what is the range? hopefully it will come to fruition soon

Nothing has been announced yet, but the brochure says “expanded BVR engagement zones.”

Naturally Cuda will be treated with a completely different level of skepticism from any Russian or Chinese design…

That is assuming that the F35 or F22 will have their most optimal RCS footprint. The Germans showed it to be wrong.

At 100 nm the Captor C can track a “fighter sized target” that usually is 1-5 sqm. This puts Captor C at 100-130% of the range performance in the N011M BARS in the chart. Irbis E has ~200% of the range performance of the N011M.

If a radar in the N011M-class (or with 30% longer range) can be used to engage a F22 at 20nm then the ballpark for the Irbis E will be 55-100% further away.

The general frontal RCS-figure for the F22 will be closer to 0,01 sqm than the marketed 0,0001 sqm.

Do note that the basic assumptions are the following: 1: the luftwaffe Eurofighters used their radar since I only know of one Luftwaffe individual with Pirate (twin seat 30-42) and 2: I purposely chose the shortest range given in the quotes. Real tracking range is most likely a bit longer.

There are an awful lot of assumptions there, and those Russian claims need an awful lot of substantiation.

300NM range against a 10sq m target? A large 4th generation fighter can easily be in that range. 150NM+ range against a 1 sq m target? That isn’t even a big fighter signature… just because someone put it on a cute little chart doesn’t make it true.

I personally think that in BVR – both F-22 and EF-2000 can detect each other at medium range (EF-2000 thanks to PIRATE) and fire AMRAAM from around 20 miles.

If indeed the PIRATE can detect the F-22 at 50kms under some circumstances that is impressive, but that doesn’t mean the EF is going to get a shot off at anything like medium range.

50km is already well within an AMRAAM’s effective range, especially when launched from an F-22. The F-22 in this scenario would likely have fired its missile before the Typhoon was aware of its presence.

Another issue is that you can’t fire on a target the moment you detect it. You need time to figure out what you are looking out, whether it is hostile, and decide on a course of action. A first detection at 50km does not mean a shot at 50km. It means that if the pilot really has a hair trigger he might pull the trigger some seconds(and miles/kilometers) later.

The bottom line is that while the Typhoon is an excellent aircraft it just isn’t equipped to fight an F-22. (As admitted by the German pilots who took part in the exercise.)

When paired with Meteor, and fighting a target it can reliably detect long range, the Typhoon will likely be an extremely potent aircraft. (Which is to say against the threats it was designed to face…)

Contemplate this statement for a moment,
what he is saying here is that IF all data are optimal (head on, supersonic, no off-bore etc)
then and only then he can launch an AMRAAM at >20 miles with decent Pk

That isn’t at all how I read that. I see two possible ways to read it:

1. If I do everything right, I can’t get closer than 20 miles from the Raptor. (Makes sense given that he says the Raptors are not built for [close] combat and that “[it’s] not going to the merge, the Raptor has BVR capabilities that we do not…” It also quotes one of the pilots as saying “its unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat but as soon as you get to the merge, which is a very small spectrum of air combat…”)

2. If I do things right I never get closer than 20 miles from a target I am engaging.

I really don’t see any way to read it that suggests that only under a best case scenario could he launch at greater than 20 miles.

360 degree engagement capability, expanded BVR capability, expanded WVR capability, multi-mode seeker…

Yes please, I will take 12. (and throw in 12 more for my buddy) :diablo:

:dev2:

So the Canadian DoD numbers for a 30 year TCO are based on LRIP costs? Allow me to doubt that. I use the TCO costs for 30 years.

The numbers are just as valid for the Gripen as they are for the Rafale.

Based on a simple thing like the amount of electronic systems on the jets and the sheer weight the F35 will never ever be as cheap as a Rafale. Cost and weight goes hand in hand. Thats just how it goes.

A proper comparison would require a complete analysis of costs done with the same assumptions, something that just isn’t available right now and might never be.

It is true that the F-35 is a heavier and more sophisticated aircraft, and that does correlate with higher costs, but at the same time the Rafale is a twin engined jet that will only be produced in small numbers compared to the F-35 program, which favors the F-35.

It will be some time before any real conclusions can be reached on exactly how they compare, but in all likelihood they will be similar and the F-35 may eventually come in significantly cheaper.

There is no general “correct number”. It is up to individual requirement.. But it is you who was highlighting this capability as an advantage and likely a selling point, I assume you know what is it good for. I personally don’t..

It is about capability, and flexibility. Not every mission requires that type of payload, but there are cases where fewer planes carrying more is a force multiplier.

An F-35 operator could have a highly stealthy aircraft with a load of 2×2,000lb bombs or 2 JSOW, or 2 NSM, or 8 SDB, etc, but if stealth isn’t a major consideration (essentially it is a case where you could use 4th generation aircraft to do the same job) then the F-35 can carry much more.

If you are striking a target such as an airfield there may be numerous individual aim-points. An aircraft that can carry 6×2,000lb bombs, or various other combinations of bombs including 24 SDBs you can accomplish the mission with fewer planes. That is a force multiplier, that matters.

No. Not when it means going for an aircraft which fails to excel in the primary role for the particular users like Australia, Canada or Netherlands.. which is air defense… I rather get a faster, sleeker, cheaper and more nimble F-3x which only can carry four or two but flies in circles around Flankers and a three squadrons of which cost me $2.9bil, not $6.5bil..

Again, how does that apply for Netherlands, Australia or Canada?:confused:

Again with the “primary role” is air to air business…. :rolleyes: Air to air is one role of many undertaken by modern air forces, and it is one that the F-35 will perform much more capably than the jets it is replacing.

In Canada and Australia’s case their “sleek, fast, etc” fighters are Hornets, a plane the F-35 will handily out perform across the board. If anyone really wants a cheaper multi-role fighter the F-16 is still available…