Spear the cheap irony. It is superior because is derived from the F 35 EW suite. Or do you consider EF suite better than F 35? :p

And you are certain DASS won’t be upgraded? Who is providing large portions of the DASS and the F-35s EW suite? Does the DEWS include FOTD, MAWS or LWR?

The Tiger Eye has the LW AAS 42 in the pylon and the MW Sniper ( http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/03/f-15-silent-eagle-media-briefi.html at page 14/20)

I could be wrong on that, but doesn’t Tiger Eye feature its own TGP, not Sniper?

As about navigation, what has EF over the F 15?

DME-P, TERPROM, MLS…

Go here http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/03/f-15-silent-eagle-media-briefi.html at page 11/20. In my aerodynamics book, an F 15 with CFTs and 4 AAMs (or even with 8 AAM and “older” F 15 E CFT) is more aerodynamic than an EF with 8 AAMs and 3 EFTs.

The fact is aerodynamics play an important part when it comes to performance figures. TWR alone won’t tell you that an aircraft is capable climbing or accelerating faster, aerodynamics play in as well. That’s the reason why the Typhoon can supercruise with M 1.2+ in a configuration comprising 6 AAMs and 1 tank for example, while the F-15 could not. Let alone that static numbers tell you pretty much nothing about the performance in dynamically changing environments. Comparing likes with likes might be the most fair condition, rather than comparing the worst case for AC one and the best case for AC B.

Germany and the UK will both use the Typhoon for AG, priority ever was AA and their fighters used were the oldest and had to be replaced first, but with all the commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq especially the UK has a pressing need as these commitments suck up the FHs for the Harrier and Tornado fleet.
Some times I have the impression that people think the whole world is soon flying PAK FAs etc. only. The truth is many air forces operate older fighters and not even the latest variants of them and the Typhoon should be able to gain air superiority against those aircraft and even many newer designs. The PAK FA is years ahead of becoming an operational reality and how many potentially hostile nations will operate it? The same is true for the F-35. In the forseeable future the highest threat you could expect are upgraded Fulcrums and Flankers at best. And most of those aren’t the very latest MiG-35 or Su-35 either.

– The F 15 SE DEW suite (based on F 35 one) is better than EF DASS;

Based on what. Oh it has a new EWS (is it developed right now?) it must be superior, let me guess because it is american.

– The SE will carry the same Tiger Eye IR/optical suite (long range IRST-AAS 42 + Sniper) as the SK or Singapore F 15s already do.

Will it? It might indeed yes, oh Tigereye, plus Sniper? Unlikely it has both and the IRST is long wave only, not dual band.

– The EF “comprehensive sophisticated communication systems” is the US manufactured MIDS Link 16;

Left out the navigation stuff huh? MIDS is a joint not soley US programme, and communication equipment includes radios as well.

And I assume you can prove that the crappy C(R)APTOR “is capable of detecting the SE without being detected” …

Never claimed that, but wrong turning fatcs to make your point, wow.

The SE would have a combat radius of ~720 Nmiles without EFT (about the same radius of an EF with 3 EFTs) so it won’t need EFTs . And an F 15 SE without EFT will do better than an EF with 2 EFTs. If that F 15 has P&W229 or GE 129, yes it does.

What a surporise that the much larger and heavier F-15 has a longer range. Come up with some data or explicite statements rather than generalised claims. BTW ever heared about aerodynamics?

Stealth, lack of an AESA radar, external weapons carriage, not yet fully developed, future development prospects uncertain. Pretty much a one trick pony. Most do not have laser designators, IRST, and a host of other highly touted systems and they probably never will get them due to lack of funds. Why? Because you keep buying more than you need instead of developing the airframes you have to their full potential.

Well much depends on the customer. By late 2012 all T1 Typhoon will have been upgraded to the block 5 standard with all the gadgets intended. Many of the T1 aircraft has alrady been upgraded to this standard, other were delivered in that config from the beginning and block 8 is currently under delivery.
You have to take into account the concept and requirements, unlike the Raptor for example the Typhoon was more designed for a defensive role. All aspect stealth was not required, weapon bays require a much larger and therefore more expensive aircraft and do not provide the required versatility. The Typhoon was meant to replace a number of types and perform much wider roles than the F-22 for example.
The Typhoon features a lot of latest technology engines, airframe, FCS, cockpit and avionics are quite sophisticated. Yes the aircraft currently lacks an AESA radar, but Captor is a pretty decent tool. A radar doesn’t soley consist of the antenna, but that is something many of you seem to ignore. You often speak about the inherent advantages of AESA and its theoretic potential, but you simply can’t come up with anything specific. Not every AESA radar onboard US fighters has the very same capabilities or performance.
On contrary which US fighter in service features a dual band IRST/FLIR sensor, DVI or such a comprehensive EWS with ESM, LWR, MAWS, DECM, FOTD and automated chaff/flare dispensers? You pick up selected technologies not present in the Typhoon as of now and claim that the aircraft is outdated by that fact. But you completely blank out the fact that the Typhoon offers a couple of things which can’t be found on any US fighter right now, not even the F-22.

In short, it is nothing more than any other 4.5th gen fighter with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. Many of those weaknesses need to be addressed if it is to remain competitive against second tier air threats in the next 20 years. Will the funding be there? Sure it’s at the beginning of its service life and it’s already starting behind the eight ball.

A lot things remain yet to be seen. We just can wait it’s as simple as that. How many nations are fielding way superior aircraft within the next 20 years in numbers and are potentially hostile?

I never said the Typhoon was unneeded I just think it’s not needed in the numbers being forced upon their customers.

Well its a subjective question and people tend to have different opinions on such things. European air forces rely on much smaller quantities of aircraft and fewer types. Therefore they require a flexible enough weapons system in sufficient numbers and these aircraft have to last 35+ years now adays, that includes attrition reserves, spare airframes to rotate, spreading the number of flight hours over the fleet to ensure the type can effectively reach its intended deadline service date.

You are not getting VLO, you are not getting internal carriage, you are not getting tactically significant super cruise, and you are not getting an AESA unless it gets funded with additional money.

But you get a cheaper and more versatile platform which better fits european requirements as it was designed to meet them, unlike any US made design.

Is it worth the cost to keep buying what is in effect yesterday’s fighter given all the other pressing military needs? If you think that question is trolling then you have your head in the sand.

And why is it yesterdays fighter? Because it’s not stealth? There are certainly things which might be more important at the moment, but you have to take into account that the Typhoon is at the beginning of its service life and that it will remain in service until 2040 or beyond. No one can predict the future and stopping production now, just to continue it at a later date is even less economical.

why spend upwards of $150 million each for more of yesterday’s plane when what is on hand is sufficient

Ah you suggest the good old Phantoms, Tornados, Mirage F1s etc. are sufficient?

Neither am I.
However, all I wrote is based on actual radio frequency behavior laws and principles, which I learned at school.

The F117 isn’t faceted because someone woke up one morning and decided to build a flying diamond, but because he had exactly the same laws and principles in mind, which are result of extensive research. Now, I’m pretty positive that F22 is more stealthy at certain aspects than F117 (although marginally by my estimation). However, I also believe EADS’ claim that EF is more stealthy than F22 at certain aspect(s?), although that would be marginally as well. All of this is mainly semantics and less important as such.

Anyway, the verification of what I wrote in my previous post, comes from F22’s (and F35) design and its sharp shaping (surface angle reduction) suggests that designers followed the same philosophy used on F117, but adapted for different role.
After all, F22 has high cruise speed and really doesn’t need as much stealth as F117’s Mach 0.9 and so Raptor can turn the tail and run, while F117 is left hanging on its LO (and possibly ground hugging) only.

Now, B2 it’s still largely classified. However, B2 is a generation after F117 and lots of F117’s missions experience around the world (known and covert) have actually been inbuilt into the B2’s LO airframe.
It’s quite possible that USAF found F117’s layout too draggy (performance lowering) and unnecessary stealthy, since it would be undetectable on a required flight profile anyway. So, this experiences have been inbuilt in B2 and smaller stealth fighters.
For example: B2 is belly flat and has some curvature around the cockpit ridge. So, if the enemy illuminates B2 from below (any azimuth), flat fuselage+wings (mono-volume) gives the best chance that the B2 will slip undetected. If however, B2 gets illuminated by an airborne (fighter) radar of the same flight level, it’s still enough LO to prevent detection, because it has no vertical stabilizer and separate fuselage. The only aspect of B2 which isn’t as LO as other aspects are, is from above (around cockpit ridge). However, if the enemy fighter illuminates B2 from above, there are good chances it will have to perform a Doppler scan and enable B2 to mask its LO (by any standards) signature in the ground clutter and there’s always a “beam-riding” option against Doppler mode, etc,…

In the end, it’s always a trade off between performances which are usually contradicting.
Everyone would want to have a plane that has zero drag, zero fuel consumption, 30 missiles, 1000km radar range, Mach 5, etc…There’s no such thing and this same rule applies to LO degree, as well.

Finally, I don’t think this is counter conventional wisdom, since THIS IS conventional wisdom :).
However, its possible that LM designers used some other RCS optimizing techniques that I’m unaware of and if someone know anything about that, please post your ideas, datas, links to articles and so on, so we all may see what’s new in the world of stealth.

Shape isn’t everything, RAM and RAS which has evolved over the time, materials used in the airframe, antenna design, assembly accuracy etc. all matters.

Well lets stick to Typhoon then shall we?

I agree. My point being that anyone telling you that Typhoon cost less than $150 million is either smoking crack or they just plain have their head in the sand. That is the salient point of the Defpro article. It costs the Germans and we can assume the other members in excess of $140 million dollars to buy each Typhoon with engines and whatever sensors that have been funded to date. It does not include all of the development costs.

Jack…..Wake up Jack. See, it’s not about Raptor. No mention here okay.

It includes all the support equipment etc. as well and that costs a lot. It’s not that you pay 140 mln $ just for the aircraft with its sub systems. This is the average cost for each aircraft including everything required to operate it and the development costs of the newer variants beyond T1. It also included the costs for setting up the production line. It’s not fly away cost as you claim. What you try to do is comparing Typhoons systems price against the fly away price of other aircraft to claim it is so much more expensive. It is expensive, yes but not that much if you compare like with like as Jacko said.

No, you where the one that brought up the Raptor comparison. I did not. You in fact went off on a tangent. But since you brought it up I thought we would keep going down that road.

It was just an example nothing else, and yes I brought it up, but you went on comparing apples to oranges.

Note the date. If this money was to include development costs then how was EF developed prior to 1997? So no it DOES NOT include all development costs.

At that time no one had an idea what would be included into future variants as produced as part of tranche 2 or 3. We don’t even know what is part of T3, all of this has to be funded. It doesn’t include all development costs, but includes those for the variants in production or those which are under development. AFAIK the remaining development costs just covered T1 development up to the block 5 standard.