Sorry, computer had a hiccup and this got posted twice.

 

Apologies

I have now, labouriously waded through over 400 replies relating to the performances of the Rafale and how it compares to the US new LO machines and (curiously) how it always comes back to the Eurofighter Typhoon for some reason.

The topic always seems to decend into who's got the bigger stick one for one. I'dd argue that this is not the main point however. I could argue for example that the Typhoon has (from the literature I have read) a better sustained turning rate at all speeds than any of the teen series machines, the Rafale and the F-35, instantaneous turning rates are also superior to these machines and at supersonic speeds to that of the f-22 (from what I've read, here me out!). Thus we could conclude from this that the Typhoon can at least get itself into a decent shooting posiiton against any other machine going in a dogfight.

Is that relevant though? Well, yes and no. Political views on RoC and other mitigating factors means that in many instances AtA fights will inevitably dissolve into messy close up furballs. Thus BAE designed an airframe that could cope with these demands.

On the other hand, the US designed their airframes to be competitive (in the case of the F-22 superlative) to these demands while also introducing a level of LO that means they never intend to let the fight get as far as visual range.

it should be noted that the EE lightning was never outclassed as a dogfighte rin it's life time, it could still compete with the F-15 as a flying machine even though as a weapon system it was long since past usefulness.

However, the real test of these machines is how they perform in real combat rather than one on one, as part of a package. Clearly the European machines lack the LO advantage of the US aircraft. Given the threat spectrum that the Europeans are likely to face is LO that important?

Nothing I've seen so far on the MiG and Sukhoi machines suggest that they have any better LO than the European models. I'd fancy the agility of the Typhoon over these anydays and as a weapons package a CAESARED/meteor equipped Typhoon with AWACs support will kill a russian equivalent stone dead.

Indeed as a balanced air force combining the F-35 for strike purposes with the typhoon for AtA work gives the RAF a considerable advantage over any likely opposition.

In the US case, the F-22, clearly designed for picking off the Chinese hordes will balance nicely with the F-35. It is here we see the difference in doctrine. The RAF wanted something that could tackle the latest Russian fighters with a decent kill loss/ratio (and a less than astronomic price tag) while also backing up as a CAS aircraft using stand off weaponry to make up for shortcomings in the LO design of the aircraft.

The US wanted something that would sweep the skies utterly clean of anything and everything with no loss to self. Designed for real massive AtA offensives rather than the more modest objectives of the eurofighter design.

I would contend therefore that (as has been stated by some) the Eurofighter is not obsolecent and that it will perform it's mission perfectly well in a balanced air fleet.

Clearly national bias plays a part in these discussions, I for one have no problem with this - after all Lockheed Martin were sufficently impressed with the BAE replica to let them come in on the JSF design.

What did the french get however. The airframe and engine does not offer quite as good performance as the Eurofighter or F-35 (we must consider the F-22 a step beyond these). It was clearly the product of national bias and pride. Without getting into technical minutae, it's weapon systems are not that great. However, given the range of France's likely opponents it's ok. The over-riding bias in the design seems to have been as a naval machine and in that it'll do.

Do the French get a balanced force out of the Rafale? I suspect not. In both the British and US cases there is the argument that both have complementing airframes and that indeed the RAF equipped with Eurofighter and F-35will still be useful to the USAF staff in a coalition fight. The single machine French airforce perhaps less so.

...but it's ok, the Rafale, it'll beat most russian planes and will hound it's own predecessor Mirages which would likely make up the balance of any opponent the French are likely to get.

So, conclusion. The European machines do the job they were designed to do. In the event the Eurofighte rdoes it better but it is still worth noting that they were all designed for different threat spectrums and packages than the F-22. It's likely that the RAF will have a better ballanced force than france in the future. It's also unlikely that France will have to fight any kind of atA war in the future. It's rRafales will be more than adequate for strike missions it has to take on.

I don't discount the F-35 in AtA, the RN obviously thinks it's good enough to protect the fleet. However, it won't stay in a turn with a Typhoon and it's missiles will be outranged. If it goes to a dogfight I'll put my money on the Typhoon. Oddly enough close in dogfighting is about as close as you'll ever get to the one on one comparisons you generally find. In BVR combat it will come down to the Typhoon's Meteor missile range Vs the F-35 LO advantage. If, the F-35 was attempting to penetrate a real integrated Early Warning system and was tracked outside the amraam envelope then the Typhoon gets off the first shot, which is a major advantage. If the F-35 remains untracked until within firing range then obviously the first shot advantage goes to F-35.

That is making a LOT of assumptions about CAESAR with SENTRY AWACS support. It also goes against the apples versus oranges tactics paradigm  in that a Sparky would NOT try to  yank and bank with a Eurocanard.like Typhoon.

Couple of more things. Merteor has to SEE the Sparky. This is not going to be easy for an A2A missile. LO means extremely low observable against the very kind of A2A missile-sized radar operating in the search bands that the Meteor will carry. .It isn't the flyout of Meteor that is at issue: its how far  the Meteor's onboard radar can see a LO object offset to, it like Sparky, versus how far the AMRAAM RH seeker can see the offset emissions managed Typhoon. Place your bets? Don't bet on Typhoon when you have offsets of 10/1 or greater offset acquisition advantage ratios respectively.

The whole EW point is that the LO aeroshell does get the first shots off-ALWAYS.

Herald
 

Absolutely, I'm not disagreeing with you, my first post implicitly states that US LO means that it never has to yank and bank with the tiff.

I merely put forward a hypothetical situation where by an integrated network might pick up F-35, otherwise it always ahs first shot advantage as you say.

That is making a LOT of assumptions about CAESAR with SENTRY AWACS support. It also goes against the apples versus oranges tactics paradigm  in that a Sparky would NOT try to  yank and bank with a Eurocanard.like Typhoon.

Couple of more things. Merteor has to SEE the Sparky. This is not going to be easy for an A2A missile. LO means extremely low observable against the very kind of A2A missile-sized radar operating in the search bands that the Meteor will carry. .It isn't the flyout of Meteor that is at issue: its how far  the Meteor's onboard radar can see a LO object offset to, it like Sparky, versus how far the AMRAAM RH seeker can see the offset emissions managed Typhoon. Place your bets? Don't bet on Typhoon when you have offsets of 10/1 or greater offset acquisition advantage ratios respectively.

The whole EW point is that the LO aeroshell does get the first shots off-ALWAYS.

Herald

 

Hmmm, must have missed that particular geopolitical lecture, but I am curious to know exactly which nations operating Typhoon will apparently engaging users of the F-35 derivatives.

 

Who gives a toss whether Typhhon/Meteor can outrange F-35 systems etc?

 

Is the Aeronatica Militari going to operate Typhoons against Dutch 35's anytime soon?

 

Curious.  

 

 

No, but we can EXPECT that by the middle of the next decade there will be SU-27/30/35s running around with a VFDR version of the R-77 which won't be very different from the meteor kinematically. The SU also has twice the radar aperture size of the Typhoon in addition to superior range and similar aerodynamic performance. The same dichotomy will exist between the F-35 and RAMjet missile equipped SU evolutions.

The real question is how will the Typhoon and an F-35 fare against these types of opponent. This can be approximated by pitting both the Typhoon and an F-35 against a Typhoon. IMHO, only the F-35 can claim an edge which cannot be equaled by the opponent unless they too make a generational leap in aircraft design doctrine. The way I look at it, the Typhoon is built for parity against advanced 4th generation types in A2A combat. The F-35 is built for superiority. The F-22 is built for dominance.

Well, I was merely responding to the suggestion that I had discounted the F-35 in AtA, I haven't - but it's worth noting that a typhoon vs. F-35 is possible, Herald gives the perfect scenario. Although in this case I doubt the ability of the Saudis to use the Typhoon in a balanced package to overcome it's lack of LO but will instead send them up to be picked off one by one.

As for the Sukhoi 35, well the Typhoon can fly higher, get there quicker, turn tighter at all speeds and is at the very least capable of the same sustained supersonic performance if not better.

 

Also, the current CAPTOR radar on the Tiffie will be replaced by the CAESAR  AESA system which will give it a much better radar system, at the moment the SU-35 uses a PESA style system which will be inferior to the upgraded Typhoon system.