Eurofighter Snipes Lockheed, Says Typhoon More 5th-Gen Than F-35, Latter Not Even A F

[gambit]

The F-35 is incredible, but a single purpose tool with absolutely everything about it optimized to that one task is going to beat a multipurpose tool that has to make compromises to fulfill its entire mission statement any day of the week.

Typoon = Air superiority
F-35 = Fighter/bomber/can opener

So while the F-35 can fulfill the Typhoon role, it'll never be as good as it at the same job except for stealth, and that is likely to make it far superior to the Typoon.

There is nothing wrong with being a 'jack-of-all-trades'. The issue is how high are the levels of competency at performing each of those trades. If you look at the historical trend of the USAF and USN, both services have been moving towards minimizing the variety of platforms with the USAF focusing on the F-15/F16 combination. The USN is pretty much all F-18E/F. For the future, it is going to be F-22/F-35. In any situation where the F-35 must perform air defense or interceptor role, it will perform that task at a higher level of proficiency than previous generation of multi-role aircrafts. And because the F-35 is versatile in the manner of the F-16, it can also serve as main line territorial defense.

 

[Jackal]

The F-35 is incredible, but a single purpose tool with absolutely everything about it optimized to that one task is going to beat a multipurpose tool that has to make compromises to fulfill its entire mission statement any day of the week.

Typoon = Air superiority
F-35 = Fighter/bomber/can opener

So while the F-35 can fulfill the Typhoon role, it'll never be as good as it at the same job except for stealth, and that is likely to make it far superior to the Typoon.

I agree, its incredible but its not the end all tool, no aircraft is.

F-35 is first off, a strike aircraft, not a fighter which is its secondary role, vice-verca for the Typhoon but that was always going to be a multi-role platform from the start as was the F-35.

Outright performance wise, the Typhoon with its mininum A/A load out of six A/A missiles with a single drop tank will outperform a F-35 every single time at any altitude, basically the Typhoon was designed to fight its fights at supersonic speeds beyond and in visual ranges where as the F-35 was not, its just a bomber first and a fighter second.

Its no big deal to say that a loaded F-35 can outmaneuver, or out perform a clean F-16 which has just enough fuel to fly, thats something you have to give it credit for, but still no big deal, but so can a Typhoon and it can do it a lot better.

The F-35 was designed to sneak into enemy airspace, hit a target on the ground and sneak back out. Thats fine.

The Typhoon, A/G wise was designed to launch a cruise missile at a distance and be back home before the missile hits its target, thats fine too.

Electronics wise, they'll be on a par.

 

[Parashuram1]

I am beginning to wonder why Netherlands and Australia are so apprehensive about inducting the JSF now. There has to be something in it that is keeping the two countries on their toes.

 

[Admiral]

This article is a BS. in last paragraph it compares the number of f-117 and other non-stealth fighters.
first of all f-117 and other kinds of stealth planes are used for the first strike. to cut the enemy communication, to blind the enemy and prevent cooperation between enemy units. this is the thing a nighthawk is used for. not to hunt planes or to attack on simple targets.
Such a kind of warfare is named as ''command control battle''. stealth capability is a key thing, a decisive thing for such an operation. for this reason we cant say that f-117 or stealth planes are useless... and take a look at the thing it says about b-52. if this is true, no need to work on aerodynamic shape of the plane and stealth technologies. even a piece of wood can fly could have stealth capability. right???

EF-2000 and JSF comparison is useless. we admit people as trolls who asks ''which one is better?'' or '' x vs. y'' . right? then can we say that this article was written by a troll mentality?

EF-2000 is a 5. gen. aircraft and can dominate the skies. the thing it lacks is stealth capability. JSF has stealth capability and it is a better (correct me if i m mistaken...) aircraft for Air to Ground missions. This plane is cut out for such missions and countries fighting against asimetric threats buying JSF. as simple as that...

 

[Jackal]

JSF has stealth capability and it is a better (correct me if i m mistaken...) aircraft for Air to Ground missions. This plane is cut out for such missions and countries fighting against asimetric threats buying JSF. as simple as that...

Depends on what you mean about being better. If both work as they're designed to do so, then its a matter that is down to choice. Would you go for the stealth option, sneaking in hitting a ground target & sneaking back out again. Or do you launch your weapon at a greater distance then heading back home before it hits its target.

Thats all it is basically, choice.

 

[dbc]

Electronics wise, they'll be on a par.

.. please elaborate

 

[Jackal]

.. please elaborate

Well, where to start. First of, I have no doubt that the electronics on the F-35 will be top notch. At the moment on the Typhoon they're also top notch and radar wise its due for an update which will be a AESA radar. When its on the Typhoon it'll already be mature because its been worked on for a few years now. That was/is Eurofighters aim, to make it mature for when it officially enters service.

What will probably give it an advantage over the radar on the F-35, not really because of the radar itself, but because it'll be fitted onto a 'gimple' which rotates at angles the radar on the F-35 can't, its more limited. A radar fitted to a gimple means it can scan more sky/ground with minimal movement of the aircraft and also sharing more vital data with other systems of the aircraft, sensor fusion, defensive equipment, weapons systems, counter measures etc.

Once the F-35 enters service with the Italian Air Force, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, they'll be comparing its systems, finding out its advantages and disadvantages and where it has advantages over the Typhoon, electronics wise, then they'll just compensate the Typhoons systems. After all, they're competing for sales at the end of the day & they'll use issues like this to get more orders. Believe me, they're a crafty bunch.

 

[dbc]

Well, where to start. First of, I have no doubt that the electronics on the F-35 will be top notch. At the moment on the Typhoon they're also top notch and radar wise its due for an update which will be a AESA radar. When its on the Typhoon it'll already be mature because its been worked on for a few years now. That was/is Eurofighters aim, to make it mature for when it officially enters service.

What will probably give it an advantage over the radar on the F-35, not really because of the radar itself, but because it'll be fitted onto a 'gimple' which rotates at angles the radar on the F-35 can't, its more limited. A radar fitted to a gimple means it can scan more sky/ground with minimal movement of the aircraft and also sharing more vital data with other systems of the aircraft, sensor fusion, defensive equipment, weapons systems, counter measures etc.

Once the F-35 enters service with the Italian Air Force, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, they'll be comparing its systems, finding out its advantages and disadvantages and where it has advantages over the Typhoon, electronics wise, then they'll just compensate the Typhoons systems. After all, they're competing for sales at the end of the day & they'll use issues like this to get more orders. Believe me, they're a crafty bunch.

I think you need to read up on both, to begin with the CEASAR AESA upgrade for the Typhoon does away with the "gimple" see below..

Second Europeans are still struggling with GaA MMIC, initial trials on the first generation APG-77 (Raptor) using GaA MMIC caused the radar to reach its temperature limits in RADAR mode, in jamming mode the radar was damaged in just one second of operation.

Second generation APG-77 and AN/APG-81 are made of GaN MMIC, the performance of the APG-77 and APG-81 cannot be achieved by the CAPTOR. Many underestimate the F-35, in many areas the F-35 actually surpasses the Raptor.

 

[Jackal]

I think you need to read up on both, to begin with the CEASAR AESA upgrade for the Typhoon does away with the "gimple" see below..

Sorry but, misleading and that news is getting a little long in the tooth. The Typhoons radar will be have a 'gimbal', (sorry I misspelt it the first time. ) not a 'gimble' like I first said. And as I say, the new radar will feature gimbal.

Everyone buying fighters wants an active electronically scanned array (AESA) these days, no doubt after reading Dave "Mr AESA" Fulghum on the subject.

But Eurofighter remains wary about the issue. The consortium's executives still stay that - for today - the mechanically scanned (M-Scan) Selex Captor beats any in-service AESA for the Typhoon's mission, even though Selex itself is ready to go with its Vixen range of AESA radars. A clue as to why they think that way emerged at the Aero-India seminar last week.

Discussing future technologies, Dr, Peter Gutsmiedl, senior vp engineering at EADS Military Air Systems, pointed out ways in which AESA could be integrated into Typhoon - one being the conventional fixed, canted antenna. They included an antenna with auxiliary side arrays, an azimuth gimbal and the so-called "swashplate" radar, a canted antenna on a rotating mount.

What's behind this thinking? A few years ago, Prof. John Roulston - former technical director at BAE Systems' radar division, now part of Selex - presented a paper in which he pointed out a limitation of AESA: at extreme scan angles the effective aperture decreases, and the performance of the radar (range, sensitivity and jamming resistance) declines as a result. So today's M-Scan has a larger field of regard than a fixed AESA, and better performance at the edge of the scan envelope.

This is important for Typhoon because the whole system - in the air-to-air regime - is influenced by air-combat simulations in which a fighter-to-fighter engagement could involve multiple MRAAM shots, followed by a supersonic turn to evade the adversary's fire and extend the F-pole - the distance between the launch aircraft and the target at impact. To do this, it's essential to have a radar that can continue to track the target and guide the missile as the shooter turns away.

The gimbal of a pointable AESA does not have to be anything like as fast as an M-Scan gimbal. The high-speed stuff, tracking a moving target, is still done electronically, with the gimbal moving relatively slowly to optimize the field of view.

Moreover, the electronic field of view is now added to the gimbal scan: the swashplate design shown here adds the 60-degree AESA limit to its 45-degree cant angle, to cover 105 degrees in all directions - a total 210-degree field around the nose.

By the way, the designers of the Su-35 think the same way, and the F-22 has space, weight and cooling provision for side arrays, but so far they have been deferred due to budget cuts.

AESA And Typhoon

 

[dbc]

Sorry but, misleading and that news is getting a little long in the tooth. The Typhoons radar will be have a 'gimbal', (sorry I misspelt it the first time. ) not a 'gimble' like I first said. And as I say, the new radar will feature gimbal.

LPI radars antenna (APG-77 and APG-81) cannot be mounted on a "gimple" or "gimbal" mechanically steered radar is more expensive to build and operate. The APG-77 and APG-81 is in a league of its own...

The advantage of an LPI radar is the an enemy RWR will receive its first warning only when the AMRAAM seeker is locked on giving the enemy combatant a few seconds before intercept. All this is achieved by the APG-77’s transmitting several low energy pulses that are discarded by enemy RWR as clutter. These low energy returns are then assembled by the Raptors signal processers and the threat positively identified this technique is called spread spectrum transmission. The APG-77’s advanced signal processor is able to render an iSAR image of a moving target this capability is known to have been available only on dedicated air borne radars. The reason for this is the sheer processing power needed for complex calculation using the Doppler shift data was previously not possible on a small fighter jet sized aircraft it was the domain of larger dedicated AWACS platforms like E3 and IAF Phalcon.

..What you claim as an advantage is actually a disadvantage...

 

[Jackal]

LPI radars antenna (APG-77 and APG-81) cannot be mounted on a "gimple" or "gimbal" mechanically steered radar is more expensive to build and operate. The APG-77 and APG-81 is in a league of its own...

I think we're misunderstanding each other somewhere?...Not sure I said the APG-77 and APG-81 can be fitted to a gimbal?...

 

[dbc]

I think we're misunderstanding each other somewhere?...Not sure I said the APG-77 and APG-81 can be fitted to a gimbal?...

Well, you seem to think mounting a AESA on a gimbal is advantageous - it isn't. One of the biggest RCS contributors is the radar antenna, the amount of scattering caused by the antenna can be reduced by canting the antenna outward by 15 degrees. The idea is to scatter the incident electromagnetic waves away from probing radars. If the AESA is mounted on a gimbal and mechanically steered as shown in the video below then the antenna will present a 90 degree angle to enemy radars.

RCS of an Antenna
For the case of an antenna the total RCS can be divided into two separate components as Structural Mode RCS and Antenna Mode RCS. The two components of the RCS relates to the two scattering phenomena that takes place at the antenna. When an electromagnetic signal falls on an antenna surface, some part of the electromagnetic energy is scattered back to the space. This is called structural mode scattering. The remaining part of the energy is absorbed due to the antenna effect. Some part of the absorbed energy is again scattered back into the space due to the impedance mismatches, called antenna mode scattering.

 

[Jackal]

Well, you seem to think mounting a AESA on a gimbal is advantageous - it isn't. One of the biggest RCS contributors is the radar antenna, the amount of scattering caused by the antenna can be reduced by canting the antenna outward by 15 degrees. The idea is to scatter the incident electromagnetic waves away from probing radars. If the AESA is mounted on a gimbal and mechanically steered as shown in the video below then the antenna will present a 90 degree angle to enemy radars.

YouTube - SU-35 (Su-27BM) Irbis-E radar

Well, nothing personal but I'll take the chaps at Selex Galileo, EADS and Indra that form the Euroradar consortium word for it. If they think its an advantage then they must be doing something right otherwise they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

 

[ptldM3]

F-35 over Typhoon, i'm not in the mood of explaining why

 

[gambit]

What will probably give it an advantage over the radar on the F-35, not really because of the radar itself, but because it'll be fitted onto a 'gimple' which rotates at angles the radar on the F-35 can't, its more limited. A radar fitted to a gimple means it can scan more sky/ground with minimal movement of the aircraft and also sharing more vital data with other systems of the aircraft, sensor fusion, defensive equipment, weapons systems, counter measures etc.

Well, you seem to think mounting a AESA on a gimbal is advantageous - it isn't. One of the biggest RCS contributors is the radar antenna, the amount of scattering caused by the antenna can be reduced by canting the antenna outward by 15 degrees. The idea is to scatter the incident electromagnetic waves away from probing radars. If the AESA is mounted on a gimbal and mechanically steered as shown in the video below then the antenna will present a 90 degree angle to enemy radars.

Correct...

Everyone must understand that a radome is essentially one huge radar absorber. But not only that, it is a 'pass through', meaning if the radome must allow the aircraft's own radar signals to exit, it must also allow potentially hostile radar's signals to enter AND exit, contributing to the aircraft's overall RCS. No doubt some of the hostile signals will be absorbed or even 'killed' by the many smaller structures behind the radome, but the antenna itself will be the largest reflective surface behind that radome. So the hostile signals passed through the radome, some of its strength is lost, but now the antenna, mounted on a gimbal, and is moving around, creating 'radar scintilation'...

Scintillation (radar) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scintillation is a fluctuation in the amplitude of a target on a radar display. It is closely related to target glint, or wander, an apparent displacement of the target from its mean position. This effect can be caused by a shift of the effective reflection point on the target, but has other causes as well. The fluctuations can be slow (scan-to-scan) or rapid (pulse-to-pulse).

The highlighted is significant: the antenna is a reflection point, creating those shifts and that we have a highly localized scintillation effect calling attention to itself.