Talk about ducking a question……….You very well know we are talking about the pure performance of a “Clean” F-16 BLK 50/60 vs a Comabt Loaded 4th or 4.5 Generation Fighter………

Still waiting………;)

How about a “clean” F-16, (ANY block you want) keeping up with a Typhoon armed with 2 ASRAAM’s, 4 AMRAAM’s/Meteor’s and a centre tank at supersonic speeds? One of the things Typhoon was designed to do and the F-16…Whats the word?…Wasn’t.

Washington might resolve its AESA-related dilemma by clearing a “dumbed down” version, he said. Substituting a less powerful processor, for instance, would make it less capable than one now flown by U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet pilots.

For the love of *******!!! Whats the USA’s problem with “trusting her allies”? Just sell the frikin things if they want them! Jees! A “dumbed down” version of an AESA radar? Yep, right. Bye-bye to the F-18 is what I would say if were making the decision for the MRCA deal. Go for a contender that has no problems with tech transfere, i.e Typhoon, Gripen? or Rafale, (If the French are willing).

Maybe you should compare it to a demo with a full combat load instead of one center line tank. Try this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeDWlJauHwQ

Yep, very nice…And? As typhoon1 pointed out. Post #987.

OK

So what was the F18 full load?

The Typhoon had 6 bombs, 4 Amraams and 2 Sraams and a center line tank.

Still looks impressive, before it takes off, you expect it to sluggishly wobble about the place once its in the air, but nope, smooth as silk with some nice maneuvers. The take off run itself still looks short too. Nice.

Still looking forward to the day when Typhoon does a display with 4 Meteor’s, 2 ASRAAM’s, 2 Storm Shadow’s, 2 LGB’s, 2 ALARM’s & a centre tank. Or, 4 Meteor’s, 2 ASRAAM’s, 18 Brimstones, & a tank.

Well, I don’t think anything has been released. In regards to the time it take to open and close the Weapons Bay Doors on the F-35. That said, I am sure it must be very similar to the F-22………….So, you may want to look there……….

A wild guess is; similar to the F-22? Good view at about 35-40s.

Here’s a video on the F-22. Perhaps it’s a bit slower at higher speeds?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE7tM8Y1yGo

Thanks!

I was guessing maybe it’ll be slower for the F-35, reason being is because, say if you look at just one of the internal bays, at least one of the AMRAAM’s is actually attached to the inner door itself, where as on the F-22, its not. Totally independant. So, thats why I was thinking it takes a little bit longer to work because it has some weight to move. i.e the weapon itself.

That is such a small window. I really have my doubts it would have any impact. Regardless, most combat happens at BVR….That said, I have great respect for the Typhoon. As it has the “highest performance” of any 4.5 Generation Fighter and is a hell of a dogfighter. Combined with a Alliance made up of F-22’s, F-35’s, Rafales, and Typhoons. Its going to be a “Juggernaut” this world has never seen before in the world of aircombat

Well, if we’ve gotten into a dogfight then we’ve both dropped a b*llock somewhere, haven’t we. Especially when we were both carrying BVR missiles. But like I say, in such a situation I’d rather have something that carries external, quicker to get a missile & a lot less to go wrong.

But it was a genuine question, how long does it take for the doors to open, fling out a missile then close again? (For the F-35).

If, I had to go into dogfight with anythng other than a F-22 or F-35. The Typhoon would be my first choice no doubt. Yet, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t pay a penalty for carrying External Weapons or Fuel. As they say the devil is in the details………. 😉

Respected.
Not to turn this into a ‘VS’ thread, just a thought. If I had to go into a dogfight, I’d rather have something with external weapons. Why? Because I wouldn’t want to wait for whatever how long it takes for the “doors to open”, speaking of which, how long does it take for those “doors” to open & fling out a missile, again? 7 tenths…the best part of a second…Well whatever it is, its still not going to beat a missile off the rail thats external. In F1, 7 tenths of second is a life time and I think its safe to say that the same can be said in military aviation. External has its advantages too, imo.

Saying that, each one to their own I guess.

Yes, but please notice that it was Scooter who brought up Kopp in this discussion — Scooter probably tried to draw attention away from the real discussion by mentioning Dr. K’s name…

L

I know, I was just pointing out how Kopp is, i.e cr*p.

Nice to see that your whole reasoning has been limited to blindly dismissing everyone that does not say what you’d like to hear. You must be pretty desperate not even tryin to refute any arguments anymore, just pointing finger and calling names.. 😎

You have lost this match, chill out, dude.

Well, to be honest, that Kopp guy is…Whats the saying?…Full of sh*t! I mean, he thinks the RAF would be better off with F-16’s rather than those inferior but more expensive Typhoons. Pretty much says it all about him really. That Sweetman guy on the other hand, he has some idea of how the real world works, which can’t be said for Kopp.

They’re designed to accept catapults & arrester gear. Fitting only the arrester gear is certainly feasible, & shouldn’t cost a huge amount, as no redesign is needed.

Just to add to that; They’re also designed to out last whatever aircraft will off them, in this current case, the Harrier & F-35. So you can probably look at it from a point of view that the RN will always have a thought kept back in the back of their minds for something which will involve catapults & arrester gear. This is where a navalized version of the Typhoon will be kept in thought, imo.