nettaWhat a load of pish! Do you suffer from small-knob syndrome or something? Well, hence this thread you started, so yeah.
Yes, the Typhoons current radar was developed from the Harriers Blue Vixen. (surprised you know that) Which happened to be a very good radar. So whats your point?
So, is the Typhoon also a “dog” in performance? Well of course you think it is, but hey, thats why RAF pilots says it climbs like an home sick angel, which means, it can climb rather ruddy quick. Thats why it can fight it’s fights at instantaneous and sustained turn rate performances at, and over supersonic speeds, of which, since we’re on that particular subject, how many other aeroplanes can do that? Of course, I mean, actualy fight in that regime and not just fly fast in a straight line and launch an AMRAAM, I’m talking about actually fighting at those speeds, so how many others? Theres maybe about, two, maybe even three other aeroplanes in the world that have proved they can do that. Kinda pi**es on your boy scout camp fire, doesn’t it.
Your babblings are just nonsense to say the least. :rolleyes:
Dear sir,
So when someone says the F-35 is a dog its the gospel truth, and when someone turns the tables and calls the Typhoon a dog its senseless babbling? I have an axe to grind.
netta“In “fact”-blah-blah-AB “seems” more efficient”.
Fact, seems, fact, seems! It’s either a fact, or it isn’t, mate! Which is it?
If it’s a fact, could you provide a source saying so? If it “seems” to be, well, does it really? Is it your opinion, or?…What?
“More gas equals even more time on reheat.” Okay, so in that case. Which also means; you need more power to carry it around, which means more power for the engine, which means more fatigue on engine, airframe life, which means more body work, infrastructure etc to hold it all together, which means all of that weight to haul around, which results in performance loss! And not to mention, more time on reheat with all the power it produces etc, which means you’re going to be a pretty big IR target. Now thats “stealthy!”
Dear sir,
It’s not a fact that reheat is more efficient than fuel dumping? You need a source for that
nettaDear sexy madame, could you post some specs of the Typhoon’s radar vs some others in its category like Su-30’s BARS, etc? things like range, how many targets it can track, etc?
do you know any aircraft that can cruise at mach 1.5 with 2 storm shadows, 2k pound bombs, and 3 external tanks?
@Hodog The F-22 would not need external tanks Both the F-22 and the F-35 can launch Jdam, and SBD supersonically, and the F-35 will be able to launch JSOW. The F-35 matches the Typhoons fuel load with 3 tanks internally.
Flying mach while launching weapons Increases range. Im almost certain the T-50 will also be able to do this. If it doesn’t it will defeat the purpose of super cruise.
@EF lightening The Typhoons radar is a development of the harriers Blue vixxen Doppler Radar, Its trash when Typhoons gets AESA then things will be differnt. OHh wait the Typhoons will get a AESA with a legacy back end.
@erokite The F-22, Su-35, and T-50 all have a energy advantage over the Typhoon. To follow MSpheres argument with regard to the F-35, Euro-fighter intentionally made a inferior fighter. its either because
1. They couldn’t make a plane better than the Typhoons that matches or exceeds the Raptor.
2. It was expensive.
3. Didn’t account for future tech advancements.
Either way the Euro-fighter is a failure in the same way that people feel the F-35 is a failure. It isn’t the best plane out there compared to F-22,T-50 and in the strike role the F-35, its a DOG.
nettaDear sir,
A dog in kinematics, last generation Doppler radar. You have to turn it into a flying gas can to go any where. I wanna see a Typhoon with 2 storm shadow, 2k pound bombs and 3 external fuel tanks super cruise at mach 1.5. That would impress me.
nettaMost of the F-35s extra weight OS fuel.
Remember as much fuel as the EF with all tanks.
More gas equals even more Time on reheat. In fact Ab seems more efficient
nettaDear sir,
Please explain your point. Can the Typhoon carry full A2G load and still be just as agile?
Notice how that even a nominal A2A load supercruise drops from mach 1.5 to 1.3.
That’s a serious energy loss with only a few missiles.
Now try and get the F-35s load on the plane.
nettaDid I say any particular American said that? No I didn’t. I said; “which that’s the impression I get when I hear them babble on about it.”
Cut that little sentance down a little bit and focus on the part that says; “thats the “impression” I get.” It’s clearly that.
Saying that one ‘said something’ and getting ‘their impression’ is quite different.
Fallacies? Well you try having a simple discussion with someone that thinks a Typhoon with a simple A/A load cannot outperform a clean F-16 or F-35, then asking in return; can a F-16 or F-35 keep up with a Typhoon with an A/A load at, and over supersonic speeds as far as raw peformance goes? And not get a reply. One simply does not want to comment about that or simply doesn’t want to believe their favourite product(s) to be shown up. Sorry but, how do you deal with people like that.
Dear Mr. Lightening
I feel that your ar missin some very key points.
1. In order to match the clean F-35s fuel load the Typhoon has to carry alot of tanks.
2. The Typhoon without tanks or even with 1 wing tank has a very short range compared to the F-35.
3. The F-16 clean also has a very poor range.
4. The F-35 gave up some agility for range in its design ( Notice to heavy TV nozzels No 1.7 SC), because The last thing you need on a strike fighter going into an anti-access environment is short legs.
5. When the F-35 wants to be more agile he dumps fuel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Kx6b7oKA8
8000Lbs of fuel gives you a 38k LB aircraft with 41K of thrust
General characteristics
* Crew: 1
* Length: 51.4 ft (15.67 m)
* Wingspan: 35 ft[nb 1] (10.7 m)
* Height: 14.2 ft[nb 2] (4.33 m)
* Wing area: 460 ft²[89] (42.7 m²)
* Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
* Loaded weight: 49,540 lb[54][nb 3][209] (22,470 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[nb 4] (31,800 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[210][nb 5] (125 kN)
o Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[210][211] (191 kN)
* Internal fuel capacity: 18,480 lb (8,382 kg)[nb 6]
Performance
* Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[84] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h)
* Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
* Combat radius: over 590 nmi[nb 7] (1,090 km) on internal fuel[212]
* Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[213] (18,288 m)
* Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
* Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight:
o With full fuel: 0.87
o With 50% fuel: 1.07
TYPHOON
* Crew: 1 (operational aircraft) or 2 (training aircraft)
* Length: 15.96 m (52 ft 5 in)
* Wingspan: 10.95 m (35 ft 11 in)
* Height: 5.28 m (17 ft 4 in)
* Wing area: 51.2 m2[194] (551 ft2)
* Empty weight: 11,150 kg (24,560 lb)
* Loaded weight: 16,000 kg[194][195] (35,300 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 23,500 kg (51,800 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,500 lbf) each
o Thrust with afterburner: 89 kN ref RR (20,000 lbf) each
* Fuel capacity: 4,500 kg (9,920 lb) internal[194]
Performance
* Maximum speed:
o At altitude: Mach 2 (2,495 km/h, 1,550 mph)[196][197][198]
o At sea level: Mach 1.2[193] (1,470 km/h / 913.2 mph)[199]
o Supercruise: Mach 1.1–1.5[191][200]
* Range: 2,900 km (1,802 mi)
* Combat radius:
o Ground attack, lo-lo-lo: 601 km (325 nmi)
o Ground attack, hi-lo-hi: 1,389 km (750 nmi)
o Air defence with 3-hr CAP: 185 km (100 nmi)
o Air defence with 10-min loiter: 1,389 km (750 nmi) [201][194]
* Ferry range: 3,790 km (2,300 mi)
* Service ceiling: 19,810 m (55,000 ft)
* Rate of climb: >315 m/s[202][203] (62,000 ft/min[204])
* Wing loading: 312 kg/m2[194] (64.0 lb/ft2)
* Thrust/weight: 1.15
Notice the range numbers on the Typhoon all rely on wing tanks none say internal fuel.
nettaInferior kinematis, means a dog, using your logic
I said I coul not comment on the RCS because I am missing data about the Su-35S.
It is most likely inferior to F-22 or T-50 but hardly a dog. The only dog from all those mentioned here would be the F-35.
nettaWell this statement shows your true colour, you know full well that it will anger the Typhoon fanboys! Fishing for a flamewar methinks!
Ask the services who operate it…they are very happy with its ability to run, fight and climb…
If indeed the F-35 is a dog with a mach 1.6 speed and 55 degrees aoa, then a Typhoon is a Dog because it cant KUlbit J-turn and cant cruise at mach 1.7
Lets not forget its currently uses a Doppler radar.
nettaif it makes you feel better, this one is probably closer to being real…..
Dear sir,
These designs are bad, for RCS. They need to give up on the forward canards and the forward swept wings.
nettaRead the header ^
nettaWithout further explanation what exactly those figures mean (lowest peak at certain angle? peak at direct head-on angle? integral of peaks from head-on hemisphere?) the numbers are not credible. And I don’t give damn about who the source is.
Absolute figures have no meaning in my original response. I could as well use an 10sqm vs 1sqm example or restrain from specific figures completely.
Trolls like you usually grasp at straws like this just to distract attention from the original question which they are unable to answer.I am not asking for links, simple explanation will do. 😎 If you can’t respond simply and logically, then simply restrain from posting and return to you LockMart prospects. Thanks.
Dear sir,
In case you didn’t know sensitive accurate RCS data isn’t usually found on message boards , but is considered OPSEC. Now back to boasting of your fancy F-18E equivalent with its 80s era pulse Doppler radar set.
nettaWe don’t all agree, by far not. I think the Su-35S is roughly on par with the Typhoon in most aspects bar RCS which I can’t comment due to missing data. I think both are very potent adversaries in A-A, on par with Rafale, dangerous even for F-22A and superior to F-35.
As for A-G, the Su-35S has few good arguments especially regarding useful range with large payload which would place it somewhere between F-35 and Typhoon.
T-50 is hard to judge as of yet but if things go right, it definitely should be more potent in A-A than Typhoon, close to F-22A.
Stealth and A2G are not factors here. You cant have it both ways, you cant say RCS is a factor versus the Su-35 and then say F-35 stealth is irrelevant.
Or F-35s/ F-22 are not relevant, then tout the Typhoons A2G capabilities.
The fact of the Matter is that the TYphoon is a DOG when compared to the Su-35, T-50, F-22. It cant run cant fight cant climb.
nettaSo do we all agree that when the Su-35 and T-50 are fielded the Europeans will fall further behind in aircraft design? The Typhoon doesn’t seem like a workout or a Su-35 or a T-50. The irony is that they have been so focused on taking market share from the Americans, and attacking American sales prospects with propaganda, that they are missing these Russian advances.
nettaIn July 2007, the Indian Air Force fielded the MKI during the Indra-Dhanush exercise with Royal Air Force’s Eurofighter Typhoon. This was the first time that the two jets had taken part in such a exercise.[46][47] The IAF did not allow their pilots to use the radar of the MKIs during the exercise so as to protect the highly-classified N011M Bars.[48] During the exercise, the RAF pilots candidly admitted that the Su-30MKI displayed maneuvering superior to that of the Typhoon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI#cite_note-46
I would also like to mention that the Su-27 family of fighters has seen *edit air to air combat *edit* and the Typhoon has not.
Sign In
