Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-35 vs. Eurofighter
IAFbestinworld    8/13/2004 11:49:07 PM
Lockheed says that besides the f-22, the f-35 will be the best air to air fighter in the future, is this true? Could an f-35 take a Eurofighter? My opinion says yes since f-35 contains more stealthy characteristics.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46   NEXT
Rule Britannia    RE:f-35 vs. Eurofighter   8/20/2004 1:54:18 PM
"The export JSFs are supposed to use less capable stealth materials and will certainly have less capable systems." The problem is it is not an American aircraft. It is an international project designed and built by American and British companies, primarily Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, GE and Rolls-Royce. This sort of pan-national co-operation is unprecedented outside of Europe. http://www.baesystems.com/programmes/airsystems/jointstrikefighter3.htm http://www.baesystems.com/facts/programmes/airsystems/jsf.htm
 
Quote    Reply

Shaken    RE:f-35 vs. Eurofighter   8/20/2004 2:12:59 PM
>> (Shaken) >> “In addition to four internal stations (possibly six, with the >> added ASRAAM inner door mount).” > > (Rule.B) > The F-35 has two internal stations each with two hard points. > Two (inboard) are dedicated Air-to-air stations that carry > AMRAAM. The outer door mount can carry ordinance up to > 2000lbs. There is no added AIM-132 ASRAAM/AIM-9X inner > door mount that I have heard of that would increase capacity> > to six internal hardpoints. (Shaken) The ASRAAM door mounts are something that was being discussed in 2002/2003 and I'm not sure what came of it. In short, the RN was not happy with how ASRAAM would have to be deployed (LOAL) from JSF and wanted an option to give the seeker a look before firing. What is the difference between a station and a hardpoint? Seriously, the diagram I have lists each hardpoint as a station. I'm not sure if Janes, AvWeek or Lock-Mart made the illustration I'm looking at. >> (Shaken) >>“the JSF has seven external hardpoints with carriage weights >> of up to 5000 pounds.” > > (Rule.B) > The JSF has six external hardpoints. I’m not 100% on the > 5000lb max capacity. (Shaken) You've missed the centerline station. Here is the carriage capacity of each station on the JSF: 1 & 11: A/A, at wing-tip: 300 pounds 2 & 10: A/A or A/S, mid-wing: 2500 pounds 3 & 9: A/A or A/S, inner-wing: 5000 pounds 4 & 8: A/A or A/S, weapons bay: 2500 pounds 5 & 7: A/A, weapons bay: 350 pounds 6: A/S, centerline: 1000 pounds > (Rule.B) > I did not say the F-35 was inflexible but I will certainly agree > that the internal bays give the JSF the edge in maintaining a > lower RCS. However this will mean it is having to trade off > capacity where the Eurofighter will have the edge. If both are > similarly configured (i.e. same or similar weapons fit, the F-35 > will still only have marginally better RCS in my opinion and > this would not be sufficient to achieve a first strike advantage > on the Eurofighter in my opinion given it‘s advanced sensory > array. (Shaken) Okay, lets take the first day of the war deep penetration mission and a typical loadout. I think this is realistic, but am willing to listen to other mixes. This comparison gives the same ordinance to put on the ground, similar comat radius and includes comprable sensor and self-designation capacity: Typhoon: Three AIM-120B (or maybe Meteor, but its probably still in test) One FLIR/Laser Designation pod Two ASRAAM Two Fuel Tanks Two 2000 pound PGMs Two wing-tip ECM pods F-35: 2 AIM-120D (internal) 2 2000 pound PGMs (internal) Okay, so the Typhoon carries three more AAMs. But it has to carry everything plus the kitchen sink to do the job. The JSF has an amazing on-board sensor suite, include FLIR/IRST/LD and a first class RADAR. The JSF also has on-board EW including some remarkable precision jamming technology. Even if the two aircraft started with the same RCS (and credible sources claim an order of magnitude better RCS for the JSF), the Typhoon is going to look like the Macy's Chrismas Parade coming to war with all that towed under the wings. > My calculations regarding my hypothesis on the F-35’s > RCS was based on formula calculations after observing the > basic airframe and size similarities between it and the F-16 > (notable exceptions including serrated air intakes, angled > trailing edges and canted tailfins) and angular differences > between it and the F-22 and Nighthawk. The F-35 certainly > does not have comparable RCS to the F-22 or Nighthawk, > even when clean. (Shaken) I'm thinking I'll leave this kind of estimation to the experts. Janes and AvWeek certainly believe that F-35 has Raptor/Nighthawk class stealth (with degraded capability to the rear). Since Lock-Mart has more experience in this technology than ANYONE else in the world (and probably more than all non-US efforts combined), I'm going to have some faith that they can meet the stealth goals for this platform. And you might shy away from comparisons made on any website wiht "eurofighter" in the domain name. The manufacturer and fanclub are not reliable sources for unbiased comparison. -- Shaken - out --
 
Quote    Reply

fox    RE:f-35 vs. Eurofighter   8/20/2004 2:45:17 PM
Anyone who has taken a calc based E and M class knows how fickle Maxwell's equations are. Think about the fact that the f-22 doesn't look anything like the B-2 there are way more ways to do stealth than one configuration. Calculations are just easier on flat surfaces..
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:f-35 vs. Eurofighter - Rule.B Versatility/Shaken   8/20/2004 2:53:54 PM
(B.Smitty) Ahh, I see where I was confused. I thought the internal AAM position WAS on the door. After looking again at the diagrams on aerospaceweb.org, I see that it's hinged, but attached to the fuselage, not the door. So there were plans for another AAM mount actually on the door? Doesn't seem like a whole lot of room, if that diagram is right. >>(Shaken) The JSF is reportedly not as stealthy to the rear, but I understand the nozzle is treated for stealth. The question is how much less stealthy the JSF is to the rear aspects. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "worse than the Raptor/Nighthawk class, better than the Rafale/Super Bug class". << (B.Smitty) Well, rear aspect RCS on par with the Super Bug is hardly stealth at all. It would have to be orders of magnitude better. >>(Shaken) Hopefully you are doing SEAD work at the same time as your initial strikes. In the US model, you are going to have UCAVs and other stealthier aircraft for the deepest, most dangerous strikes. The JSF is the low-price componant of a high-low mix; while quite capable and quite versatile, there are other tailored tools that are better at specific jobs.<< (B.Smitty) The problem with this is illustrated by Operaion Allied Force. SEAD/DEAD can only attack what they can "see" via recc or emissions. If the opponent plays hide-and-seek, you could have significant threats throughout the conflict. The bad guys may just have to wait for the 'boom' of exploding ordinance before turning on their radars to pick up the departing F-35 raid.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:f-35 vs. Eurofighter   8/20/2004 2:58:34 PM
>>(Shaken) Okay, lets take the first day of the war deep penetration mission and a typical loadout. I think this is realistic, but am willing to listen to other mixes...<< Well, by the time the F-35 is fielded, a first day of the war mix might look more like, F-35: 2 AIM-120D (internal) 8 GBU-39 (internal) for all but the most hardened targets.
 
Quote    Reply

fox    RE:f-35 vs. Eurofighter   8/20/2004 3:14:34 PM
I would think that first day of teh war the F-35 would try to do the more internally to improve stealth and survivability until the enemies air defence network was more damaged unless they were more in the CAS or anti tank role.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    A good report   8/20/2004 5:10:56 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Hellfire    RE:f-35 vs. Eurofighter   8/20/2004 7:41:58 PM
Will the EF-2000 be able to carry the SDB? If not is has a significant disadvantage. The F-35 should be able to carry up to 24 of them with external payload ( 8 internaly + 4x4 externaly). I even wonder if it would not be worth carrying 24 SDBs on the initial sorties since it triple the kill rate. Maybe a few more would be lost but that would be such a blow to the ennemy that it may give a decisive advantage to US forces. And it's not even sure that 3 times as many aircaft would be lost - especialy if some F-22s are around for escort...
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:f-35 vs. Eurofighter   8/21/2004 2:52:03 AM
“You've missed the centreline station.” This site states: “two internal weapons bays plus six external hardpoints (only for non-stealthy missions)” http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/ Typhoon Combat Radius: 559 miles (approx) Joint Strike Fighter Combat Radius: 600 miles+ (approx) based on variant. (Based on the use of internal fuel capacity) I’ll give you the possible deep penetration configuration for the E/F2000 even though it is not it’s primary mission (Ground Attack). This mission would normally be carried out by…F-35’s and GR.4’s/FOAS aircraft. If talking about LGM’s, the TIALD Series-500 pods will be carried until the internally mounted ATS (Advanced or Aerial Targeting System) an Anglo-French project developing a new designator completes in the next few years. The wing tip ‘pods’ are DASS pods. This is my typical first day of the war deep penetration loadout, this is attempting to achieve parity in capacity with the F-35 Typhoon: 2x AMRAAM/BVRAAM (Carried in recessed pods in the fuselage.) 1x 1500l Conformal Fuel Tank (CFT) 2x JDAM 1x Port side ECM pod (probably Cross Eye) “But it has to carry everything plus the kitchen sink to do the job.” The conformal tank greatly decreases the RCS of the external fuel carriage while allowing the E/F2000 to match the combat radius of the F-35. I don’t think it is entirely fair to purposely give the E/F2000 a greater external loadout while giving the F-35 a completely internal loadout. “The JSF has an amazing on-board sensor suite, include FLIR/IRST/LD and a first class RADAR. The JSF also has on-board EW including some remarkable precision jamming technology.” I believe the CAPTOR AMSAR will be the best in NATO on entering service. The E/F2000 is also fitted with the amazing PIRATE FLIR/IRST. Up to 200 targets can be simultaneously tracked by the system using one of several different modes; Multiple Target Track (MTT), Single Target Track (STT), Single Target Track Ident (STTI), Sector Acquisition and Slaved Acquisition. Additionally the data can be used to augment that of CAPTOR or off-board sensor information via the AIS. This should enable the Typhoon to overcome severe ECM environments and still engage its targets. The E/F2000’s DASS incorporates RWR’s, MAW’s and LWR’s ECM/ESM systems, TRDs and two RWRs. The ECM system includes a radio frequency jammer located in the port side pod allied with the DAC and ESM systems, including a techniques generator. the system should be capable of decoying and jamming all types of modern radar; Continuous Wave (CW), Pulse and Pulse-Doppler. The form of ECM generated can be precisely altered on the fly by the DAC as and when required. “Even if the two aircraft started with the same RCS (and credible sources claim an order of magnitude better RCS for the JSF)” I agree that the RCS of the F-35 is better than the E/F2000, especially when making exclusive use of internal bays however I believe through various factors that I described earlier that it is not a big enough gulf to hand the F-35 first strike advantage in a BVR engagement. “the Typhoon is going to look like the Macy's Christmas Parade coming to war with all that towed under the wings.” All what? Most of what would be carried in drawing parallels with the F-35 is conformal in structure, minimising RCS and the AMRAAM/BVRAAM fit is in recessed centre bays the bomb outfit is already treated for RCS, is housed in two stealthy hardpoints and has a small RCS to start with because of it’s size. The weapons fit would marginally enhance the RCS, nothing more. “I'm thinking I'll leave this kind of estimation to the experts. Janes and AvWeek certainly believe that F-35 has Raptor/Nighthawk class stealth (with degraded capability to the rear).” Do you have any links? I would be very interested to see it. “Since Lock-Mart has more experience in this technology than ANYONE else in the world (and probably more than all non-US efforts combined), I'm going to have some faith that they can meet the stealth goals for this platform.” I agree with the fact Lockheed Martin is a leader in Stealth Technology. But cost goals are the more important of the two on this project. “And you might shy away from comparisons made on any website with "Eurofighter" in the domain name. The manufacturer and fan club are not reliable sources for unbiased comparison.” I would trust the manufacturer to provide accurate data regarding the E/F2000. I don’t know what your on about regarding a fan club. The figures featured on the Eurofighter site were concluded by are published not by the Eurofighter consortium themselves but by international research conducted by DERA and are ratified by the House of Commons defence Select committee, I have not used glossy promotions to try and sell the EF2000 but have used factual information backed up by manufactur
 
Quote    Reply

human7    RE:f-35 vs. Eurofighter - Super Hornets   8/21/2004 10:12:03 AM
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040719/nem009_1.html ===================================== EL SEGUNDO, Calif., July 19 /PRNewswire/ -- Through June 30, 2004, Raytheon Company had delivered 55 of what might be considered the ultimate accessory to aircrews of the U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet. The ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-looking Infrared (ATFLIR) targeting pod, developed and manufactured by Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems (SAS), is currently forward deployed to Super Hornet and F/A-18C Hornet squadrons now on cruise in support of continuing operations overseas. ATFLIR is the Department of the Navy's targeting pod of record, and the service plans to procure up to 574 pods for deployment on every F/A-18 configuration in the fleet. ATFLIR gives naval aviators a three- to five-fold increase in target- recognition range. Its infrared and electro-optical (television format) sensors can detect tactical threats at unprecedented ranges, delivering images that are three to five times clearer than those afforded by any other targeting pod now in production. Its powerful diode-pumped laser has been demonstrated effective above 50,000 feet. Because its sensors and laser share a common optical path with continuous auto-boresight alignment, only ATFLIR assures pinpoint targeting accuracy that minimizes collateral damage. "Naval aviators want them as fast as they can get them," Debbie Ybarra, Raytheon's ATFLIR program director, said. "ATFLIR met every tactical objective in missions flown during Operations Southern Watch, Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. We were able to supply the Navy with some pods with an early-operational-capability configuration, and the aircrews were extremely enthusiastic about the performance." The single ATFLIR pod encompasses all imaging and targeting functions currently requiring three separate pods on the F/A-18. This liberates one air- to-air weapons station for other mission requirements. Fully integrated on all models of the F/A-18 Hornet, ATFLIR is approved for international sales. In both air-to-ground and air-to-air operational missions, ATFLIR will be used to perform precision engagement and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks. Primary air-to-ground missions include precision strike warfare employing weapons guided by laser and global positioning systems, forward air controller airborne, close air support, low-altitude night navigation and real-time battle damage assessment. Raytheon Company's Space and Airborne Systems (SAS) designs, develops and manufactures advanced systems for precision engagement; missile defense; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Headquartered in El Segundo, Calif., SAS has 11,000 employees and additional facilities in Goleta, Calif.; Forest, Miss.; Dallas, McKinney and Plano, Texas; and several international locations. Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN - News), with 2003 sales of $18.1 billion, is an industry leader in defense and government electronics, space, information technology, technical services, and business and special mission aircraft. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 78,000 people worldwide.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics