TR1,
Typhoon: In service, sustainable high speed, sustainable high effective ceiling, sufficent number of aam’s to sustain combat, a2a systems fully working, lo features, DAS defensive aid features, future development planned and feasible, costs known.
F35. Not in service, not capable of sustaining high speed, low effective ceiling, low number of aam’s, no weapons tested, lo features, EODAS short range defensive aid, future development doubtful as no weight or space margins and dependant on basic development and testing being successfull, costs anybodies guess.
Define sustainable high speed/high effective ceiling, or sufficient number of AAMs.
Do you believe that the F35’s A2A systems won’t be working at IOC? What speed/altitude can the F35 sustain(you do realize that it’s ceiling is in the 50-60k foot range right, and that it is likely to be able to cruise in the M1.1 to 1.3 range?) They’ve already demonstrated pretty signifcant capabilities in exercises/calibrated test ranges. Nice try in your attempt to give the Typhoon any degree of parity in signature reduction. Clean, the Typhoon’s frontal RCS is higher than a Super Hornet. As soon as you add a “sufficient” number of AAMs, that’s only going to go up. You made blatantly incorrect assertions about growth potential, which the Blocks 4 thru 7 spiral development path clearly contradict. The Typhoon has no directly comparable system to the EODAS, which by the way isn’t nearly as short ranged as you’re asserting(given its ability to track ballistic missiles at over 800 miles, it should offer considerable BVR situational awareness against afterburning targets, and very respectable ranges even against non-afterburning threats.
Sign In
