typhoon1The average penalty for just carrying empty stores is something on the order 5-10% loss in acceleration and and turning performance. At least the Typhoon carries the AMRAAM’s semi-recessed. Yet, the ASRAAM’s and External Tank(s) would cause a considerable penatly. Especially, the latter……
“Average” can mean alot of things my friend. Now, going on what we know, the Tyhpoon can SC at mach 1.3 with the exact load I described, and an F-35 apprently cannot at all. (Hopefully it will, and indeed I believe it will be able to, though only just—my opinion though) Thus showing, a load, of that sort, even if it degrades performance, the typhoons original performance throws it into disregard. A point which I do not think either of us has much info on is the FCS, all I know is that the typhoons has proved exceptional.
As for speculation…………Well, we are both doing that and yet you somehow feel. That your opinion is somehow better than mine? Are you saying that you have never speculated that the Typhoon isn’t somehow better than the Lightning? If, so how did you come to that conclusion without classified data???
So, personally I think both have limited information.Yet, are coming to conclusion with the available information or what we know is a given in past cases. Clearly, we are all speculating………….everybody! To say otherwise is laughable..
I’m not going into one of those “you said xxx, that means you must think ….(having been taken completely out of context) arguments as it ruins threads” but “sigh” I do not think my opinion is better than yours. We know the typhoon has HMS, ASRAAM/IRIS-T, IRST, better acceleration, climb sustained turn etc…. from a bizillion different sources, if going on what the Lockheed guys are saying about the F-35. It might be a whole lot better, might be worse.
But some of your conclusions, despite there being alot, I mean alot of evidence, around (and the net doesn’t have to much of it sadly, more substantial places have it ;)) are relatively incorrect, and I can sya that without it being my opinion, or speculated opinion, but a resonable amount of evidence to back it up.
With all do respect.
typhoon1No need to call names here and like I said I don’t personally know Star49. If, you want to start making associations. I am sure I could find someone to tie you too……..Really, poor sportsmanship in my opinion and hardly called for.:(
The truth can hurt. That post, as with a few you have provided, are not the best. Its not “poor sportsmanship” if its fact.
As for dribble I hardly think so…………While, I wouldn’t be surprised if the F-35 cost more than the Typhoon. (at least in the beginning) The F-35 could indeed be cheaper to maintain and operate than the Typhoon. As usually twin engine types are more often than not more expensive to operate than there single engined cousins.
It could be “anything” vs typhoon, we just do not know yet. At least, when it actually enters service with the RN/RAF, we will get first hands comparisons. Having two engines does not always translate into greater exspence, its what the aircraft is actually like. Again, speculating further, the internal design/engine design of the F-35 is very, very complex and we will have to see how it performs in the harsh reality of operational life, the typhoon on the other hand atm is performing unquestionably.
typhoon1Better post!
Well, I don’t know Star**? As for physical performance of the F-35. Its chief test pilot claims it flys very much like a clean Blk 50/60 F-16 and very close to the F-22! That in itself says a lot. Then consider your Typhoon would likely carry external stores. Really, makes a Typhoon vs Lightning a good match in a WVR fight. Of course none of that even takes into account the Lightnings Sensor Fusion and its vastly Superior Situational Awareness and most of all Stealth. Which, is extremely important considering most air combat happens at BVR not WVR.
I think you know who I’m taling about 😉 Now how much you can take from “It flies like a F-16, and like an F-22” is uncertain, having repeatedly heard the F-16 claim, well that then totally supports the Typhoon.
External stores would not make much difference in an WVR fight, assuming the F-35 is carring the same load of ATA stores. Then, as posted previous the HMS, ASRAAM/IRIS-T, IRST, superior acceleration etc… will take care of the F-35 in WVR. Now there is alot of specualtion, of course, anything could happed in a WVR fight, but you have to look at reality and what we know!
The typhoon, as does the Rafale and gripen, uses 100% sensor fusion. You want to explain how the Situational awareness is vastly superior?
As for Germany’s commitment to the Typhoon. That’s great but what about the other three Typhoon Partners? As at least two tried to cancel there last batch of Typhoons and all will order Lightinings in the future. Sounds strange if they believed the Typhoon was superior and they build them inhouse. They would stop production and purchase the mostly foreign F-35??? Which, is likely why many of the companies involved in the Typhoon. Later join the JSF program……….Also, one last note about Germany. She also did not join the vastly successful F-16 program either. Just food for thought.;)
Regardless, none of this is personal. I have great respect for the Typhoons and its capabilities. I just believe the F-35 is a superior product…….
My Germany reference was to highlight that the nations abscene in the F-35 cannot be to its performance, but much, much more complex and numerous factors, the same being why the RAF etc.. may chose not a tranche 3 and are ordering the JSF. Not just simply for example, F-35 has stealth, the typhoon not.
Your opinion on the typhoon/F-35. I’m from the UK and am quite sceptable about the F-35, not so much in its performance, but about the rest of the program. Such as possible limited technology transfer etc.. In contrast the typhoon has proved exceptional atm.
typhoon1The only advantage the Typhoon has is in unit cost………..Clearly, not in capability and maybe not even in cost to maintain and operate.
Honeslty, what the hell kinda post was that? Just another random “STAR49” F-35 dribble statement.:o
typhoon1Just like you won’t get them to stop comparing clean 4th/4.5 Gerneration types to the F-35. As they will neer fly that way in combat………:eek:
Unless you have data, all you can do is speculate. I’m sure the F-35 has less drag than say a typhoon with a decent ATG, heavy ata load, however would it be close Re. a clean F-35 vs Typhoon with 4 amraam, 1 tank, 2 asraam?
Who knows!
It might even be that a clean F-35 actually has less drag, though the envelope, than a clean typhoon!
typhoon1PFCEM
I’ve seldom seen so much error and disinformation in a single post.
You say: “THE MOST RECENT (public as of June 2008) FLY-AWAY PRICE FOR THE F-35A IS THE $58.7 MILLION (FY2008 dollars) OFFICIALLY STATED BY THE US DOD. That is the price quoted to Australia, Canada & Norway).”
George Standridge, Lockheed’s vice-president of business development for the JSF program, does not agree.
He made it very clear that that price was in FY2002 dollars (and is thus worth about $78 m today, allowing for defence sector inflation). Moreover, he also made it clear that the price was a short-term and conditional offer (available only to the JSF partners), and was dependent on all of the JSF Level 1 and 2 partners (Australia, Britain, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada and Denmark) signing up within a very tight timescale (long before development is complete) and dependent on all signing for their full commitments (368 aircraft), with no reductions. Recent statements from the UK and the Netherlands (and from Norway) make it clear that these totals (and in Norway’s case, this timescale) cannot be met.
Moreover, that price is contradicted by the USAF budget book, the price quoted to Israel, and the newer prices ferreted out by Aviation Week.
No-one would deny the extraordinary capability of the F-35 as a ‘day one, kick down the door’ bomber, but when operating with external stores, the F-35 becomes a slow, draggy aircraft, with few advantages over Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen NG/F-15SG, etc., and some disadvantages.
You list a number of areas where you deny specific Typhoon advantages, using DOES NOT and WILL NOT in caps for emphasis. In every case you are wrong, despite your caps.
1) The Typhoon DOES offer better air defence capability.
It’s faster, faster climbing, quicker accelerating, with better supersonic agility, longer radar and missile range (especially at azimuth limits). It has a helmet sight, an excellent IRST, and better MMI, with DVI. There are, of course, scenarios, in which F-35 stealth would be a decider….2) The Typhoon DOES offer greater combat persistence.
It carries more AAMs than F-35, and can stay on CAP longer.3) The Typhoon IS more deployable.
The Typhoon requires a smaller logistics tail, fewer groundcrew, less ground support equipment, and does not require specialist kit to maintain/repair specialised surface coatings. Nor does it suffer from many repairs being impossible outside US facilities.4) The Typhoon IS cheaper.
We know that the actual flyaway cost for an RAF Tranche 2 Typhoon is £37.76 m. We know this because we know that the Tranche Two global production contract was was “worth €13 Bn” for al 236 Tranche 2 aircraft. That’s €55.08 m each. On 17 December 2004, when that contract was signed, the €/£ rate was 0.68545, so €55.08 = £37.76 m. For interest, that was then equivalent to $73 m (you can look up the exchange rates for that day at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/20041220/).Except that the cost in Euros was fixed, so you should use current €/$ exchange rates, which make a Tranche 2 Typhoon $69.498 in today’s money.
And guess what, that’s cheaper than $96.8 m! It’s less than $83 m. It’s even less than the over optimistic, stabilised, post FY2013 prediction of $79 m……
5) The Typhoon DOES promise lower support & sustainment costs.
EF GmbH will contractually guarantee their support costs, and MMH/FH figures, which are lower than what JSF aim to provide, but haven’t so far offered to guarantee.6) The Typhoon WILL be better networked.
It doesn’t rely on stealthy datalinks that are useless outside the bubble, and can communicate directly with AWACS and all other players, not only receiving the SRAP (Secure Recognised Air Picture) but also contributing to it. F-22 and F-35 can’t, and there’s no technology or contracts in place to ensure that they will be able to.7) Because of 6 above, the TyphoonWILL be better suited to CAS and BAI missions, and to any mission when being integrated into the Global Information Grid is essential – eg complex scenarios where you can’t afford to have ‘loose cannon’ flights of F-22s stooging around unable to communicate fully with friendly forces, or eg real time recce/ISTAR, etc.
F-22 and F-35 will have formidable ISTAR capabilities, but if they can’t transmit their intelligence ‘take’ to the network, such capabilities are of little use.
8) The Typhoon carries more useful mixed loads, and has a better A-A capability, and so WILL promise better swing role capability.
9) The Typhoon WILL carry a large number of weapons that JSF can not carry internally, and so cannot carry in the only configuration where it offers any advantage over non-stealthy platforms.
The Typhoon WILL be able to defeat the threat of a developed ‘Flanker’ more often, with a better exchange ratio than JSF.
Apart from that, good post! :rolleyes:
Now, opening offer, would anyone like to counter the points mentioned? Because atm, they Typhoon looks like a better plane in many more situations then the F-35 does.
typhoon1Clearly, if the Typhoon was even close to the performance of the Lightning. It would be enjoying far greater export success along with the lack luster Rafale. Both are excellent fighters and compete well with Russian Designs. The US masterstroke was to leap frog 4.5 Generation Types and go straight to 5th Generations. (i.e. F-22 & F-35)
Also, its worth noting that many Typhoon Partners (UK and Italy) have be very reluctent to buy the last batch of Tranche 3 Aircraft. Only the loss of jobs and large penalties have stopped them. (still may happen)………So, if the Typhoon is so capable. Why would the current Typhoon Partner stop production of the latter and start buying new F-35 Lightnings. That in itself says volumes……….
Scooter I must say you have a certain resemblance to Star** however with the F-35. Talking about performance, physical performance, the Lightning does not come close to the Typhoon. BTW, Re. the “US masterstroke” (Since when was BAE American), in the not too distant future many of the roles the F-35 would encounter could be dealt with vehiciles such as the Neuron, boom, theres a “French Masterstroke”.
Re. typhoon procurement, Germany are fully commited, then that must say volumes about the F-35. Instead of making nonsence, ill informed claims, try and give a much more thought through answer 😉
typhoon1whens this thing gonna do its maiden :confused:
typhoon1How is the intergration/design of the CFT’s coming along for the Rafale? Would they possibly have been offered to the Swiss, not for a long strike role, but a very long air-policing type duty. No need for the bulky exterior tanks, with less drag, they should offer better performance like definite SC, or at least at a high mach number.
typhoon1I thought the whole “supersonic, very low level, terrain following” idea is being replaced by the idea of stealth, the F-35. No need to fly under the radar,but slip through it.
typhoon1hahaha the fact that you’re the one and only taking side with jackoniclown says a lot about your credibility, and your comment about the rafale being an utter and complete failure takes whatever little was left of it :p
Nic
In all honesty he speaks the absolute truth, albeit it ignores a hell of alot
EF/Gripen have export orders, Rafale does not. Results matter in the real world, not a “coulda, shoulda, gonna” attitude.
Now im gonna run, :D………
typhoon1the name calling….its gettting a tad ridiculous now isnt it 🙁
typhoon1the Tornado can achieve mach 1.3 at low level. The latest Gr4 varient, and most Gr1’s, I believe had there intake ramps removed and will not go supersonic at low level with stores.
typhoon1Could switzerland sell of its surplus amraam’s, sidewinders? Then intergrate the mica/magic or whatever French weapons on the F-18? And not have to bother about any weapons intergration for the Rafale, if it is picked.
typhoon1Simply looking at it; To replace the F-5E, only the gripen can do this in terms of cost/performance/noise/simplicity etc…
But if the Swiss were asking to replace the F-18, I think the EF/Rafale case would be much, much stronger. If you look at a Hi-Low mix situation, the EF/Rafale would certainly be the new High, and the F-18 refined to the low. With the gripen however the difference would be less stark.
The main point for me is that they do want a interceptor, and which is the best at that? EF of course. But whether they want that capability that badly, when they already have a brilliant force of modified F-18c’s which can tackle most, is uncertain.
Could anyone provide the prices of each package roughly, e.g gripen vs EF etc…
Sign In
