Wouldn't this defeat the point of it? As it is supposed to be air superiority, whereas the f-35 is the multi role.

 

Not saying that they shouldn't be capable of it, or even that they shouldn't be damn good at it. Just... if it is emphasized, wouldn't high ups question the need for the f-35 (very possible imo with the upcoming administration and all)? Of course this is with the premise that it is needed. They should be emphasizing its air superiority and, while stating it has AtG capability, that it is lacking in it vs what the f-35 could do. Again, this is based on the premise that the f-35 outperforms the F-22 on AtG missions by a significant margin.

 

 Both the F-22 and the Typhoon have declared IOC for basic air to surface capability.  The Typhoons were declared multirole capable this past summer, when they validated their ability to carry multiple LGBs and self-designate with the Litening III pod.  Meanwhile, at least some of the operational F-22 squadrons were declared IOC with JDAMs.

 

Obviously, though, the types of strike roles they can undertake are very different.  The Typhoon can carry more bombs -- they were carrying 6 x 1000 lb LGBs in exercises -- but is not stealthy.  It is well suited for the kind of conventional strike role other fast jet types have been doing recently.  The F-22 on the other hand is limited to two 1000 lb JDAM internally, which limits its usefulness for a CAS or conventional battlefield strike role.  On the other hand, in terms of air to ground the F-22 is best used as a better F-117 -- it can reach well-protected, high value targets such as command and control sites, and destroy them while evading air defenses.  But unlike the F-117 it can do it supersonically, from standoff ranges, and with the ability to self-escort.

 

Yup, I had started a thread about that over the summer.  The Green Flag operations were the last hurdle before the Typhoon was officially declared multirole.

 

^1 Two obvious examples of ignorance at the most fundamental levels of understanding and the conclusion with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Herald

 

.

Why must every thread that involves something with a jet engine and the ability to carry either a bomb or a missile devolve into a discussion of the Rafale?  There ARE other aircraft in the world, right?

 

I just understand, it seems one could be discussing the AR-234 and someone would HAVE to bring up the fact that the Rafale is the BEST bomber of its era, by weight and size...really the thread is about the Typhoon and the F-22...admittedly it is one of those "My plane's better than your plane threads" but still it's about the Typhoon, not the Rafale.

 

I'm sure the Rafale is a FINE aircraft, and if I had to buy only one European airframe, I might choose the Rafale over the Typhoon, as the Rafale seems to be a true multi-role a/c, BUT that wasn't what the thread began with...

 

If you love Rafale, just please be quiet...I love my partner of 15 years, too, but I don't bring him/her into EVERY discussion concerning human beings!  How 'bout doing the same thing here?  You can love the Rafale, but please talk about the Typhoon, it's the topic for Heaven's Sake!

 

Plus, it seems that the Rafale fan-boyz get roughly handled and it hurts me to see people repeatedly beaten and throw about, but still keep coming back for more...it's unhealthy, BlueWings, if that's what you like please take it up with your therapist or your domme, but please stop...or if you must make nonsensical claims about the Typhoon, you know, the ostensible topic of the thread?

"or if you must make nonsensical claims about the Typhoon, you know, the ostensible topic of the thread?"

 

lol...

 

Some variety would be nice.

 

"Where do they both stand with regards to current Air-to-Ground capabilities?"

 

The short answer is that the F-22 is very very good at a few specific missions. 

 

The EF is not as good as the F-22 at the missions the F-22 is good at, but can do a much wider range of missions competently.

 

The F-22 was never intended to be an attack plane. It now has the ability to drop 1000lb JDAMs and will eventually have the ability to drop 250lb small diameter bombs. This, combined with its stealth and incredibly powerful EW system make it a pretty potent platform for hunting and killing high-end SAMs and relatively soft command-and-control nodes.  That is about all it is able to do however.  It does not have a targetting pod or a laser designator and it is literally only capable of carrying a couple types of bombs. 

 

The EF on the other hand has the ability to carry a much greater quantity of air to ground weapons of far more types.  Assuming a need is identified and the capability is funded, a Typhoon could potentially do pretty much anything you see multi-role aircraft doing today.  As of right now I believe the EF is only qualified to drop 1000lb laser guided bombs but this will certainly change in the future. 

<snip>



<snip>

<snip>

"and seemingly about F-16 in AtG (right now)"

 

The EF is nowhere near a top of the line F-16 in air-to-ground, yet.  The EF is limited to just a handful of weapons right now. It will take a few years for it to reach its potential, which is significant.

 

 

Yeah something like that...Typhoon seems a decent Interceptor...a good fighter....and seemingly about F-16 in AtG (right now), not a bad idea, the EF is the F-22 for those who have F-16's &/or F-35's.

The Typhoon needs the best radar and the best off platform EW support she can get in the A2A battle. The reason why is simple. She is not as low EM observable, as say, the Sparky, but she is a better potential missile platform and a better dog-fighter. What she has going for her, is that she is designed to use ASRAAM, IRIS T and METEOR as well as SIDEWINDER and AMRAAM.

I genuinely believe that with CAESAR she will be the second best air superiority fighter flying. Even with CAPTOR Typhoon is formidable as even in this day and age, mechanical scan track radars of the best technical quality are capable of multiple target tracks and engagements. The CAPTOR has just enough detection threshhold reach to make METEOR effective throughout its full flyout.

 

Now METEOR, and other ramjet missiles like her, is the big Typhoon question. Typhoon  has to have positive telemetry control  of that missile to update the drop basket to the missi;e GCU successfully to the point that the METEOR can find the target by itself in its NEZ.and give chase with its own onboard seeker. If Typhoon/METEOR can do this at MERs of 80-100 kilometers consistently then the Typhoon has an enormouas edge over any other non-F-22 aircraft currently flying. First shot first kill.  

 

I don't know if Typhoon can climb high enough to take full advantage of what I just wrote,.but even if she is just shy of 21,000 meters, it is better than most aircraft she will fight. At that altitude, most aircraft have trouble just stayong pointed. Typhoon, if she can detect, acquire, track, engage: and  point and shoot, will have a potent edge.

Then add to the mix that she is a potent diogfighter able to out turn and outclimb most other aircraft when configured A2A including her underpowered chief rival.

 

The chief difference between the Typhoon and many other aircraft to which she is compared is that is that she uses her missiles to do the work, while her rivals continue to rely heavily on the PLANE to do the work. I mean that strictly in the PHYSICS sense. In that respect she is not totally unlike the Raptor which also uses physics to do the work but which uses low observability to get into her lethal range before using her own rockets. Typhoon has to use distance oif separation to play the exact same game. 

 

Therefore if I was looking at how Typhoon fits into my hypothetical lineup, I wouldn't gripe too much about its current multi-role capability limitations. I'd look to see what I could dio to improive its long range SEAD/DEAD capabilities, improve its AWACs datalinks to maximize standoff distance and tweak her in her air superiority role, and leave the ground striking to my legacy force aircraft until I obtained BEAGLES or Sparkies or acquired another bomb truck [Rafale or Super Hornet].,

 

Anyway that is my take.

 

Herald

 

.  

.

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

. 

My prediction is that SPECTRA's main use will be stealing signals from competent avionics platforms during peace or war.

 

Perfectly valid observation.  That's also, by the way, what the ALR-94 will be doing on all the many hundreds/thousands of F-22 and F-35, as well.

 

"The Rafale, well, where does it fit in a big war scenario, of a US-EU coalition against a competent foe? "

 

In a hypothetical "big" war against a competent opponent the Rafale would have a very similar mission set to an F-16 or SH. 

 

Early in the fight it would likely work to bring down the enemy air defense network with stand-off weapons.(A role it should perform well in.)  Once the enemy's defenses have been degraded it would transition to a more conventional mixed bag of strike roles... precision bombing, close air support, and staying on call to hit targets of opportunity.  A Rafale would certainly be capable of providing CAP or other air-to-air missions as there isn't really a plausible opponent that the Rafale wouldn't outclass, but if you have F-22s or even EFers and F-15s available those would be your first choice for that mission.

 

A more likely scenario would be of France carrying out some kind of a one-time punitive strike unilaterally.  In that case of course Rafales would perform several missions.

So what you're saying is it would not penetrate and rely on SPECTRA?  You've blasphemed my favorite aircraft so I'm going to do a google and come back with some irrelevant "facts" soon.  Just give me more time so I can make myself look stupid. 

 

In all seriousness how well would Rafale perform against a foe with an IADS, double digit SAMs and Sukhoi interceptors in a France only scenario?