Eurofighter more 5th-gen than F-35, says Eurofighter



In the latest Eurofighter World magazine, Typhoon’s in-house propaganda press tells us how they really feel.

See page 8.

Including the Lockheed Martin F-35, which suffers from “inflexibility issues”, in a discussion about 5th generation fighters “is a mistake”, reads the pro-Typhoon article. Why, the Typhoon is even more 5th generation than the allegedly 5th generation F-35, according to Eurofighter. They’ve even got a handy info-graphic (shown below) that summarizes the argument.

Subscribe

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

, ,

70 Responses to Eurofighter more 5th-gen than F-35, says Eurofighter

  1. zeno 11 June, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    my gen is bigger than yours :P

  2. aeroxavier 11 June, 2010 at 7:11 pm #

    for me the rafale is better for compare f-35 and f-22
    multimissions like f-35 can land on one aircraft carrier

    just take exemple of the test in abuh dhabi when the rafale gives “taule” to eurofighter and was equal to the f-22 in dogfight

    conceptor will upgrade it with new engine and add furtivity kit on it
    He have one better plan to the future, and the eurofighter see his command reduce and his price grow up.

    but now for english who have the mentality of “french sucks” because they are french i can’t help them

  3. Robert 11 June, 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    Summery:

    Just about the only advantage that JSF has over Eurofighter is LO/’stealth.’

    Perhaps cost and readiness could be added to the list.

  4. Prinz Eugn 11 June, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    Uh-oh, looks like someone stole the unbelievably misleading chart idea from APA…
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-081109-1.html

    Meeting at Eurofighter:
    “We need a way to hide the F-35′s single most important advantage compared to us, while highlighting our advantages that don’t matter…”
    “Sir, I just used the google site with ‘F-35 5th generation’ and this graphic of lies appeared.”
    “Excellent work!, tea?”

  5. zeno 11 June, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

    aroxavier, yes we all know english bias and remember them claiming the whole continent “isolated” when communications fall between dover and calais.
    definitely a bias that french surely never show up esp. about military subjects. bias is an english word afterall.
    cocoricò is the french translation of “matter of fact” indeed ;P

  6. irtusk 11 June, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    you can make a checklist a mile long, but there’s only one attribute that counts: stealth

  7. Robert 11 June, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    Why don’t you start your list then?

    1. Stealth
    2.
    3.
    4.
    5.

    Look forward to reading your “checklist a mile long.”

  8. Dave 11 June, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    Reads like a Eufofighter version of Pravda or something… In any case, one might make the argument that they’re living in the past i.e. in an era where WWII would be refought using modernish gear perhaps against a great power toward the east- especially on the defensive. If only such a threat existed… Oh right.

    In any useful present day situation, the current F-16, F/A-18E/F and F-15E have far better performance where it might actually be useful i.e. putting precision guided ordinance on target. Oh wait they’re doing that… Where’s that Eurofighter?

    If we’re talking about a potential future scenario against an enemy with useful anti-access weaponry, the Typhoon will be sitting at home since the one advantage they concede the F-35 has over them would be the attribute that counts. No stealth means you’re not going into denied airspace- it’s that simple. I suppose you can sit at home and play defense…

  9. Atomic Walrus 11 June, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    Interesting to note that Typhoon’s ability to supercruise and operate for extended periods at supersonic speeds is pretty marginal as well. Supercruise, yes, but not with external stores. Operate for extended periods at supersonic speeds? Again, not with dry thrust and external stores. Also noting that there are no claims about V/STOL capability, carrier operations, or even a comparison of strike radius.

  10. ELP 12 June, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    “you can make a checklist a mile long, but there’s only one attribute that counts: stealth”

    Or in this case export-friendly stealth. Which brings up a few more points. When the ATF (now F-22) design was being figured out, USAF knew the limits of stealth and not to over-depend on it. That is why you need extreme performance to back it up. For example trying to pull lead on a crossing shot of a super-cruising F-22 at extreme height is not easy.

    Then there is what LM stated about the F-117 shootdown. That even a simple turning manuver can increase RCS by a factor of a 100 or more.

    And then there is price. At what price for the F-35s (unknown at this time due to a lack of testing) supposed abilities?

    The EF2000 pukes are dead on with this chart vs. important things like value. And, no matter what fighter they pick (just so farcical included) they will need the F-22 to take out the big threats.

  11. Anonymous 12 June, 2010 at 1:12 am #

    It should also be noted the JSF stealth is about air defence radars. In other words; it will be seen by surveillance radars operating in other bands, but will be harder to shot down for the Air defences.
    Myself I would prefered to have it the other way round.

  12. Peter Goon 12 June, 2010 at 1:23 am #

    Hi Stephen,

    Isn’t it amazing how guzzlers of the JSF Kool Aid get their knickers in a twist when confronted with the data and the facts that debunks the “a total indifference to what is real” on which the JSF Program is based?

    And, yes, irtusk, though it is rather silly to only rely upon one feature of an fighter aircraft’s design, stealth is important.

    However, there is low-observability (LO) a la the JSF, and then there is very low observability (VLO) as seen in the design of the F-22A (no pun intended), . . . and then there is counter low observability (CLO).

    The future of air superiority/dominance lies in designs that have extreme agility, both sub sonic and supersonic, super cruise above 1.5M, high persistence (both range and weapons) and embody both VLO and CLO capabilities as welll as the space, power and thermal management capabilities to carry all that systems stuff and future “techno-glitter”.

  13. irtusk 12 June, 2010 at 1:31 am #

    > The future of air superiority/dominance lies in designs that have extreme agility, both sub sonic and supersonic, super cruise above 1.5M, high persistence (both range and weapons)

    and all those and a buck will get you an item off the dollar menu

    with new super-agile, super-high speed missiles, you cannot out-run them and you cannot out-turn them

    your only defense is to not be seen in the first place

    > Then there is what LM stated about the F-117 shootdown. That even a simple turning manuver can increase RCS by a factor of a 100 or more.

    1. stealth has advanced a lot since the days of the F-117

    2. even 100 times the ‘regular’ signature of an F-35 is a heck of a lot smaller than any of the other pretenders

  14. SMSgt Mac 12 June, 2010 at 1:42 am #

    Heh. I’m sure LockMart will have a suitable retort soon. Putting claims of ‘superiority’ of an Air-Superiority aircraft over a multipurpose ‘strike fighter’
    The Scribed article didn’t have quite the same table, but in any case I’d say Eurofighter was parsing some of the definitions. For instance,on the topic of ‘agility’: how many sustained G’s at a V does the Eurofighter pull for how many seconds with a full air-to-air loadout? A Mondo-drag factor with external stores will suck them down much quicker than the F-35 with internal stores. And there is ‘sensor fusion’ and ‘SENSOR FUSION’, the latter meaining voluminous high-quality onboard/offboard data, integrated and presented without oversaturating the operator. Using Eurofighter’s checklist, I would concede it is a highly capable 4.5 Gen target for a stealthy 5th Gen fighter.

    BTW: VLO Stealth ‘is’ or ‘is not’. I have no idea what would make a single OML system ‘exportable’ or ‘US-only’. Love to hear how that would be done.

  15. Jason K 12 June, 2010 at 1:54 am #

    There’s this talk about the EF having better kinematic performance than the JSF going on here. Some would argue that the F-22 has even better kinematic performance than the EF. Well, how good did all that kinematic performace do when that E/A-18G got a purported RF Aim-120 kill on the F-22??? Seems once an aircaft is painted their day is pretty much over. Maybe in today’s age of air warfare kinematic performance is somewhat less important?

    Irtusk hit the nail on the head.

  16. Peter Goon 12 June, 2010 at 1:58 am #

    >with new super-agile, super-high speed missiles, you cannot out-run them and you cannot out-turn them

    If you do the math (assuming you are able), then you would realise this statement is “a total indifference to what is real”.

    >2. even 100 times the ‘regular’ signature of an F-35 is a heck of a lot smaller than any of the other pretenders

    If you understood the physics and the associated math, then you would realise that the JSF designs are only VLO in their forward quadrant, around ~ +/- 35 degs off the nose and that these designs are nowhere near as “stealthy” as the F-22A, even with the botched coatings work of you-know-who!

  17. irtusk 12 June, 2010 at 2:41 am #

    > If you understood the physics and the associated math, then you would realise that the JSF designs are only VLO in their forward quadrant, around ~ +/- 35 degs off the nose

    source please?

    even the EF people say the F-35 stealth is ‘all-aspect’

  18. alloycowboy 12 June, 2010 at 3:01 am #

    Extreme agility is a joke! You are not going out maneuver a AIM-9X Sidewinder missile or an AIM-120 AMRAAM that can pull 35 G turns when your airplane can only pull a maximum of 9-12 G’s assuming you don’t black out or over stress the airplane in the process. Also for every missile you evade there are going to be two more with your name on it launched from stealth aircraft you can’t detect. The only thing extreme agility is good for is kissing your ass good bye!

  19. RSF 12 June, 2010 at 3:06 am #

    Oh the horrible pain and gnashing of teeth when someone creates a graphic that runs counter to F-35 fans. Grow up!

    A comparison of the baseline performance of the F-35 against the Typhoon tells the story, and the JSF comes out on the losing end:

    Eurofighter Typhoon
    Max speed – 1,500 MPH (Mach 2)
    Supercruise – Mach 1.1-1.5 (clean)
    Combat radius – 863 nmi (ASA – +10 min loiter)
    Service ceiling 65,000+ ft

    F-35
    Max speed – 1,200+ MPH (Mach 1.6)
    Supercruise – NA
    Combat radius – 610 nmi
    Service ceiling – 60,000 ft

    The Typhoon has defeated all US teen series fighters in mock combat. Since the F-35 was designed from the beginning to have F-16 level performance, it should be no surprise that Typhoon will have the edge in airframe performance and dog fighting prowess.

  20. SMSgt Mac 12 June, 2010 at 3:24 am #

    RE: Well, how good did all that kinematic performace do when that E/A-18G got a purported RF Aim-120 kill on the F-22???
    a. Without the background on the events we cannot tell ‘how’ it happened. There have been three alleged events of an F-22 being ‘shot down’ during exercises. Not one has any public information available to indicate a weakness in the F-22 and one of the three has been shown to be an artifact of allowing a ‘dead’ aggressor reenter the fray.
    b. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then. What is the ‘kill ratio’ of the F-22 vs. all comers?
    Show us anywhere where it was authoritatively claimed that th F-22 could NEVER be shot down.
    The sole value of a F-22 shootdown in an exercise is in allowing snarky doubters to perpetuate an inaccurate meme.

  21. SMSgt Mac 12 June, 2010 at 6:23 am #

    RE:If you understood the physics and the associated math, then you would realise that the JSF designs are only VLO in their forward quadrant, around ~ +/- 35 degs off the nose and that these designs are nowhere near as “stealthy” as the F-22A, even with the botched coatings work of you-know-who!

    LOL! More APA assertions masquerading as ‘tech data’. If you don’t have access, you have no idea what the F-35′s fuzzball and spikes look like, at any of the varying view angles, and for what particular frequency bands. It’s amazing — how some people who are completely in the dark on a program autoatically believe fringe cranks and assume the people who specify, solicit, design and build US weapon systems are incompetent. Yet these people build systems that are repeatedly proven to be superior in combat, and the envy of the world.
    I love it.

  22. geo g 12 June, 2010 at 6:57 am #

    Dave -

    Great line about Eurofighter version of Pravda, lol… ;)

    Anyway, the concept of procuring a Typhoon or not should have nothing to do about who is the threat to the East or who is preparing for the next WWII (other than those who are solely trying to steer the debate/impression in that light?).

    It is simply about needing to recapitalize one’s tactical fleet to meet general national defense requirements and Typhoon being a relevant option to fit said replacement scheme. Nothing more.

    Now if war-mongering rhetoric, or various overt hawkish chess-playing were attached to such modernization policies, then yes, there would be a legit issue to deal with in Europe regardless of which side the rhetoric was coming from.

    But until global powers can diplomatically achieve negotiated world political peace (a ‘final settlement’ hopefully more plausible someday, now that anti-capitalist communist ideology is not a force) and hammer out a comprehensive demilitarization plan likewise, there will unfortunately be the general need to maintain modern equipment.

  23. Fred 12 June, 2010 at 7:14 am #

    We do have hundreds of F-22s. We did NOT get rid of them, we simply reduced the total number of aircraft.

    So, our F-22s will smoke ANY fighter in existence today and for the next 7-10 years.

  24. Robert 12 June, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    funny piece of propaganda …
    How strange the typhoon gets so poor results when it’s facing other combat aircrafts (like the Rafale in UAE/ATLC or Corsica …)

  25. Mr x 12 June, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    I have read all your comments and some of you know your stuff or you have copied it out of a book.

    From what you are all saying is the in combat what matters is the missile you carry and stealth of aircraft.

    i ready a story where the f22 went up against the typhoon ( eurofighter ) the f22 locked on the the typhoon, and thats where it changed. typhoon counter measures found the f22 and got on its rear and the typhoon is a hard plane to get away from.

    lets just say that the typhoon can hold its own. And for the royal air force they are not daft, they are also buying the f-35.

  26. Dave 12 June, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

    Do people in your own country buy your BS? Just curious…

  27. glider 12 June, 2010 at 2:56 pm #

    funny how an AC designed for air supremacy many days ago to counter a dramatically different scenario, deployed and flying, is being confronted to a first strike minded AC still in LM’s womb. something like confronting flying arleigh burke and an LCS.

    I say again, my gen is bigger tan yours, over.

  28. RSF 12 June, 2010 at 6:42 pm #

    SMSgt MAC:

    Lets look your comments one at a time:

    1. “If you don’t have access, you have no idea what the F-35′s fuzzball and spikes look like, at any of the varying view angles, and for what particular frequency bands”.

    A: The “I know better then you” song and dance on the F-35 is is getting pretty worn out now. Stealth shaping and radar absorbent materials have been out of the closet for 40+ years. Specific or “secret” information is not necessary to know that the lower fuselage of the F-35 in its present form departs from known stealth shaping metrics (completely flat under body with no curves to avoid RCS hot spots). Compare the JSF to to true VLO aircraft like the F-22, F-117, the B-2, YF-23, etc.

    2. “It’s amazing — how some people who are completely in the dark on a program automatically believe fringe cranks and assume the people who specify, solicit, design and build US weapon systems are incompetent”.

    A: APA which you take regular potshots at predicted years ago most if not all of the stupefying program screw-ups that have become the standard with the F-35. And you conveniently ignore the multiple Pentagon watchdog agencies that have verified many of the issues APA has been talking about all along (JET I, JET II, DOT&E, etc). The JSF Program has turned the US aerospace into the laughing stock of the world by promising that the F-35 would be the next best thing to sliced bread. Instead, Lockmart has delivered not one functional battle ready fighter since the programs inception in 2001. Now billions of dollars and years behind schedule, we have a handful of semi-flyable block 0.1/0.5 stripped down test mules to show for the most expensive fighter program history. I’m not sure that this is the flag bearer of “competence” that we should be so proud of.

    3. “Yet these people build systems that are repeatedly proven to be superior in combat, and the envy of the world”.

    A: And that explains why most of the international partners in the JSF Program are doing everything they can to distance themselves from the the F-35. Or why HASC/SASC are now going to require Lockmart to meet hard benchmarks before getting paid for the program.

    Envy is not an emotion that applies to the F-35, perhaps scorn would be more appropriate at this point.

  29. Robert 12 June, 2010 at 7:24 pm #

    F35 is NEVER designed to actively chase down, intercept and, if necessary, engage contemporary fighter jets. JSF is never meant to be a dogfighter.

    If in doubt, just look at the shape of its wings, thrust-to-weight, generic weapon load, shape of its canopy, etc.

    F35 is meant to be a strike aircraft, a SEAD specialist even, with “avoid n’ evade detection, cleverly” as its main strategy for survival. Conceptually, F35 is more like a NG F117 than a NG F16.

  30. Amicus Curiae 12 June, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

    It so happens that the Eurofighter is a Cum Laude graduate of the John Boyd Academy of Air to Air Combat, a distinguished honor.

    http://www.slideshare.net/AmicusCuriae/john-boyd-academy-of-air-to-air-combat-3937703

    The price increases for the JSF have allowed previously uncompetitive designs a new shot at the markets. They are now able to compose shiny brochures highlighting their strengths and avoiding their weaknesses. If there is something different about the L/M marketing material, please show me.

  31. DamaclesIAm 13 June, 2010 at 3:44 am #

    Dave,

    The BS to which you refer is what the JSF Program is based upon or, as the APA folks refer to it, “a total indifference to what is real” which is the definition a colleague at Princeton Univeristy came up with to better describe what BS really is.

    As for all this talk about F-22′s being “shot down” by F/A-18s, you should be aware that the US Navy refused to “play” with the USAF Raptors until the ROEs were changed to pretty much limit such engagements to WVR since, prior to the rules being changed, it was what you would call a Turkey Shoot on a Turkey Ranch.

    The silliest call in the litany of dumb arse statements in this thread has got to be –

    “with new super-agile, super-high speed missiles, you cannot out-run them and you cannot out-turn them”

    Even the most agile, high speed BVR missiles of today and the foreseeable future which, by the way, are not ours (American, that is), can be dodged and evaded by aircraft with “Super” or better subsonic and supersonic agility, like the F-22A Raptor and that can accelerate as fast or better than the F-22A, with similar or better speed performance.

    BTW, agility is not about pulling high normal accelerations (g’s).

    It is about being able to generate high turn rates (degs/sec) and, more to the point, high rates of change of the aircraft’s state and being able to control same concisely, with precision.

    For aircraft with fixed thrust lines, this is proportional to the g’s required to be applied to the aircraft.

    Any thinking person who understands simple dynamics and the associated math realises this is not the case when the engine thrust line can be altered such as with 2D TVC or, even better, 3D TVC.

    If you don’t believe this fact, then as someone said above, “Do the math!”

    For Your Consideration.

  32. DamaclesIAm 13 June, 2010 at 4:35 am #

    ELP, RSF and Robert –

    All very good points.

    Glad to see some common sense stemming and vapourising the plume of BS being projectile vomited out of the mouths of those guzzling the JSF Cool Aid.

    How anyone can fall for the BS that the JSF is somehow ‘affordable’ let alone a fifth generation fighter aircraft is beyond me.

    The term “Lemmings” coined by someone by the name of Solomon Shorter on another forum was right on the money.

    FYC

  33. sferrin 13 June, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    This thread is just sad. Hey ELP, you figure out a way to base “Super” Hornets off amphibious assault ships yet? Or are you going to dazzle us with more of your inspired wisdom that says it’s better to go with last generation aircraft and give up 11 aircraft carriers than to buy a superior aircraft and keep those carriers? Is there anybody here who can say with a straight face that any of the Eurocanards are superior to the F-35 when the reality is that Eurocanard would be dead before it even knew it was under attack nine times out of ten when going up against an F-35? I suppose you could if you deny reality (which many of you seem to be doing). As one poster implied, stealth is so much of a game changer, that many other characteristics almost fade to irrelevancy. Does anybody here honestly believe 0.4 Mach in *top* speed (if it’s even true) is going to make the slightest bit of diffrence? And I’m still waiting for anybody to explain how a few more degrees of sustained turn capability (again, if it’s even true) is going to enable ANY Eurocanard to out manuever a HOBS missile. Which of those Eurocanards could even pretend to be capable of taking down an S-400 site on the first day of the war? Oh, that’s right, we won’t have to face any of those in the next 40 years because we’re only going to fight cavemen anymore because big wars are so passe’.

    Mr X: The Typhoon/F-22 fanatasy you “heard” about is utter horse—t. I’d wager everything I own and more that if you didn’t just make it up on the spot, it’s a “story” based on a rumor of a rumor found on a website somewhere.

  34. SMSgt Mac 13 June, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    And the International Naysayer Brigade charges in….
    ineffectively late to the battle and with insufficient force as customary.
    Not sure what part of the reference at the Fort Worth ‘Startlegram’ I’m supposed to respond to. Bob Cox’s rehashing of now-old news on inflated cost estimation driven by new and unproven methodologies now techniques designed to be even more pessimistic than history has shown yet are now mandated by law, perhaps? BTW: We in DFW tend to think of Bob Cox as our own little Bill Sweetman, only with less ability to make competent WAGs and a bigger yearning to make a name for himself.
    Re: F-35 and VLO. We are expected to assume that the USG would allow LM to advertise VLO for the F-35 when it wasn’t? Riiiiiight. And by definition, the F-117 is not VLO. Thanks for playing.
    RE: “Partner Countries now distancing themselves” Two problems with that idea. First ‘things change’, and I assume other countries have the same problem with effete and flaccid ‘leadership’ as the US. Also stupidity in government tends to blossom in tough economic times.
    Not that some going away wouldn’t be a bad idea. Personally, I’d like to see Turkey disappear from the deal entirely, but we’re all still waiting for the Fat-A**es in our respective diplomatic corps to catch up to the real world.
    RE: APA credibility. Pffft. Already covered here: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/defpro-commentary-the-collapse.html . As I noted at the time “At least Bill Sweetman admits it when he’s guessing”.

  35. irtusk 13 June, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    > BTW, agility is not about pulling high normal accelerations (g’s).

    > It is about being able to generate high turn rates (degs/sec) and, more to the point, high rates of change of the aircraft’s state and being able to control same concisely, with precision.

    You’re a funny one DamaclesIAm

    Agility is about changing your COURSE. You can spin around and around and point your nose whichever way you like, but if you never actually change your course, the missile will hit you.

    Now what does changing your course involve? Yes, that’s right, G’s!

    And no 10G airplane can match a 30+ G missile.

    As you say, do the math.

    It’s why they have the whole concept of the ‘No Escape Zone’. Once an aircraft is within the NEZ of a missile, no amount of turning will get them away.

  36. Us lost in nam!!! 13 June, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    God why are you americans so insecure and completely without any semblance of perspective when it comes to your precious F-22 and F-35. This sort of it’s American so it must be best attitude is why you LOST against a third world nation is vietnam.
    The F-22 is an awesome piece of kit and on it’s day is probably the best fighter in the world. However to the extent you guys say, no chance. Sprey who designed the F-15 which has legit claim to the best air superiority jet ever, has slated it as a return to the bad old days of over complex, only working half the time fighters.
    The facts are that when all is fine yeah, ‘eurocanard’ as one muppet put it would be locked onto before it could pick it up. BUT stealth isn’t that reliable and the real world not the one of the biggest propaganda machine going – USAF and their fantasists the ‘craptor’ (not nice is it?) needs hours of maintenance to maintain stealth and in a real war this is very rarely poss and for the majority of missions it couldn’t be maintained. Witness the very real incident when F-22 pilots ran home not wanting to play with EF because stealth was compromised and they were getting beat. I know you’ll continue to live in fantasy land and deny this but i was there.
    What is more stealth is an incredible asset but many nations are developing more advanced radars and detection systems and the f-22′s 20 year stealth will not be a silver bullet you think it is for any more than 10 years believe me.
    Calm take a dose of reality, take your insecurity pills, the USa is still the most powerful nation on earth (at least for now!!!) so you don’t need to go mad and slate any little bit of tech that rivals yours. Next you’ll be telling me the Gaybrams is the best tank in the world!!!!

  37. SMSgt Mac 14 June, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    Dear “Us lost in nam!!!”
    Hey! I acknowledged the Eurofighter is an extremely capable 4.5 Generation target didn’t I? Any higher praise and I would be lying.

    And of course we didn’t lose Vietnam. In 1974/5 Leftist Dems, not unlike the same pile of current Leftist Dems just ‘quit’ by defunding our RVN allies, enabled by Tricky Dick’s ‘Peace with Honor’ ploy.

    Alas, in war as old Boney noted: the moral is to the physical as 3 to 1. So whenever we in the US dally with the dark side, we run the danger of aping lesser societies in the First, Second and Turd World. Better to be a Eunuch Nation by exception than by Nature I suppose. Things would improve, but they just won’t let us spay and neuter our Liberals. Dang.

  38. DamaclesIAm 14 June, 2010 at 4:18 am #

    SMSgt Mac –
    “In 1974/5 Leftist Dems, not unlike the same pile of current Leftist Dems just ‘quit’ by defunding our RVN allies, enabled by Tricky Dick’s ‘Peace with Honor’ ploy. ” – No truer words can be said about that fiasco but, as a result, we did lose, Brother.

    irtusk – you imply you have done the math. I somehow doubt that but If so, then what is the turn radius of your super-duper BVR missile and how long can it sustain pulling such high g’s, given if an Aim-120 or similar it is ballistic in the end-game, versus an aircraft with Super agility or better with a sub-sonic corner speef of 0.9M that is able to generate a Ps of 700 ft/sec or better, and turn rates better than 10 deg/sec sustained and commensurately higher instantaneous turn rates?

    If you are able to answer this question with any accuracy and precision, then you will have proved you are able to do the math and will also have debunked your own assertions.

    If not, then, as the APA folks have determined, you are just another artisan of “a total indifference to what is real”.

    SMSgt Mac –

    “Re: F-35 and VLO. We are expected to assume that the USG would allow LM to advertise VLO for the F-35 when it wasn’t? Riiiiiight. ”

    Just like the USG have allowed LM to advertise the JSF as being “Affordable” when, as Ash Carter’s letter of 01 June last now states ” the screw ups in the JSF Program have “resulted in the loss of most of the affordability initiatives”.

    Then there is LM being allowed to claim the JSF is “a truly Fifth Generation fighter aircraft” when its design doesn’t even have many
    of the capabilities of Gen 4.5 aircraft let alone 4++ Gens, let alone the real Fifth Generation fighters now flying, as the table above so clearly demonstrates.

    When are people like youself going to stop embarrasing yourselves and start looking at the data and the facts, rather than drinking the JSF Cool Aid?

    But as you say, thanks for playing.

    For Your Consideration.

  39. Ex-Airman 14 June, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    To Us lost in nam!!!:
    Not really my cup of tea, as you Brits say, but your points deserve rebuttal.

    SMSgt Mac is right: we didn’t lose in Nam, go read some history. We kicked NVA a$$ every time we clashed in force on force combat. And if we had the continued political resolve to stand behind them, I believe SVN would still be in existence today.

    Pierre Sprey had nothing to do with the F-15. His Lightweight Fighter Mafia group’s work was visionary in those days, but times and air combat technology has moved on, and his views haven’t….

    If stealth is so perishable and unreliable, why is the RAF/RN buying into F-35, instead of more of your home-grown Typhoons? Why give up some national sovereignty and be subject to “export controls” on the F-35? Why, you guys were even trying to back out of Tranche 3… why do that if the jet is so good? Could stealth be more important than you Brits are willing to acknowledge – shades perhaps of a NIH syndrome?

    So, you were there when your Typhoons scared away the F-22s? Why doesn’t EF brag about it, like when they beat up on the geriatric F-15s? This would surely be better press! As for the other side of the story, would you or your mates who were there like to comment on this? (It’s supposedly verbatim from the drivers)

    http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10985-postdays-0-postorder-asc.html

  40. Bjørnar Bolsøy 14 June, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    Wonder what they mean about “missile loadout”..
    http://tinyurl.com/3yta9pn

    Debating the F-35′s air combat capabilities I find it curious that the debattants seems to disregard the only qualified and independent operational analysis publizised to date; the Dutch and Norwegian fighter evaluations. That is; F-35 and advanced 4.5th gen fighters pitted against SAMs, Flankers and PAK-FA-equivalents in complex threath scenarios that involves all facets of modern air warfare.

    B. Bolsøy
    Oslo

  41. alloycowboy 14 June, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    The point is if you are able to out maneuver the first missile then the second or third missile will get you because of your aircrafts energy state and relative position. To put more bluntly dodging bullets only works in the “Matrix”.

  42. SMSgt Mac 14 June, 2010 at 11:48 am #

    RE: Just like the USG have allowed LM to advertise the JSF as being “Affordable” when, as Ash Carter’s letter of 01 June last now states ”

    Well, since I’m just rough-housing in the schoolyard right now, I’ve been willing to go along with the ‘acquisition costs’ Red Herring. But if we’re going to talk “Affordability’ (with a capital A) then we need to look at ‘Total Ownership Costs’ (which BTW is the numbers the F-35 program is being managed to) and leave the Unit Cost trivialities to the rubes.

    Since, even at this latest inflated BS acquisition cost estimate, the program has been recertified as a worthwhile effort, it looks like the program still meets the criteria as ‘affordable’.

    So no…Thank YOU for playing.

  43. flo 14 June, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    Ex-Airman:
    “If stealth is so perishable and unreliable, why is the RAF/RN buying into F-35, instead of more of your home-grown Typhoons?”

    Because there are more sides to the equasion, for example V/STOL.

  44. Mr X 14 June, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    I did read it and it was in a mag called COMBAT AIRCRAFT monthly last year.

    Just a thought. How many years has the typhoon been going to green flag. I can bet at some point the typhoon has gone up against the F-22. The Americans and Eurofighter would not miss the chance. So it is strange that we have not seen any data or the Americans boasting that they did beat the typhoon.

    And not that it needs pointing out but the typhoon is not just british but german, spanish and italian built so lets not make it a uk – usa thing and also that one company is at the moment building major parts of both typhoon and f-35 and is reliant on both for it’s air force.

  45. A french engineer 14 June, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    You could add Rafale column.
    Same than Typhoon except that you can put top mark in yellow instead red.
    To be fair they should add two 5th generation features:
    -Passive locating of threats
    -Active management of EM threat (jamming mainly)
    Rafale is green on both.

    Now I recognized that a strong level of passive stealth is a game changer.

  46. Aussie Digger 14 June, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    Just getting back to the topic for a second,

    Let us actually consider JSF v Typhoon, seeing as though measuring contests actually mean something.

    Signature management? JSF.

    Basic airframe performance? Typhoon.

    Sensor/targetting systems? JSF.

    Weapon systems? Equal, both use basically the same weapons. Nil decisive advantages here.

    Fuel fraction? JSF.

    Empty weight? Typhoon.

    Thrust? JSF.

    In short, purely looking at the platforms, Typhoon offers a bit more poke. JSF offers better everything else. In the history of air combat, situational awareness is the overwhelmingly dominant factor in engagements. Not aeroshell performance.

    Typhoon is welcome to it’s bit better top end, and marginally better climb rate. I’ll take vastly superior sensor and signature management features every time.

    So will export Countries apparently, too. 8 v 2 at the present time, with prospects for more JSF export Countries far better than Eurofighter (Singapore and Israel are two MORE countries straight up) which provides a rather illuminating insight into Eurofighter’s marketing ideas…

  47. frederick Le Murre 14 June, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    A real apples to oranges comparison that almost insults everyone’s intelligence. Different aircraft for different roles. As they call it, JSF – Joint STRIKE Fighter. Pretty much says what it is on the box. A strike fighter. Which the Euro Fighter isn’t.

    On the opening day, JSF users will be using the thing’s otherwise miserable internal payload for whacking high value 3C, ADA, and Airbases, all while tweaking and slipping in and around airspace defended by S-300 and the like.

    The Typhoons will be sitting around back behind contested airspace, sipping from tankers and doing BARCAP until the SEAD makes it safe for them to show their big radar signature selves over enemy territory. And by that time, they’ll have little over the hand-me down F-16s and drones that will be milling about.

  48. irtusk 14 June, 2010 at 8:24 pm #

    > If you are able to answer this question with any accuracy and precision, then you will have proved you are able to do the math and will also have debunked your own assertions.

    LOL, missiles fly faster and have higher Gs, of course they can outturn any fighter*

    you’re the one that makes the extraordinary claim, and as they say, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’

    show us your math or you will have debunked your own assertions, or something like that

    spoiler alert: someone with a pro engineering program created the diagrams a couple years back showing what happens when a 30G missile meets a 10G fighter. hint: the fighter always loses.

    *outturn doesn’t actually mean a smaller turning radius, it just has to ‘cut the corner’ of any turn the fighter does

  49. Analyst 14 June, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    You are right By frederick Le Murre on missions.
    it we suppose of course that F35 stealth work as advertised versus new systems and is not only a prey for modern fighter.
    The problem is to support it by a true air superiority fighter in ennemy territory.
    USA have F22 but others?
    F35 has very good electronic systems, a small internal payload and is a dog in air superiority.
    Tomorrow it could face T50.
    We can serioulsy doubt about the concept at such a price without an F22 to support it.
    Frankly if the purpose of a 100 million procurement cost plane (then add operating cost) is to launch two bombs, cruise missiles or drones are less costly.
    People should also remember that internal active ECM are a real alternative to stealth for a fraction of the cost and aerodynamic penalties.
    Most air force need a plane which can do bombing and air combat mission as well.F35 is a specialized aircraft.

  50. Aussie Digger 15 June, 2010 at 4:43 am #

    Analyst,

    Perhaps you’d care to point to the fighter that has a larger internal payload than F-35? It is rated to carry 5700lbs of stores internally, in weapon bays that are deeper, longer and wider than the main bays on the F-22, which are configured to carry 3x AMRAAM missiles each.

    The Block 3 F-35 will be configured to carry 4x AMRAAM’s internally. That is a fairly standard DCA load-out amongst current fighters, so I hardly see how this payload is considered “poor”, BUT F-35 also has the room to grow to 6x internal AAM’s if necessary.

    As a “dog”, perhaps you’d care to ask a few F-16 drivers, how their mounts fare in air superiority? I’ve never heard an F-16 is considered a “dog” aeroshell-wise and the F-35 will have aerodynamic performance at least as good, with stealth and better sensors to boot.

    Don’t believe all the BS spewing forth from the likes of Peter Goon, “damaclesIam” (one and the same of course) et al. Failed contractors often become bitter I’ve observed, and it’s illuminating that one who used to testify in front of Senate Committees is now reduced, via a complete lack of ability to influence anyone of importance in these matters, to spitting his venom and bile on blogs and a handful of broadsheet media publications, more interested in controversy than “what is right”…

    It is also extremely interesting how quickly one, who professes a desire not to “play the man”, resorts to ad hominem (if you have the math etc), in the absence of a persuasive argument…

  51. Efapilot 15 June, 2010 at 11:14 am #

    Many comments but are we sure that are all based on a fully knowledge of what is written in the Eurofighter World article?

    Reading the comments posted I doubt. Please have a look and then speak:

    http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-world/publications/latest-eurofighter-world.html

    From what is written in the very well done article, it looks that the JSF is not a fighter, is a strike aircraft. LM says that, not Eurofighter.

    Moreover, the JSF is not a full stealth aircraft, and is an aircraft that miss also other important features such as manoeuvrability, weapon payload and, more importantly, fleet effectiveness and affordability.

  52. Efapilot 16 June, 2010 at 6:50 am #

    Once again we have someone telling L-M what their own aircraft “is”.

    THIS is what L-M says the F-35 is. Whether you believe them or not is up to you, however you do your argument no good whatsoever by misquoting them or ill-remembering what you may have once read…

    “The F-35 Lightning II, with its host of next-generation technologies and unprecedented capabilities, the F-35 is the world’s most advanced multirole fighter. The F-35A will provide unequaled multi-mission capability with a fraction of the support required by other fighters. Also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the F-35 integrates advanced very low observable stealth into a supersonic, highly agile fighter with unprecedented situational awareness and unmatched lethality and survivability.”

    Not once in that description does L-M state that F-35 is a “strike aircraft”. It does however state multiple times that F-35 is a “fighter”, so clearly and un-ambiguously that not even Eurofighter could misconstrue the statement. Nor should you.

    Moreover, you are COMPLETELY wrong with your assertions about the relative capabilities of these FIGHTERS.

    F-35 is a VLO fighter aircraft. Typhoon is not. F-35 is an aircraft with agility equal to or exceeding F-16 fighters as does Typhoon. F-35 weapon payload exceeds that of the Typhoon. Fleet effectiveness? Er, compare the planned 2443 fleet of US F-35′s to the 600 odd Eurofighter fleet and see how “effective” they are and finally affordability. I wouldn’t get too carried away with the Eurofighter’s “affordability”. You might get a severe case of sticker shock…

  53. Phil 16 June, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    Typhoon has – and does – supercruise with external stores. In fact with 6 missiles fitted. Sorrreee…..
    Also Rafale & Typhoon 1 on 1 – no contest. It’s a Rafale Myth about Typhoon in Abu Dhabi. Typhoon walks all over it.
    Another fact….F-18EF ‘departed’ 3 times in a 1 on 1 with Typhoon – just could not get away with from it. Ask the F-18 jocks….
    Tyhoon out-performed Indian VT Sukhois in 2007 whist over here for the RIAT…Indian aircrew both surprised & shocked… said Typhoon was “a very agile machine”…Cobra manoeuvre useless.
    F-22…? Sorry you F-22 guys…it went the same way as the sukhois although not always.
    F-15s, F-16s…..yawn.

  54. Phil 16 June, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    It is acknowleged that the F-35′s lack of fire power is of concern to some operators…it’s a long way to go just to drop 2 bombs – and God help it if any halfway decent fighter spots it……hence the USAF’s nickname for it….”Can’t turn, can’t fight, can’t run!”
    Why did the RN order it…? It was cheap at the time (no more) and the glossy brochures said it was the best thing since sliced bread. No longer – there are too many shortcomings and it looks as if it’ll be at lease 2020 before the real thing emerges – but it will still be more expensive than both Typhoon and Rafale – and that’s saying someyhing!

  55. Mr X 17 June, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    I will start by saying welcome to Phil. Good to know ther is also someone out there that knows his stuff about the typhoon.

    There was a carrier version of the typhoon drawn up but never built. worst case, typhoons could take off and land on our new carries with some modding. It would make them heavier but it could be done.

  56. Jeb 17 June, 2010 at 3:14 pm #

    Crap…fatfinger…

    Anyway, Gates & Co. better stop painting the F-35 as effectively able to take up the F-22′s air superiority role, then.

  57. Jeb 17 June, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    Yeah, I read things in magazines too that turn out to be utterly untrue, even in Aviation Week.

  58. FighterFan 24 June, 2010 at 6:33 am #

    Not sure what’s the real point of these PR campaigns – public opinion doesn’t factor in air force purchases, unless you happen to be the Swiss with their referendums.

    IMO, these comparisons are moot: the only time the Typhoon (and Rafale, for that matter) will square off against the F-22 and F-35 is in exercises… the real valid comparisons would be against the likes of the Su-35, PAK-FA, et al. How would they fare? Intriguing all right, but maybe a tad too sensitive to be made public?

    Since all fighters are multirole nowadays and also fly strike, Sead and other A-G missions, I would submit another relevant metric for 5th gen fighters should perhaps be survivability against advanced ground defenses (read double-digit SAMs). Your “versatile” 5th gen fighter might turn out to be not so versatile after all, if it has to be held back on Day 1 of the war while these systems are taken down by other platforms…

  59. Ed 28 June, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    “Not sure what’s the real point of these PR campaigns – public opinion doesn’t factor in air force purchases, unless you happen to be the Swiss with their referendums.”

    Actually, in the last elections in the Netherlands, the purchase (or lack thereof) was a fairly big item for most parties. However, the choice of which aircraft is needed I think remains with the air force.

    A lot has been said about stealth, but to be honest, I sincerely doubt anyone really knows its effectiveness and value. After all, I think the world was pretty shocked when an F117 was downed by a soviet missile system from the bronze age – we didn’t see that coming either, did we?

    The Russians do have a lab dedicated to stealth, and you can bet they researched both the F22 and the F35. The Chineese might too.

  60. Silly Bands 6 July, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    Great post!

  61. Devorah Brancato 7 July, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    lol…I love Miley-Hanna Montana! She is so funny…

  62. Rowena Duverne 8 July, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth. — Camus

  63. 7x35 binoculars 10x50 binoculars 14 July, 2010 at 6:28 pm #

    Good post, thanks

  64. Radar Detector Review 23 July, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    Reason is the wise mans guide example the fools.

  65. Rob S. 1 August, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    you guys argue, about my car is faster then yours.

    my point, it’s still a bucket seat with a fossil fuel burning engine.
    conventional. still combustion engine.

    now a bucket seat with anti-grav, with a vacuum vortex engine,
    with a cloaking field, a plasma pulse canon, with fiber-optic cables instead of copper wire for the actuators, 3D holographic 120TB memory with 18 pico sec access time, couple of neuron banks on a optical processor,
    call that next generation fighter.

    the current ones, don’t even have 100% lightning protection,
    what you call it fair weather airplane ?

    a little bump, to redesign the jet engine, to run on diesel / water , reforming,
    that would get higher velocity, higher flight 100k feet + , still fuel burning,

    and all those electronics,… they kinda work, because of free electrons,
    take those free electrons away, you’d have some fast flying expensive rocks,
    with a pilot strapped to it,….

    so where will be the biggest advances in short turn conventional tech ?
    BIO and crystalline molecular structures

    so keep the old hat, still covers your head and keeps the sun out.
    if you had clearance, you’d still call me crazy old fart,
    since what I talked about is old hat too.
    cheers

  66. plant light fluorescent 1 October, 2010 at 1:24 am #

    does anybody know the effectiveness of led grow lights?

  67. organic green tea 18 November, 2010 at 3:04 am #

    This is a very great article. Can I use this on my site? :) Also, while I’m here I’d like to see if you want to check out my site about green tea. I’m sure there’s a few pointers on there that you’d like. Thanks!

    Amy R. :)

  68. Picard578 14 September, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    Stealth is important, but to say that it is sole deciding factor either in combat or what generation aircraft is is wrong

Leave a Reply