like the S-300/400 accepted but they would then be the F-22/F-35/B-2/SAS's primary mission for day 1.

PBNA-Boosher
05-10-2007, 01:50 PM
Russian aircraft are more maneuverable and there is plenty of life left in the Sukhoi airframe. But modern aircraft deal more with BVR combat these days, not close-in dogfights. Dogfighting is still important, the US learned what a mistake it made not arming its planes with guns in Vietnam, but missile, RADAR, and avionics development have vastly improved. the AIM-120 missile is vastly more reliable now. It doesn't matter how maneuverable your aircraft is if you don't get off the first shot. First shot capability is proven through lots of air combat to be the defining factor in a fight. Look at the record of the F-15. It may not be the dogfighter that the MiGs or Sukhois are, but it has amazing BVR and RADAR capability.

My worry is this. My country has long been extremely protective of its so called "stealth" technology. Don't let that term fool you. All an enemy needs to do is launch an R-73 "Archer" heat seeking missile and it will go right up the F-35's tailpipe.... but the launching aircraft needs to be in range first. I can't speak for Australia, I'm not Australian. However, I think this aircraft deserves its chance to perform.

HuninMunin
05-10-2007, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Stealth is prestige.
As much as the politics and DARPA want to tell the world: Brute force is the only way of war.
Wether carried out by laser guided missiles or iron bombs - that fact stands.
Did the F-117s really make a difference in the first Gulf war?
Or were it the heavy blows of hundreds of other combat aircraft?
What does the F-35 have over the Typhoon or F/A-18 or Su-30 if there is a civil war in Africa?

If you do the math and evaluate the effectivnes of these weaponsystems you will much likely tend to think of the Lighting II as beeing the wrong method.

Stealth exists because the United States want to be best in the world of air warfare.
And for exactly that reason PAFKA exists to beginn with aswell.

The Typhoon and Rafale are children of another era - but have made the step to be usefull and justyfied instruments of modern warfare.

What you claim to be the next step in aircraft development is no real next step.
The stealth designs are nothing more then children of the cold wars mentality.

The Suchois, Eurofighters, Saabs and Superhornets are the real deal in future conflict.


Sounds like a kid who's jealous he doesn't have the coolest and most awesome toys in the neighborhood. Or are you just anti-American?

Grow up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're free to come over to Cologne and see for yourself what kind of kid is jealous here.
How can a person that has never left it's own country, not even thinking of or acepting the opinion of a foreign person, judge about anything?
Don't try to apply your mentality to the rest of the world.

I commented warfare politics - not even especialy alluding to America but Russia aswell:
for the records, if there was still a roman empire they would build stealth aircraft aswell...

Your nation can be proud to offspring such an amount of magnificent people, dead and alive, to
compensate your kind.

LStarosta
05-10-2007, 01:59 PM
You're free to come over to Cologne and see for yourself what kind of kid is jealous here.
How can a person that has never left it's own country judge about anything?
Don't try to apply your mentality to the rest of the world.


LOL Aren't you presumptuous.



Your nation can be proud to offspring such an amount of magnificent people, dead or alive, to
compensate your kind.

MY kind? We have to resort to racism now?


In Tagert's words:

Poor Nancy.

HuninMunin
05-10-2007, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Stealth is prestige.

Stealth is not prestige. is survivability. It helps you to do the most damage to the enemy with the least danger and loses to your forces.


The Suchois, Eurofighters, Saabs and Superhornets are the real deal in future conflict.



You see. you don't buy this planes for the next five years. you buy them for next 25 or even more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand the concept you describe, but as I said: in front of the most probable war in the future - intervention for peace - has no need for true stealth.

All of the 4th generation fighters I have mentioned in my previous post have either significantly reduced radar and heat signatures in comparsion to their predecessors of the 3rd generation or completely put their money on superior firepower.

And for the service span of some aircraft:
Shure the Indians allready have some problems with their russian hardware, but the EF is build for a 30 year service life ( not counting in overhaul programms wich will most certainly occur); I don't know exactly but I'd believe it is the same with the Gripen or Rafale.

HuninMunin
05-10-2007, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're free to come over to Cologne and see for yourself what kind of kid is jealous here.
How can a person that has never left it's own country judge about anything?
Don't try to apply your mentality to the rest of the world.


LOL Aren't you presumptuous.



Your nation can be proud to offspring such an amount of magnificent people, dead or alive, to
compensate your kind.

MY kind? We have to resort to racism now?


In Tagert's words:

Poor Nancy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your words make me stand correct.
Not only you implied that I have some anti american agenda ( maybe just ask a few community members if thats the truth) but now you accuse me of racism?

I know my english is not the best, but I think all but you understood quite right why and in what context I used the word "kind".

Nimits
05-10-2007, 02:31 PM
I think part of the problem is the designation "F-35." Like the F-117, an "A-" designator may have been more important. The F-35 seems primarily to be designed to replace the ground attack capabilities of the F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, AV-8, F-117, and AV-8, rather than the F/A-18 or F-16 air superiority role. This is in direct contrast to the F-16 and F/A-18, which were origanlly part of the same program looking for an extremely manuverable close-in dogfighter with a secondary ground attack capability. At the time those aircraft were designed, the USAF and USN still had lots dedicated ground attack aircraft in service (F-111, A-7, A-6), and others (A-12 anyone?) in developemnt. So of course the F-16 is going to better close in air-to-air capabilities relative to its contemporaries. I personally believe the F-35 is going to be more analogous to the F-15E or AV-8/Harrier, and excellent ground attack platform with some air-to-air capability. At the same time, while the Typhoon (or Su-30) will dominate the close in fight, the F-35 will still be able to hold its own (if not have a slgiht advantage) in the BVR fight, do to superior LO and ECM technology. More importantly, the F-35 is going to be able to get bombs on target much more efficiently than the Typhoon; I'd challenge any non-stealth (e.g. Typhoon) aircraft to try and enter an S-300 MEZ without massive SEAD support=. It cannot be done.

I am not a big fan of the "multi-role" concept. If you develop the ideal dogfighter (e.g. F-16) and later discover it is also a great ground attack aircraft, great, but planes designed to do multi-roles, whether built by Lockheed or Eurofighter, seldom do all those jobs well. Ideally, if Australia wants to cover all its bases, it needs the F-35 for ground attack and another fighter (F-22, Typhoon, upgraded F-15C) for air superiority, but I doubt that is going to happen. Anyway, if things ever go to hell in the Pacific, the RAF and USAAF will be there with their F-22s, F-15Cs, and Typhoons soon enough.

Nimits
05-10-2007, 02:38 PM
I understand the concept you describe, but as I said: in front of the most probable war in the future - intervention for peace - has no need for true stealth.

You are missing the point of designing new military technology.

First: you should as much as possible resist designing weapons just for yesterday's war (e.g. low intensity anti-terrorism and peace-keeping), but rather design to defeat your worst case enemy (in the case of western nations, this includes China, which is using alot of Russian equipment).

Second: Stealth is THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of any future design, even more so if you are thinking a low intensity conflict. SAMs are alot cheaper and more prolific than fighters and it is more likely that a rouge regime could acquire an SA-10 than a Su-30. No non-stealth fighter is going to last long in an environment featuring SA-10s, SA-12s, or SA-20s (or whatever knockoff copy the Chinese are making).

Col._King
05-10-2007, 02:41 PM
~S~

This is a brilliant example of how a topic that was to be technic and state of the art about aircraft related can be hijaked to a totally different and unwanted direction.

Really, the HUMAN KIND do have the tech capabilities to project and produce such advanced weapons. Such fantastic and marvelous machines wich ultimate purpose is that of killing people... The direction this topic has gone, and the bashing used between more than one of the participants in what was started with the purpose of being a civilyzed discussion makes me think that even if technically capable, the HUMAN KIND or Mankind if you want another term, is very far to achieve the MORAL capability to handle such a technology, and to use for more noble purposes.

Thanks GOD, I fly only virtual, and all what I kill during my virtual flying are only some pixels... With this I dont pretend to say I'm better than anyone here. What I can say is that seeing the way this thread is going, makes me sad. Everyone have the right to have and defend an opinion. But i want to believe this is possible without being rude to whom have a different one.

I'm not defending anyone there, nor attacking anyone. But I will be way more satisfied in seeing all of you to be a little bit more mature and capable to have a more calm and maneered discussion.

Thank you.

Bremspropeller
05-10-2007, 02:45 PM
No stealth platform today, with PGMS, need expose itself to AAA or small arms fire. They can simply float around at high alt blowing stuff up in an "I am GOD!!!" sort of way.


Not really.
Stealth only tunes down your RCS and the enemy's detection range.
You still need to rely on SEAD in order to fly high and drop bombs harmlessly.

PLS don't come with F-117 sorties over Bagdhad durigt Desert Storm.

No single Iraqi radar-operator knew those planes existed and were going to drop bombs "downtown".
additionally they were busy calling out "unstealthy" raids.

WWSpinDry
05-10-2007, 03:22 PM
IBTL

http://www.spinland.biz/smileys/popcorn.gif

Dance
05-10-2007, 03:34 PM
Pass me some of that popcorn 'Spin' I got the munchies like you wouldn't believe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The-Pizza-Man
05-10-2007, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Why dont you focus on your initial comment where you claim that the Typhoon offers no increase in capability over the teen fighters - total BS I may add, and that the F-35 is a better fighter.

You clearly show a lack of knowledge with regard to the Typhoon which has shown to be the most capable dogfighter in the world second only to the F-22 and even then it surpasses the F-22 in the realm of supersonic manuverability. It is modular, in service, has a planned series of upgrades and in its CURRENT form is far superior to any teen series of fighter in service anywhere let alone in its soon to be improved form.

Add to this that it has twin engines
comes at a lower unit cost
comes with FULL avionics suite
and that the Typhoon consortioum dont expect political backing the next time Europe goes to war if you buy it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You seem to assume that the F-35 will follow the precedent set by the F-15 to F-16 relationship where countries got to buy a cheaper almost as competative fighter. Well the F-35 is no where near as capable as the Typhoon in air combat and bears no resemblence to the dogfight capabilities the F-16 offered when it first appeared over contemporary rivals , it is no where near as affordable as the F-16 was when it was introduced and is also designed to be a bomb truck with fighter role added on rather than a fighter with bombs stuck on. This is clearly the wrong way to go about developing a fighter aircraft. F-111 and Tornado F.3 anyone?

My statement is valid, they offer little to no improvement over new F-teens. South Korea and Singapore also agreed with that assessment when they procured F-15Ks and F-15SG respectively.

Typhoon Vs F-teens
-In combat configuration the Typhoon has little to no thrust to weight advantage over a similarly configured F-15K or SG. I don't know about F-16s or F/A-18Es
-It has inferior radar to the latest F-teens. F-16 Block 70(?), F/A-18E Block 2, and F-15SG all have AESA radar. Which is a massive improvement over existing mechanically scanned types. They have inherently better LPI characterics and superior flexibility.
-It has inferior range compared to the F-15, I haven't checked the F-16 or F/A-18E, but I suspect that it wouldn't be superior to either.
-Late model F-teens have a far greater variety weapons integrated with them. Typhoon doesn't have JDAM. Are service Typhoons even capable of self designating and dropping LGBs yet?
-JHMCS and HOBS missiles pretty much eliminate the need to have your nose pointed at the enemy during a dogfight. That's how the RAAF sees it. Once you get to a certain threshold maneuverability any more is just superfluous as the missile can do the rest, and do it better.
-lower cost

F-35 as a A-A fighter
The F-35 is designed to have at minimum the same agility as the F-16A. The F-16A was a very agile aircraft and is still competitive. Remember it has a similar thrust to weight as the Typhoon at combat weights.

Disadvantages it may have in kinematic performances will be more than out weighed by increased SA, which is a result of it's superior radar, IRST and networking. It is also able to decisively reduce the SA of enemy aircraft thanks to it LO capability.

It also has an increadibly high fuel fraction compared to most fighters. Meaning it can spend more time in AB than most fighters and have greater combat persistance.

Unit cost of the F-35 is 45-60 million USD, don't compare the price of preproduction prototypes with production aircraft.

A-A if I had to chose between the latest whiz bang sukhoi with 4 sets of canards and the F-35 I would pick the F-35 everytime. Just look at what the F-22 has done to existing 4th gen types in exercises. It's great kinematic performance has played a part but the greatest factors have been it's stealth, radar and networking. They are the decisive qualities that seperate it from existing types. The F-35 has the same advantages.

csThor
05-10-2007, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Fair enough. MY d*ck is bigger than you and your daddy's combined.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I had hoped for a more brain-driven reaction, but obviously you're way too full of yourself for such a basic concept as a "serious discussion" (instead of a pissing contest). Have fun in this thread - I'm out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WTE_Ibis
05-11-2007, 06:43 AM
I didn't realise I would start WW111 with this topic.
Best we get our planes soon methinks.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Bremspropeller
05-11-2007, 07:06 AM
-In combat configuration the Typhoon has little to no thrust to weight advantage over a similarly configured F-15K or SG. I don't know about F-16s or F/A-18Es

Sources? WTF is an F-15SG? The F-15S is nothing but a less capable F-15E.

In Combat configuration, a Typhoon can carry up to six GBU-24 class LGBs, plus four MRAAMs plus two SRAAMs.
Now let's see if either the Viper or the Super Bug can compete with that.
A Mudhen will carry more bombs, but at the cost of A-A capability. The Mudhen is a bombtruck, not a swing-role fighter.


-It has inferior radar to the latest F-teens. F-16 Block 70(?), F/A-18E Block 2, and F-15SG all have AESA radar. Which is a massive improvement over existing mechanically scanned types. They have inherently better LPI characterics and superior flexibility.

Depends on the tranche you're talking about. Speaking of Tranche one and two (supposed to replace the Tornado F.3 and F-4F ICE) you're right. However, Tranche three will incorporate AESA, as well as higher rated engines (some sources say as high as 122kN) and some other stuff necessary to replace IDS Tornados.


-It has inferior range compared to the F-15, I haven't checked the F-16 or F/A-18E, but I suspect that it wouldn't be superior to either.

Suspecting never won anything. The Tiffy will carry three tanks plus the same ordnance as a fully bombed-up Viper (plus two MRAAMS more than the -16).
Bombed-up, any fighter needs tanker assistance.


-Late model F-teens have a far greater variety weapons integrated with them. Typhoon doesn't have JDAM. Are service Typhoons even capable of self designating and dropping LGBs yet?

Again, "service" yet equals Tranche one, which means A-A only.


-JHMCS and HOBS missiles pretty much eliminate the need to have your nose pointed at the enemy during a dogfight. That's how the RAAF sees it. Once you get to a certain threshold maneuverability any more is just superfluous as the missile can do the rest, and do it better.

A study not proven yet.


-lower cost

Less pronounced devellopment-capabilities (especially true for the Viper and Mudhen).
The Super Bug is a differnt pair of shoes. However, it yet has to attract an export-customer.



Remember it has a similar thrust to weight as the Typhoon at combat weights.

Which means the Viper A is a dog compared to a clean A-A Tiffie (again, A-A means SIX missiles, not just two).


It also has an increadibly high fuel fraction compared to most fighters. Meaning it can spend more time in AB than most fighters and have greater combat persistance.

Other fighters, however, don't have to rely on AB in order to stay airbourne http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Any Supercruise figures out for the F-35 yet?

EF says the Tiffie will do M1.5 in A-A.


A-A if I had to chose between the latest whiz bang sukhoi with 4 sets of canards and the F-35 I would pick the F-35 everytime. Just look at what the F-22 has done to existing 4th gen types in exercises.

From what I read, the Raptor did quite bad in WVR against RAF Tiffies. BVR it rocked (as it was supposed to), but it's not as shining close in.

Xiolablu3
05-11-2007, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the F-35 initially designed as a low-cost multi-role combat aircraft (to replace the F-16 and F-18) ??? If so are rumors true that it has run into some serious cost issues lately?

This is exactly what I thought too.

There was the televised series on the JSF Competition between Lockheed and Boeing, and in that program it gave the design spec.

It said the JSF was basically to be a workhorse complement to the F22 and the EF Typhoon, specialising in doing many different roles at a low cost, so that there could be large numbers in an air force.

3 Varients were to be produced including the replacement for the Harrier.

Seems somewhere the cost spiralled if its now more expensive than the EF??

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 07:36 AM
As far as current tests show the Typhoon can beat pretty much anything at BVR. Even using the AIM 120 it can fly higher and faster than anything bar the F-22 and can therefore impart greater energy as a launch platform to any missiles it carries. The Meteor offers an even larger advantage. The supercruise capability means that this advantage is real and not hypothetical placing current F-16/F15 and F/A-18s firmly in the shade. They cannot go supersonic in air to air configuration whereas the Typhoon can cruise at speeds above Mach 1 with missiles slung under it.

No development of the F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 family will ever posses the air to air capability be it BVR or close range dogfighting of even Tranche 1 vanilla Typhoons. You cant take a 30 year old design and turn it in to a next gen fighter.

Lots of countries will no doubt buy the F-35 for a predominantly air to air role and even chose to buy crappy old refurbished Teen fighters, this is to do with economic and political ties to the USA not because these aircraft are better fighters.

Xiolablu3
05-11-2007, 07:51 AM
I guess its expected for non US guys to bash stealth as being 'not important', so I dont mean to be a cliche BUT....


NOw that planes cannot be picked up by simple radar signatures, wont the Russians, or CHinese (In fact everyone) simply use a different way of dectecting planes? Meaning stealth as we know it would become redundant? I am sure every country with an Advanced Military Air Force has their own secret way of detecting stealth planes by now, and if not they will be very close to a working system.

I would have thought just like the tech war in WW2 moved extremely quickly between the Lancaster Bombers and the German Nightfighters (technology on each side countered within weeks of it being used), that people will simply give up using conventional radars, and invent some other way of detecting the F22 and F35?

War always acts as a catalyst for technical development.

Even if its not developed in peacetime then, all that needs to happen is one F22 or F35 crash and be tested by 'realistic' opposition (talking Russia or CHina, not Iraq or Afganistan), and they would find a way to 'see' it.

I dont know too much about this stuff so please bear with me if I am talking nonsense.

EDIT: Just been browsing and it seem's even on the net quite a few small companies are already finding a way around stealth, imagine what advanced countries have behind the scenes. I cant help but think that the speed which technology develops in a War that Stealth would very quickly be countered...

----------------------------------------

'Both Australia and Russia have announced that they have developed processing techniques that allow them to detect the turbulence of aircraft at reasonably long ranges (possibly negating the stealth technology).

Passive (multistatic) radar, bistatic radar and especially multistatic systems are believed to detect stealth aircraft better than conventional monostatic radars, since stealth technology reflects energy away from the transmitter's line of sight, effectively increasing the radar cross section (RCS) in other directions, which the passive radars monitor. Such a system could use either low frequency broadcast TV and FM radio signals ( these low frequency signals might cause parts of the aircraft to resonate increasing the RCS ) or cellular telephone.

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with support of DARPA, have shown that it is possible to build a synthetic aperture radar image of an aircraft target using passive multistatic radar, possibly detailed enough to enable Automatic Target Recognition (ATR). Roke Manor Research in the United Kingdom announced an experimental system that uses the signals broadcast from cellular telephone towers to track aircraft.

Stealth aircraft could be passively detected from their electromagnetic emissions ( such as terrain-following radar, radio communications or missile guidance communications etc.). Stealth aircraft typically attempt to minimize these emissions by using low probability of intercept radars, satellite communications etc and careful tactics.

The Czech-developed, field-mobile Tamara system snoops on very weak electromagnetic "leaks" emanating from the large amount of electronic equipment inside all modern combat aircraft.

To this date, the only systems that have been shown to successfully detect stealth aircraft are very old, and use long wave radar systems that have a low resolution. The shooting down of an F-117 over Yugoslavia in the 1999 Kosovo conflict Operation Allied Force, was due to the use of an "electro-optical" (TV) tracking system after the aircraft was detected by the vortices produced by the poor aerodynamic shape of stealth aircraft. The aircraft may be hard to detect using radar, but it is still visible to the naked eye.

An F-117 was also detected by a British ship during the first Gulf War, in this case because the wavelength of the radar was twice the length of the aircraft. This caused the entire aircraft to act as a dipole, leading to a very strong radar return.[citation needed]

The Dutch company Thales Nederland, the formerly known as Holland Signaal, have claimed to have developed a Stealth detection radar called SMART-L. So far the company has been unable to test it on a Stealth vehicle.'

------------------------------------

Bremspropeller
05-11-2007, 08:12 AM
Well, b4 people call me a JSF basher, I gotta get some clearance in heare:

The concept itself is a very good idea. Even the plane is decent.

BUT just because it's stealth and has some nice toys built-in right from the start (speaking of "start": when is the first JSF supposed to be delivered?), doesn't mean it's superrior to the EF in general.

Speaking of the EF in general is like speaking of the F-16 in general, forgetting that an early Block 10 is not LANTIRN-capable or that a Block 15 OCU is not able to launch AMRAAMS.

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 08:34 AM
The F-35 is hopefully going to be a great strike aircraft with a good secondary air to air capability.

Heck I hope so seeing as were buying them for our aircraft carriers.

Whereas the Typhoon is a great Air to Air fighter that will become a good strike aircraft.

The-Pizza-Man
05-11-2007, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Sources? WTF is an F-15SG? The F-15S is nothing but a less capable F-15E.

In Combat configuration, a Typhoon can carry up to six GBU-24 class LGBs, plus four MRAAMs plus two SRAAMs.
Now let's see if either the Viper or the Super Bug can compete with that.
A Mudhen will carry more bombs, but at the cost of A-A capability. The Mudhen is a bombtruck, not a swing-role fighter.


F-15SG, not S, try google next time
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/singapore-a...g-contract/index.php (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/singapore-announces-f15sg-contract/index.php)

How far will a Typhoon get in that configuration, the airfield fence? Is it carrying a targeting pod? How does it aim the LGBs?

Is a couple of bombs a significant advantage? Not really, however, being able to hit 8 different targets in one pass is. An F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 can do that a Typhoon can't.



Depends on the tranche you're talking about. Speaking of Tranche one and two (supposed to replace the Tornado F.3 and F-4F ICE) you're right. However, Tranche three will incorporate AESA, as well as higher rated engines (some sources say as high as 122kN) and some other stuff necessary to replace IDS Tornados.

So 8-10 years down the track, the Typhoon will be as capable as an F-15 circa 2007? The F-414 in the SH has quite a bit of growth potential as well, 20-30% IIRC. Those will be used for Block III Superbugs.


Suspecting never won anything. The Tiffy will carry three tanks plus the same ordnance as a fully bombed-up Viper (plus two MRAAMS more than the -16).
Bombed-up, any fighter needs tanker assistance.

I just checked, a little more fuel than a stock F-16, but new F-16s can be fitted with conformal tanks. A lot less fuel than an F/A-18E, 2500kg less.


Less pronounced devellopment-capabilities (especially true for the Viper and Mudhen).
The Super Bug is a differnt pair of shoes. However, it yet has to attract an export-customer.

Australia just bought 24 Superhornets




Which means the Viper A is a dog compared to a clean A-A Tiffie (again, A-A means SIX missiles, not just two).

A Typhoon in the equivilent A-A configuration as an F-35 will also be carry external tanks. An F-35 won't need tanks, can carry at least 4 AMRAAMs internally, most likely more judging from the huge size of the internal weapons bays (the F-22 can fit 3 in the space of a single 1000lb bomb, the F-35 bays can fit 2000lb bombs).



Other fighters, however, don't have to rely on AB in order to stay airbourne http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Any Supercruise figures out for the F-35 yet?

EF says the Tiffie will do M1.5 in A-A.


I'm an optimist, the Typhoon may just be able to supercruise with missiles and tanks. It won't be able to do it for long though, not anything like an F-22 can, nor nearly as fast.

The F-35, I think probably not. Although clean, it has fixed inlets and I suspect they are optimised for subsonic speeds, however, it is very advanced inlet geometry and it's impossible to know the range of performance they've achieved.



From what I read, the Raptor did quite bad in WVR against RAF Tiffies. BVR it rocked (as it was supposed to), but it's not as shining close in.

I didn't know that either had ever faced each other. Anyway, you have to be careful drawing conclusions from DACT. They are a training exercise with specific learning goals in mind, not a simulation of real combat between aircraft.

I didn't pick you up on it earlier, but you said that the Typhoon has better supersonic maneuverability than the F-22. I find that hard to believe considering the that the F-22 has thrust vectoring, which has a major purpose(in the case of the F-22) of improving supersonic maneuverability.

The RAF probably has better pilots too.

But to conclude, it's not the differences in raw performance that will make the difference, AtA or AtG, it's sensors, stealth and networking. The F-35 has that in spades over the Typhoon.
----------
F-111 v F-35 range
The effective range of the F-111 is limited by it's escorts(it absolutely requires them), which are in the RAAF case F/A-18s. The reality is that the F-35 will have a longer effective range than the F-111. It's also going to have longer range stand off weapons.

LStarosta
05-11-2007, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Fair enough. MY d*ck is bigger than you and your daddy's combined.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I had hoped for a more brain-driven reaction, but obviously you're way too full of yourself for such a basic concept as a "serious discussion" (instead of a pissing contest). Have fun in this thread - I'm out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read further into my posts than just the first line if you want intellectual stimulation.

http://forums.ytmnsfw.com/images/smilies/*******.gif

At any rate, thanks for keeping me entertained for another day in the office. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Philipscdrw
05-11-2007, 09:00 AM
How long before aerial warfare is conducted by sweeps of hundreds ground-hugging UAVs overloading the defence net with weight of numbers?

I suppose it's easier to manufacture MANPADS than UAVs though...

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 09:17 AM
The Typhoon reaches speeds about Mach 1,2 to 1,3 without reheat and the standard weapon load (6 AAMs). It should be noted that many AG-stores can't be flown with supersonic speed. The Raptor is able to reach Mach 1,6 in supercruise, but only with internal weapons (6 AMRAAMs, 2-4 Sidewinders).


About fuel consumption:
EJ200
Dry thrust : 0,74-0,81 kg/kg/h (kg fuel, per kg thrust per hour)
AB thrust : 1,66-1,73 kg/kg/h

Thats in the range of other aircraft engines like the M88 of Rafale or the AL-31F of the Su-27.

The Tornado F.3 is a very long range interceptor, infact one of the main reasons Britain opted for it over the F-15 (other than politics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) was the F-15's insufficient loiter time.

Tornado F3 is about 32% heavier than EF-2K (14,500 kg v.s 11,000 kg), while EF-2000 has 47~69% (60~69 KN * 2 v.s 40.8 KN * 2) more military thrust and 16~28% more A/B thrust (90~100 KN * 2 v.s 77.1 KN * 2) than Tornado F3.

The internal fuel of Tornado ADV is only about 720 kg more than EF-2000's (5,715 kg v.s 4,996 kg) and the T/W ratio of EF-2000 with maximal military thrust (60 KN*2) only is almost the same as the T/W ratio of Tornado F3 with maximal A/B thrust (77.5 KN*2). Therefore, the fuel consumption for EF-2000 to maintain the similar flight performance as the best one that Tornado ADV could achieve might be just 1/2~1/3 of ADV's fuel consumption in the medial to high altitude.

Bremspropeller
05-11-2007, 09:18 AM
How far will a Typhoon get in that configuration, the airfield fence? Is it carrying a targeting pod? How does it aim the LGBs?

Again, the Mudhen is a bomb-truck, not a swing-role fighter.
Again², you're referring to Tranche one EFs which weren't supposed to carry any sophisticated A-G ordnance. Some RAF birds, however, will be tweaked to drop LGBs (still talking of Tranche one).


So 8-10 years down the track, the Typhoon will be as capable as an F-15 circa 2007? The F-414 in the SH has quite a bit of growth potential as well, 20-30% IIRC. Those will be used for Block III Superbugs.

Read what I wrote above. The Tiffie already beat several Mudhens that thought they were smelling an easy prey.
BTW: the Super Bug is a dog in A-A. It's being outdanced by legacy Hornets. Maybe due to green pilots in the SB, but tze SB fails to show it's "suoperiority" upon the legacy models.
AFAIK the MC refrained from purchasing SBs.


I just checked, a little more fuel than a stock F-16, but new F-16s can be fitted with conformal tanks. A lot less fuel than an F/A-18E, 2500kg less.

The F-16 is 33 years old. It needs CFTs to stay competitive. EF has already thought about adding CFTs onto later birds or at least providing the ability to carry CFTs which would be optional, just as with the Blk 52+ Vipers).

Keep in mind that the SB only extends it's combat radius by some 80 miles compared to the legacy model. (490 vs. 410)
That ain't much impressive either.

Tiffie's combat-radius is somwhere close to 700 miles. That is with tanks.


Australia just bought 24 Superhornets

Their fault.


A Typhoon in the equivilent A-A configuration as an F-35 will also be carry external tanks. An F-35 won't need tanks, can carry at least 4 AMRAAMs internally, most likely more judging from the huge size of the internal weapons bays (the F-22 can fit 3 in the space of a single 1000lb bomb, the F-35 bays can fit 2000lb bombs).

No, I'm talking about a "clean" A-A configuration which is considered no tanks, four MRAAMs and two SRAAMs.
Fully missiled-up, the Tiffie can carry 12 A-A missiles plus a centerline tank.
Now let's see what the F-35 can bring on.

4 AMRAAMs internally? That's cute! http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/streichel.gif


The F-35, I think probably not. Although clean, it has fixed inlets and I suspect they are optimised for subsonic speeds, however, it is very advanced inlet geometry and it's impossible to know the range of performance they've achieved.


The F-16 also has fixed inlets and DOES supercruise. The term was risen to higher MACHs to please politicians.
SC is not a new invention by any means. Even F-104s and lightnings were able to supercruise.


I didn't pick you up on it earlier, but you said that the Typhoon has better supersonic maneuverability than the F-22. I find that hard to believe considering the that the F-22 has thrust vectoring, which has a major purpose(in the case of the F-22) of improving supersonic maneuverability.

I never said that.
Thrust vectoring might bring on a little advantage, but max G availiable is still a question of stress upon the airframe.
Just because you have thrusties doesn't help a lot in that issue.
I think it's rather an matter of altitude - thrusties might give you an edge at high alts.

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 09:27 AM
Im the one who said it had better supersonic manuverability than the F-22. As far as I have read that was one of the main advatages of the EF 2000 over any opponents.

EF-2000 Typhoon

Width: 10.95 m
Length: 15.96 m
Height: 5.28 m
Wing Surface area: 50.0 m2
Empty weight:10,995 ~ 11,150 kg (Single seat) 11,700 kg (Double seat)
Maximum take-off weight: 23,500 kg
Standard air-combat weight: 14500kg (50% internal fuel, BVRAAM*4 and WVRAAM*2)
Internal fuel: 5,640L (Single seat) 5,300L (Double seat)

# Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 @ 11,000 m
# Maximum speed: Mach 1.15, low level
# Supercruise: Mach 1.2 ~ 1.3
# Standard air-combat configuration, 1500m height, Maximum military thrust: 0.9Mach/1050km/hr with fuel consumption 85kg/min


EADS: The EF has a super cruise capability in the Config you raised (with weapons carried) , its about 1.2 at 36KF.

Our growth strategy contains an improvement package which will boost the AC on a super cruise of about 1.5 Ma same Fight level.


#Road lenght for take off.............300~700 m
#Road length for Landing.............500~700 m
# Upper limit of ceiling: 60.000-65,000ft
#Climb rate: Standard air-combat configuration):
1. Sea-level:>315m/sec
2. From break releasing to climbing to 9,146m:86 seconds.
3. From break releasing to climbing to 10,670m, 1.5 Mach:less than 150 seconds.
4. Flug-revue, 1999, Wolfgang Schirdewahn, the Germany test-pilot:"The climibing ability of EF-2000 with 4 BVRAAM and 2 WVRAAM is about 25% better than the F-16 with 2 WVRAAM."

# Acceleration(Standard air-combat configuration):
1. 200kts --> Mach 1:<30 seconds
2. 0.9 --> 1.2M:40 seconds
3. 0.8 --> 1.4M:62 seconds

#Flight-envelop(Standard air-combat configuration):
Sea-level: 0.15~1.15 Mach(F/A-18C/D:0.15~1.10 Mach)
10,000ft: 0.19~1.40 Mach(F/A-18C/D:0.17~1.23 Mach)
20,000ft: 0.22~1.65 Mach(F/A-18C/D:0.20~1.40 Mach)
25,000ft: 0.28~1.85 Mach
30,000ft: 0.30~2.00 Mach(F/A-18C/D:0.30~1.62 Mach)
35,000ft: 0.31~2.00 Mach(F/A-18C/D:0.38~1.76 Mach)
40,000ft: 0.35~2.00 Mach(F/A-18C/D:0.45~1.70 Mach)
45,000ft: 0.40~2.00 Mach
50,000ft: 0.45~2.00 Mach(F/A-18C/D:0.60~1.60 Mach)
55,000ft: 0.50~2.00 Mach(F/A-18C/D:0.75~1.45 Mach)
60,000ft: 0.75~1.85 Mach
65,000ft: 0.88~1.70 Mach

# G-load..................-3/+9G(Normal),+15G(Maximum)
# Instaneous turn rate/Sustaneous turn rate:30~35/>20(degree/sec)

# Agility:
1. 45,000 fts, 1.6 Mach, maximum G-load:5G.
2. Radius of turnning at low level:600m;30% less than F-15C.
3. Low level, 300kt, 7G, radius of turnning:Less than 700m (The test-pilot declared it is better than F-16, F-18, and RAFALE.)

# Combat radius (with appropriate weapons loads)
1.Strike:650km(4 BVRAAM, 2WVRAAM, and 7,000Ib bombs, lo-lo-lo)
2. Strike:1390Km(Basic loading for air-combat + LGB*3 + ARM*2 + pod*1, hi-lo-hi)
3. Air-combat:750 nm (1389 km)
4. Air-combat:100 nm(185 km),3hrs CAP

Ferry-range
1. 3700 km (tank*2)
2. 2600 km (internal fuel)

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 09:30 AM
IDR:

In 1998-1999, a comment from a Norwegian test pilot for the comparsion between EF-2000 and F-16 C/D block50:

Radar: The detection range of ECR-90 (Captor) is three times of AN/APG-68.

Climbing rate: With BVRAAM*4, WVRAAM*2, it takes EF-2000 90 seconds to reach 40,000 ft from the sea-level; as for F-16C in the same condition, it takes 120 seconds.

Maximum speed: With BVRAAM*4, WVRAAM*2, it is easy for EF-2000 to reach the speed of 1.8 mach+ in the medium and high level; as for F-16C in the same condition, the maximum speed is always less than 1.6 mach.

Acceleration: EF-2000 is significantly better than F-16C, especially at the range of 1.2 --> 1.6 Mach.

Combat range: The difference is not significant.


CAPTOR radar

2004/05, magazine of AFM
An UK test pilot declared that the maximum Air-to-air tracking range of CAPTOR radar is "significantly longer" than the 100 miles / 161km.

2004/06, magazine of RAF
The same test pilot declared that with the help of Meteor AAM, the EF-2000 could attack the multiple aero-targets (up to 8 targets) as far as 200km away at the same time theoretically.

During the test, the CAPTOR radar showed the capability of tracking up to 20 air targets (F-4 and Mig-29) simultaneously 160~185 km away and then automatically identifying and prioritising them.

An AESA array may be used to CAPTOR radar after 2010~2012, which will increase the detection range / tracking range of CAPTOR 50% more at least.


From AFM "Singapore very impressed with the Typhoon" and Western Daily Press

".....................It is a very capable aircraft and better than the American F16 he champions. In a recent competition run by Singapore to find a replacement for its F16 fighters, Typhoon was up against the American F15E and the French Rafale. Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests. According to one observer, neither competitor aircraft could claim the same (Defence Analysis August 2004)."

EF-2000 v.s F-16C

The data of F-16C is from http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm

Road length for Take-off / Landing / Sea-level
F-16C: 457m / 914m (2 WVRAAM)
EF-2K: 300m / 500m (4 BVRAAM + 2 WVRAAM)

Flight-envelope
F-16C:
36,000ft (10,973m) --> Maximum speed 1.90Mach (2 WVRAAM)
49,500ft (15,088m) --> Maximum speed 1.80Mach (2 WVRAAM)

EF-2K(2 WVRAAM + 4 BVRAAM):
30,000~55,000 ft --> Maximum speed 2.00 Mach
60,000ft (18,300m) -->Maximum speed 1.85 Mach

Acceleration (36,000ft, initial speed 0.9 mach, Maximum A/B)
F-16C: accelerating to 1.75 mach in 2min and 1.86 mach in 3 min (2 WVRAAM)
EF-2K: accelerating to 2.00 mach in 2min (4 BVRAAM + 2 WVRAAM)

G-load
F-16C:9g
EF-2K: 9g (ultimate 12~15g)


Air-combat radius
F-16C: 2 AIM9 +4 AMRAAM +3 tanks: 710 nm
EF-2K: 2 ASRAAM +4 AMRAAM +2 tanks: 750 nm (10mins residual fuel)

CAP:
F-16C: 145 minutes, 150 km away from the base.
EF-2K: 180 minutes, 185 km away from the base.

Strike-radius (Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi):
F-16C: WVRAAM*2 + Mk-82*8 + one tank: 410 nm
EF-2K: WVRAAM*2 + LGB*3 + ARM*2 + Pod*1 + tank*2: 750 nm



EF-2000 v.s F-16, T/W ratio at sea-level

F-16A:
Empty weight 7,400 kg + 50% internal fuel + 2 WVRAAM + pilot + gun shells = 9400 kg, T/W ratio: 1.147(A/B)/0.704 (Maximum military thrust)

F-16 C/D with F-100-PW-229:
Empty weight 8,437~8,622 kg+ 50% internal fuel + 2 WVRAAM + pilot + gun shells = 10,440~10,620 kg, T/W ratio: 1.245~1.267(A/B)/0.760~0.773 (Maximum military thrust)

F-16 C/D Block60 with F-110-PW-132 (Peace time, Max. A/B 32,000 Ib, Max. military 19,000 Ib)
Empty weight 9,300~9,980 kg + 50% internal fuel + 2 WVRAAM + pilot + gun shells = 11,300~12,000 kg, T/W ratio: 1.210~1.285 A/B) 0.718~0.763 (Maximum military thrust)

F-16 C/D Block60 with F-110-PW-132 (War time, Max. A/B 34,000 Ib, Max. military 19,000 Ib)
Empty weight 9,300~9,980 kg + 50% internal fuel + 2 WVRAAM + pilot + gun shells = 11,300~12,000 kg, T/W ratio: 1.285~1.365(A/B)/0.718~0.763 (Maximum military thrust)

EF-2000 with EJ-200 (Peace time, Max. A/B 20,250 Ib, Max. military 13,500 Ib):
Empty weight 10,995~11,150 kg+ 50% internal fuel + 2 WVRAAM + pilot + gun shells = 13,600~14,000kg,T/W ratio: 1.312~1.350(A/B)/0.875~0.900 (Maximum military thrust)

EF-2000 with EJ-200 (War-time and the "war-set" of FADEC is removed, Max. A/B 21,370~ 22,950 Ib, Max. military 15,525 Ib):
Empty weight 10,995~11,150 kg+ 50% internal fuel + 2 WVRAAM + pilot + gun shells = 13,600~14,000kg,T/W ratio: 1.385~1.530(A/B)/1.000~1.035 (Maximum military thrust)



Factors for BVR combat:

1. Detective range of Radar for RCS = 5m2 targets:
(http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/%7Edheb/) ... G/PGSA.htm)
AN/APG-68: 80 km
AN/APG-80: 130km
Captor: 160~185 km (Tracking range perhaps)

2. The frontal RCS:
F-16C: 1.2 m2
EF-2K: 0.10~0.25m2

Theoretically,
the EF-2000 could detect or even track F-16C 110~130 km away.
the F-16C Block50 could detect EF-2000 30~40 km away.
the F-16C Block60 could detect EF-2000 50~65 km away.

3. SA and EW equipment: EF-2000 is better.

4. Supercruise (4BVRAAM + 2WVRAAM, 35,000~40,000 ft, maximum speed without A/B):

FA-22: 1.6~1.7 mach
(The BVRAAM's effective range will increase 60~100% comparing with the same missile used by fighter with the speed of 0.8~0.9Mach)

EF-2K: 1.2~1.3 mach
(The BVRAAM's effective range will increase 25~40% comparing with the same missile used by fighter with the speed of 0.8~0.9Mach)

F-16C: 0.8~0.9 mach

5. Flight-envelope

F-16C:
36,000ft (10,973m) --> Maximum speed 1.90Mach (2 WVRAAM)
49,500ft (15,088m) --> Maximum speed 1.80Mach (2 WVRAAM)
(2 WVRAAM + 4 BVRAAM) --> Always less than 1.60 Mach and the maximum speed for 5G maneuver is less than 1 mach.

EF-2K(2 WVRAAM + 4 BVRAAM):
30,000~55,000 ft --> Maximum speed 2.00 Mach
60,000ft (18,300m) -->Maximum speed 1.85 Mach
45,000ft (13,725m) --> 1.60 Mach plus 5G maneuver

6. Acceleration (36,000ft, initial speed 0.9 mach, Maximum A/B)
F-16C: accelerating to 1.75 mach in 2min and 1.86 mach in 3 min (2 WVRAAM)
EF-2K: accelerating to 2.00 mach in 2min (4 BVRAAM + 2 WVRAAM)

7. Climbing rate:
With BVRAAM*4, WVRAAM*2, it takes EF-2000 90 seconds to reach 40,000 ft from the sea-level; as for F-16C in the same condition, it takes 120 seconds.



Most data about EF-2000 that I mentioned above can be found in:

http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofi ... hichte.htm

http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofighter/daten.htm

http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofi ... nsorik.htm

http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/E ... /tech.html


Im getting all of this from here http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1033

LStarosta
05-11-2007, 10:15 AM
I'd be more interested in F-22/F-35/EF-2000 figures vs what the PRK, China, Iran, Russia etc has to offer. Any takers?

Platypus_1.JaVA
05-11-2007, 01:33 PM
In all the pages I've seen so far, I've not yet read the argument that the EF-2000 is essentially allready outdated. When the project started, late 70's I believe) it was planned that the first EF-2000's would go into service in the early 90's. That is more then ten years ago!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Of course the end of the cold-war and economic setbacks as well as political disagreement have slowed down the project. So there is this beautifull aircraft, on paper. Sometimes they add a new feature, sometimes they modernize a bit. But the whole design concept is from a time when the cold war was pretty bad.

The F-35 on the other hand is a rather more modern concept. It seems like a new fresh idea and is designed to replace the thousands of aging F-16's and F-18's as well as the Harrier. The goal for the F-35 is more clearly set. As I've heard, the costs of the JSF project allready rise but it is still cheaper then the whole EF-2000 project wich is allready existing for more then two or three decades! Altough there are ways of detect stealth aircraft (remember the shot-down F-117 above former Yugoslavia), the stealth concept is still a strong point of the whole F-35 project.

Conclusion, the EF-2000 is an old cold-war era aircraft wich is large and expensive. Any country wich is looking for a new fighter wich they can adapt to their specific needs, will need to look for an other aircraft since the EF-2000 is allready develloped and well thought trough. Is it a cr@ppy aircraft? Not at all. The trenche 3 with supercruise, AESA radar and Meteor missiles will reign supreme in the air-superiority role. And by the time the bad guys have stealth aircraft of their own, there probably will be technology to counter that.

The F-35 is an aircraft that can be sure to be produced by their thousands. This will cut costs. Any countries who are willing to step in now can demand changes in the design to suit their specific needs (within certain limits of course) The F-35 will have the latest air combat philosophy and all of the very latest in avionics and will be a more flexible aircraft over-all.

Provided that the EF2000 can detect it from far enough and that it can launch while in supercruise, the F-35 will probably loose a direct engagment tough. In coolness factor, I would choose an Eurofighter Typhoon, but the F-35 will be more flexible and versatile. I'm glad that my country (Holland) has choosen for the F-35, at least till this point.

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 06:22 PM
F-35 came from the cold war as did the F-22 and Typhoon.

Every major threat for the next 20 years will be Teen series fighters or ex soviet stuff or Chinese aircraft. Jet fighters have to fight something and they can only fight whats put in front of them. There wont be anything put in foront of the Typhoon that it cant handle other than the F-22 and even then how many Typhoons do you get for one F-22?

Realistically no one needs either type so its just a load of BS anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
05-11-2007, 06:34 PM
Realistically no one needs either type so its just a load of BS anyway Oh yeah, human nature has changed radically since the Cold War ended, and we've all learned to play nice. Have you had a good look at how quickly the Chinese Peoples' Army has moved its primary mission to planting gardens and saving the whales?

I can't tell you how much I wish you were right, but I believe that the moment men of good conscience stop maintaining the ability to protect themselves and their resources, men with NO consciences will be there to pick up the slack.

cheers

horseback

The-Pizza-Man
05-11-2007, 07:24 PM
So to distill those points down, the Typhoon has right now

-Arguably the best radar of the previous generation, but the gap between it and the current generation is like piston engines to jet engines. F-16's F/A-18s and F-15s are all being produced right now with current generation AESA radar.

-WWII level air to surface capability, in time it might be able to do what an F-4 could do in the 80s

-Limited range without tanks.

-Engines that have similar performance and growth capability to F-414s and F-110s

-No significant LO capability, as soon as weapons and tanks are hung off it will be picked up by radar as easily as any other non-stealth aircraft.

-T/W only marginally better than F/A-18s and F-16s and worse than F-15s at combat weights.

It's the last of the bi-plane fighters, so to speak. The F-22 and F-35 are monoplanes.

Korolov1986
05-11-2007, 07:27 PM
You know, this is just like a couple of pilots back in WW2, one a P-51 pilot, the other a P-38 pilot.

They both claim their aircraft are superior to the others, can knock Zekes out of the sky like no tomorrow and turn with the best Jerry has to offer.

When they get into the fight, they manage to shoot something/someone down.

The moral of this story?

It doesn't matter WHAT you fly, it's how you use it!

Argue all you want; somebody or something will still get shot down. Or bombed. Or strafed. Whatever you like.

huggy87
05-11-2007, 08:36 PM
I agree with blottog's posts, with one update. The super hornet is currently operationaly flying the AESA. I have personally flown about a dozen sorties with it, and it is a sweet piece of gear.

That video was obviously very slanted to get a rise out of viewers that their government was wasting their money. A very easy to accomplish task and not very journalisticaly responsible. As for the RAAF general, I don't really trust his opinion. Flag ranks are political appointees and their agendas are usually political.

I was very surprised that the video did not mention that the australians have already bought off on the super hornet. About 35 if I remember correctly.

As to the decision of the JSF over the EF or other european fighters, it just financially makes sense. The JSF may see numbers well over 3000, making spare parts, training and other items much cheaper in the long run.