JwcookNot really!!, until theres some release of information regarding how good the USA version is, and how much the ‘Partners’ Lite version has been hobbled, its impossible to tell.
The UK and Italy are using Typhoon and JSF Lite so I guess there’s perceived weaknesses in both.
I wouldn’t mind someone releasing some combat type simulation scores between the three though, should be interesting!!.
If you want a guesstimate the Typhoon is better in AtoA and has a better defensive aids suite, the JSf wil be better in CAS and ground attack/sead.
usual caveats as many many details are still to be filled in.
Cheers
JwcookI was just answering your question about American aerospace failures, the F-22 was originally supposed to cost $35M dollars, and your right that price is much higher 3 or 4 times higher!!!.
Buying more does bring the unit price down, but the overall price goes up and UP!!!.
All fighter aircraft suffer from price and weight increases, the US does make some of the best kit, but you’ll have to admit that its political clout sells a lot of arms…
Cheers
JwcookSonic cruiser…. F22 for $35M each, B2 for $80M each, F111’s for the UK, USAF tankers 🙂
Insert your favourite US cancelled project….
OK you did ask… 😀 F-14’s, F-15’s, F-16’s, and F/A-18’s are all quite old now, fine aircraft that they were.
Cheers
JwcookThis story has been around since 2002 for 50 Typhoons, the Tornados for oil buy (Al Yamamah 1 and 2) put the UK in a good position, However the oil price didn’t quite make the Typhoon buy affordable back then, but now thanks to peace breaking out all over the middle east, due to the US ‘pouring oil on troubled waters’:-), its now at record highs and production is on its way up…
There is a deal to upgrade the Tornados, and some have linked the possible purchase of Typhoons in this too.
Its possible!, its now affordable!, its been offered to them before in 2002, If there interested!, Why not!!!.
I think there could be some truth in it.
Cheers
Edited – Changed date from 1999 to 2002 as I couldn’t find my reference…
JwcookLet’s be candid, no one buys fighters purely on its technical merits. There’s always other factors; offsets, influence, kickbacks, pressure, etc involved.
The best overall deal is the F-15T (Teagle). Why? Because the Raf’s and EF’s strongest points does not overcome the Teagle’s strongest point: Buying American influence. Irregardless of what technical advantages the Raf and EF may have over the Teagle, those supposed advantages are not big enough to offset Teagle’s biggest advantage. You don’t have to like it, you don’t even have to agree with it, it’s just the way things are.
Funny thing about South Korea’s competition, the US threatened/suggested to pull out a number of its troops, If the F15 wasn’t chosen!!, turns out they didn’t buy enough influence…. 🙂
Cheers
Jwcook@ Jwcook: Not yet, planned for Tranche 2.
Thats the same as what I had heard – but couldn’t find any references to Tranche 2 that were published!!!, the only reference I could find stated Tranche 1.
I try to be careful what I post, if I can’t back it up without somekind of web reference.
Cheers
JwcookThe Eurofighter has been updated from 68020’s they are supposed to be using ‘ruggedised’ Power PC4A’s for the DASS, while no formal announcements are available from Eurofighter see
http://www.radstone.co.uk/pdfs/efasepr.doc
“The processor derives from Radstone’s successful VMEbus PowerPC family, already in service in a variety of US and European defence applications and will be among the first ‘Commercial-off-the shelf’ (COTS) computer modules to be integrated into Tranche 1 of the Eurofighter production programme.
Radstone will replace an existing General Purpose Processor (GPP) based on Motorola 68020 technology. A total of five processors will be used in each DASS unit and the first production versions are due to be delivered in October 2001. The new GPP is consistent with Eurofighter’s common processing module requirement.”
Further info here http://www.radstone.com/pdfs/Eurofighter_Casetudy.pdf includes a more detailed description and contact numbers if you wanted to talk to someone about COTs stuff.
The 68000 issue was being dealt with in 1999 for the Eurofighters systems.
Cheers
JwcookNo not too much overlap, Its quite a good line up marketing wise, But enough overlap so you would not see Gripens and Typhoons in the same airforce (barring some bizarre set of circumstances).
Putting both in the same competition is great, If they feel the Typhoon is too expensive, the Gripen catches their eyes. and Vise Versa.
If Europe were to produce a ‘deep’ strike fighter/bomber they would have a very good lineup that covered almost all users needs.
You will find joint JSF/Typhoon airforces, which suggests they do not overlap much, and that each would have advantages over the other.
Its all about costs and numbers, you can buy quite an effective airforce of Gripens, that are reletively cheap to maintain, or if your threat environment require something more robust, the Typhoon fits in, as its maintanence cost are also good, reliability is rumoured to be (generally) excellent.
JwcookA titbit to my previous post.
JSF security technology costing up to US$1bn
By Bill Sweetman
Up to US$1 billion of the projected cost overrun on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is attributable to the development of ‘anti-tamper’ (AT) technology to protect stealth features on the JSF, together with a ‘sanitized’ and probably less stealthy export configuration of the fighter.
Some of this overrun is reflected in a supplemental contract awarded to Lockheed Martin in November 2003, valued at US$603 million and covering the development of an “international partner version” for the JSF.
Building export JSFs with less sensitive – and less effective – low observable (LO) features is practicable because the primary structure of the JSF is conventional, with most of the LO systems being added at the end of the assembly line. The program office has consistently declined to clarify US policy on this issue, and people close to the program have made conflicting statements.
Most recently, however, a JSF program official said that the export versions “would look the same” – implying that materials under the surface might be different. Another source says that “all JSFs will have stealth features” but will not confirm that all of them will be identical in LO performance. The November contract’s reference to an “international partner version” also suggests that such an approach is being taken. The value of the contract would reflect the need to conduct a separate radar cross-section (RCS) validation program.
The clear implication is that the ‘international’ JSF would have a larger RCS than the US version, would be easier to detect by hostile radars and would consequently be more susceptible to attack. That, in turn, would have consequences for the overall effectiveness of the fighter. Like other LO aircraft, it does not carry active jamming equipment or a towed decoy, and it cannot use high-off-boresight air-to-air missiles when in stealth mode.
JSF is the first US stealth aircraft to be offered for export. Rules on the export of stealth technologies, as well as of dual-use technologies that are important to stealth, are not made by the JSF program office, but by senior Pentagon leaders, who define disclosure policy with the help of the Low Observables Executive Committee (LO-EXCOM). The EXCOM includes representatives from the services, intelligence agencies and all major stealth programs, including ‘black’ or unacknowledged programs.
The use of less sensitive materials on export JSFs is likely to be accompanied by a range of new AT measures, an area that has received increasing attention since 11 September 2001. The objective is “to protect critical technologies in US weapon systems that may be sold to foreign governments or that could possibly fall into enemy hands”.
Cheers
JwcookJSF is walking a very fine line between costs, capability, and workshares.
If the capability is too good the F-22 suffers, the price will have to rise greatly and that wil put off potential purchasers.
But if the capability is reduced for export models, the effectiveness of the JSF is reduced, maintenence costs go up, but the price may come down a little, Buyers may not want a reduced export version.
Now if you add workshare into the mix, it starts getting really complicated, Norway is threatening to withdraw from the JSF program due to lack of work contracts placed with Norwegian companies (Eurofighter Typhoon has a better record with Norwegian companies).
This balancing act has to please partners in production, research partners, American reluctance to share sensitive technology, workshare arrangements, various capability’s, indigenious weapons intergration, and costs.
Look at multinational programs they all have problems, the JSF amplifies this with so many partners I’d be amazed if there wasn’t a general dissatisfaction with the whole program from all sides.
Whatever the final product is, its going to be ill suited to some of the JSF partners.
Cheers
JwcookI have to take issue with some of your points…
Typhoon empty=11140kg + 5000kg fuel+pilot=16240kg Thrust=178kN TWR=178kN/(16240*9.8)159kN = 1.11
Your quoting the training version (two seater) the Fighter version is 11,000kg empty weight, and the internal fuel weight is 4996kg. the trainer has a reduced fuel load…
Plus the thrust is 15% greater when set to the war setting, I conceed that at this setting the service life of the engine is reduced.
BTW the weight of the Rafale is 10,000kg according to the french see here
French Government
he can’t follow and engage simutanously ground and air target as Rafale do
‘Even though CAPTOR features a mechanically steered array, BAE Systems have indicated that the low inertia non-counterbalanced antenna coupled with four high torque, high precision samarium-cobalt drive motors allows extremely high scanning speeds. As a consequence of this the radar can interleave different operations such as air and ground mapping. This is quite an achievement for a non-phased array system.’
as Rafale do with his OSF TV cam “40kms”,
The Typhoons Pirate system is good….
‘Although no definitive ranges have been released an upper limit of 80nm has been hinted at, a more typical figure would be 30 to 50nm.’
See here for details:-Typhoon Site
he can cancel waves Foe radar waves as Rafale can do,
I’m not to sure if the Typhoon can ‘cancel’ waves, DASS is one of the most expensive components as is Spectra – the only information released on the Typhoon is not to do with ECM, but the research has been done to use Crosseyes which deceives radar guided missiles into thinking the aircraft is somewhere else and also the Towed radar decoys which the Rafale doest have.
he can’t landing on a aircrafts carrier as rafale can do,
Agreed It isnt designed to land on a carrier hundreds of times, once or twice if it really had to 😉 but not as a normal part of operations.
he can’t have range, payload and agility as rafale can do,
Range is one of those odd things, that depend on both aircraft having the same weapons and flight profile to even compare ranges, they appear to be similar for both Typhoon and Rafale.
Agility is better in the Typhoon, the F-22 is better than the Typhoon is all but instantaneous turn rate where the Typhoon beats all. the Typhoon comes second in most other measures.
he can’t take high G manoeuvre as Rafale can do with
he 32° anti G seat …
There are two suits available to the Typhoon the normal G suit which is state of the art and a german design which is a liquid design which is very very good.. you’ll have to compare them yourself, I can’t comment on how good they are compared to the Rafales system. :confused:
And lastly
giving edge in supercruise to Rafale, T/WR too
Typhoon has been claimed to be able to cruise at M1.5, what claims are made for the Rafale???.
Cheers
JwcookOriginally posted by Steve Touchdown
Just saw the same article that started this thread at http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/6-4460.aspand it doesn’t say “F-15Es” it just says “F-15s” so, as I thought, somebody along the line has inserted the “E”. I know it wasn’t our Swiss friend Marc (who began the thread) because I’ve seen where he took the story from and that already made the Eagles the Mud Hen variety :rolleyes:
John, do you happen to know what the origins of the piece are? It’s looking more and more like a piece written around the very brief comments by Archie Neill.
Well here’s the whole peice as quoted from warplane forum
The New Air Superiority Benchmark
Thursday the 19th of February 2004 will mark the day when the undisputed king of air superiority had to surrender its thirty-year crown to a newcomer. It happened over the skies of Windermere, in the scenic English Lake District. Two Eurofighter Typhoon twin-seaters were on the first RAF formation training flight from Warton Aerodrome when they were bounced from the eight o’clock by a couple of F-15Es belonging to the USAFE’s 48th TFW, probably the most formidable and experienced combat unit in the European theatre. The Typhoon crew did not seem to be intimidated and with two rapid counters ended up on the F-15 tail, comfortably gunning the trailing one, who was in full afterburner, wings rocking and wondering what had happened.
It is fair to expect that the most surprised by this first encounter result would be the F15 crew, used to dominate the skies since the mid-seventies and with an exchange ratio record of 101 wins to zero losses, and a bunch of die-hard Eurofighter critics without much knowledge of the new fighter air combat capabilities. It is understandable if the RAF rookies would also show their surprise at the outcome, as one does not expect to win an air engagement on the first training sortie with a brand new machine against one of the best combat units in the world, riding what up to now has been the best fighter in history.
But that is history now!
Those definitely not surprised by what the events over the Lake District skies signify are the top echelon in the Air Combat Command, the Chief of Staff and the RAND Corp. analysts and boffins. They have been saying for years that the F-15 is no match to the new generation of European fighters and even to the Su-35 Flanker. They know what they say: their operational analyses studies and other simulated evaluations-as indeed have ours, both at the industry and government level-have shown that the F-15 is unable to gain air superiority against Eurofighter Typhoon. Now they have the first real indication that their worries were not unjustified and that the F/A-22 was the right choice, if they want to maintain the air superiority also in the future.
Let me quote some of their concerns over the years: The current USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. John P. Jumper, when was the head of Air Combat Command in 2001, said, “We ‘ve had a chance to look at this latest generation of airplanes,” and when US pilots flying real or simulated threat airplanes go against US pilots in current US fighters, “our guys flying their airplanes beat our guys flying our airplanes….And that airplane we ‘re flying is the F-15.”
“I ‘ve got 2,000 hours in the F-15,” noted Brig. Gen. Daniel P. Leaf, the head of operational requirements. “It is a fabulous airplane. It is the undefeated heavy-weight champion of air superiority.” Even so, he said, “it ‘s still a 1970s- designed airplane, updated to the max. [It is ] nonstealthy, non super-cruise. And you can only make it do so much….You have to build a new airplane. So we are.”
Lt. Gen. Bruce A. Carlson, then director of operational requirements for the Air Force, said that “if we run the F-15 against the Rafale, or Typhoon, or Su-35, we would probably lose those fights.” “Typhoon will easily outstrip the capabilities of the Su-35 /-37, as well as the F-15, and in fact is considered second only to the F-22 in capability. Typhoon is more maneuverable and has better radar detection capability than the F-15 and is harder to detect on radar.”
(All the citations are from the AIR FORCE Magazine, the USAF monthly publication)
The Air Forces of Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom have known for a long time through the operational analysis studies conducted in defining the project, in re-evaluating it after the Cold War defence re-orientation phase that Eurofighter Typhoon is second only to the vastly more expensive F/A-22 and that it will assure overwhelming superiority over any current and future air threat. Export customers in Austria, Greece and Norway have expressed their confidence in Eurofighter Typhoon’s capabilities by either procuring, selecting or seriously considering it for their air power needs in the 21st century. Many other leading edge Air Forces are looking with great interest at Eurofighter Typhoon as it enters service and demonstrates its unparalleled capabilities.
We do not think that there is much of a debate about the need for air superiority, but there is a lack of appreciation for where air superiority comes from. There is a general feeling that it just happens or it belongs to us. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have air superiority because we had four Air Forces that paid attention to the lessons of history, specified and developed the appropriate weapon systems and move them forward. They know that “if we lose the war in the air, we lose the war and we lose it quickly” and that whoever controls the air generally controls the surface.
Eurofighter Typhoon, designed as a multirole fighter with air superiority as its key driver, is now ready to move forward and add significant new air-to-surface capabilities and further extend its air-to-air dominance.
O. Fabbro – Eurofighter GmbH – Market Analysis
Hallbergmoos, 23 February 2004
Cheers
Jwcookwhen will a production model Typhoon with full integrated A2G be available,
The full A2G functions for the Typhoon should be available from 2008, but bear in mind the Typhoons full A2G functionality is very very large.
When it will totally exceed the F15E’s is a much harder question, in some areas it already has…
and how it’s A2G matches up with the already existant Beagle’s A2G, give a full load out, types of missions it will be used on, range with stores, and etc.
You’ll be quite surprised, the Typhoon is always designed to carry at least 3 MRAAM and a couple of SRAAM whatever the other requirements are!.
Take a peek here at this PDF (its around 650K)
Typhoon fact book
Page 15 give the Typhoons performance against a high end legacy fighter (read F-15) the Typhoons performance area is red
Re :- the typhoons getting bounced Did I mention it was all over in 9 seconds!!!
JwcookJwcookSteve Interesting thread here, looks like some monkeying around 🙂
The comments below from Archie Neill (One of the BAE pilots who instructs the Case White RAF pilots)… Anyone who hears what the F-15 pilots thought, do tell!
“PS Shot the sh*t out of a couple of F15s yesterday. Our first
formation teach sortie (2 ship). Battle formation, 1nm Northwest of Windermere, bounced from the 8 o’clock. Two rapid counters and we were saddled up in their 6, comfortably gunning the trailer, who was in full burner in wing-rock wondering what happened.
I love this aircraft. Look out world Typhoon is coming!”
Sign In
