Turkey interested in buying 70-100 Eurofighter jets - report

[Chowdhury]

well the EF is a expensive jet

but the question is that if it is true then turkey buy s will they be able to maintain so big fleet of EF 70 to 100 is something

well lets wait and see

[f2000]

turkey want ac that newly born n have good future.rafale n gripen is produced by their country alone.eurofighter is a cooperation by europeans countries.
eurofighter has good future with producing of tranch 1,2 n 3.tranch 2 will be delivered in the near future.
with jsf is still not produced yet eurofighter is the best choice that they have.

[Izzy1]

Lets be honest, we can rule out Mirage/Rafale from the start.

When was the last time the Turkish military bought anything French in significant quantity?

[Dr Phobus]

The TAF can certainly afford the eurofigther, and in numbers, yes it already has a large airforce, however, like most AF's it willbe smaller, yet omre flexible and capable. All this talk about eurofigther being too exspensive for the TAF is rot. The TAF will have a 3 plane fleet, a good mix of ability and performance. Besides, do not hold your breath about F-35 being so cheap when it comes out, and also super-hornet is not exactly cheap either. The gripen, is not an overly capable plane.

[DarthAmerica]

Originally Posted by Dr Phobus

The TAF can certainly afford the eurofigther, and in numbers, yes it already has a large airforce, however, like most AF's it willbe smaller, yet omre flexible and capable. All this talk about eurofigther being too exspensive for the TAF is rot. The TAF will have a 3 plane fleet, a good mix of ability and performance. Besides, do not hold your breath about F-35 being so cheap when it comes out, and also super-hornet is not exactly cheap either. The gripen, is not an overly capable plane.

Just curious. What are the TANGIBLE differences between the Grippen and the Typhoon?

[Dr Phobus]

Originally Posted by DarthAmerica

Just curious. What are the TANGIBLE differences between the Grippen and the Typhoon?

The gripens is a light weight warplane without an advanced engine. Its a fine plane, but compared to 4.5/5G planes, I think it will struggle, its found one purchase partner, and 2 "renters"

just a few ideas:

1-speed
2-range
3-weapon load
4-IRST
5-AESA radar (with large scanner) under developement
6-Towed radar decoy
7-super crusie

[DarthAmerica]

Originally Posted by Dr Phobus

The gripens is a light weight warplane without an advanced engine. Its a fine plane, but compared to 4.5/5G planes, I think it will struggle, its found one purchase partner, and 2 "renters"

just a few ideas:

1-speed
2-range
3-weapon load
4-IRST
5-AESA radar (with large scanner) under developement
6-Towed radar decoy
7-super crusie

---Thanks but a few minor little details about point 5 and 7.

Typhoon DOES NOT HAVE an AESA. AMSAR is still in development and wont be in the field UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 2015 if at all assuming there is a Tranche 3 which assumes there is funding and a market. Dont get me wrong, Eurofighter will for sure eventually get an AESA but an indigenous solution is a long way off. Also it is to be an update to CAPTOR which means that compared to other AESAs it will not feature LPI operation initially without extensive redesign. And finally calling the AMSAR "large" is a stretch considering the volume of the Typhoon's nose and comparing to contemporary deployed AESA equipped fighters and the soon(2010) to be AESA SU-30

Typhoon CANNOT SUPERCRUISE, PERIOD. Supercruise means cruising supersonically WITHOUT using the afterburner. Supersonic is when all the airflow around the aircraft is supersonic which happens at an approximate speed, variable depending on the aircraft, of greater than M1.3 and supercruise as discussed in the context of the F-22 is M1.5 or greater without afterburner. Below these numbers and beginning at about M0.9 aircraft are in the TRANSONIC speeds where incidentally DRAG forces are exponentially higher requiring maximum inefficient throttle settings. This limits the tangibility of this type of this prohibitive flight profile. Grippen as well as F-14, F-15, F-18, Draken, F-104, Electric Lightning, Rafale and a few others can also "TRANSCRUISE", or enter between M0.9 to M1.3, but dont cruise that way in practical application due to inefficiency of fuel consumtion. To complicate matters, external ordinace increases the drag penalty futher. The whole point of "Supercruise" is that it allows aircraft to position itself in optimum positions BEFORE and engagement, to QUICKLY enter and exit hostile airspace, to EXPAND the effective combat radius of action, to INCREASE weapons ranges/sortie rates and to decline battle at will when opposed. Typhoon does these things, some of them, AFTER an engagement starts, for limited durations and primarily by using the burner.

http://aerodyn.org/Drag/Gifs/drag_rise.gif

Also there is no such thing as 4.5 generation. Typhoon is firmly in the 4th Generation along with the late model F-teens and late SU-27 series.



Again Thanks
DA

[Cyclop]

Of course the Eurofighter has a supercruise capability and the practical application of this capability was a major design goal.
This hole generation discussion is nonsense and of no practical relevance anymore. There are not enough differences between a 4th and a 4.5th generation aricraft, and not enough differences between a 4.5th and a 5th generation aircraft. A highly upgraded MiG-21 is a competitive weapon platform and a F-35 is just an ugly, pimped up F-16.

[Dr Phobus]

Originally Posted by DarthAmerica

---Thanks but a few minor little details about point 5 and 7.

Typhoon DOES NOT HAVE an AESA. AMSAR is still in development and wont be in the field UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 2015 if at all assuming there is a Tranche 3 which assumes there is funding and a market. Don't get me wrong, Eurofighter will for sure eventually get an AESA but an indigenous solution is a long way off. Also it is to be an update to CAPTOR which means that compared to other AESA it will not feature LPI operation initially without extensive redesign. And finally calling the AMSAR "large" is a stretch considering the volume of the Typhoon's nose and comparing to contemporary deployed AESA equipped fighters and the soon(2010) to be AESA SU-30

Typhoon CANNOT SUPERCRUISE, PERIOD. Supercruise means cruising supersonically WITHOUT using the afterburner. Supersonic is when all the airflow around the aircraft is supersonic which happens at an approximate speed, variable depending on the aircraft, of greater than M1.3 and supercruise as discussed in the context of the F-22 is M1.5 or greater without afterburner. Below these numbers and beginning at about M0.9 aircraft are in the TRANSONIC speeds where incidentally DRAG forces are exponentially higher requiring maximum inefficient throttle settings. This limits the tangibility of this type of this prohibitive flight profile. Grippen as well as F-14, F-15, F-18, Draken, F-104, Electric Lightning, Rafale and a few others can also "TRANSCRUISE", or enter between M0.9 to M1.3, but dont cruise that way in practical application due to inefficiency of fuel consumtion. To complicate matters, external ordinace increases the drag penalty futher. The whole point of "Supercruise" is that it allows aircraft to position itself in optimum positions BEFORE and engagement, to QUICKLY enter and exit hostile airspace, to EXPAND the effective combat radius of action, to INCREASE weapons ranges/sortie rates and to decline battle at will when opposed. Typhoon does these things, some of them, AFTER an engagement starts, for limited durations and primarily by using the burner.

http://aerodyn.org/Drag/Gifs/drag_rise.gif

Also there is no such thing as 4.5 generation. Typhoon is firmly in the 4th Generation along with the late model F-teens and late SU-27 series.



Again Thanks
DA

Some interesting points in the ariticle. I learned a lot about super and trans cruise, not being much of a scientist

The OFFICIAL Eurofighter website claims a super-cruise ability, heres the link, but maybe they are wrong if so they really should be told ! http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/

I was talking large in reference to gripens nose, it was a frame of reference, If i remember rightly there were concerns that Gripens nose would make for a rather small AESA scanner thus limiting its performance. Of course, this factor could also effect Eurofighter. But also, the size of the Su-30;s noise and its scanner will be effected by the efficiency of there electronic designs, which standing on history is poorer than the west.

I do not know how LPI works, I would take it is a combination of software and phased array scanner, maybe you can help me with this. Moreover, the British are soon to field AESA (Sampson) radar scanner so one hopes there will be technology transfer to aircraft radar. We both agree that Eurofighter will have a AESA radar and I understand the "idea" is that the scanner is developed along with Rafale requirements for such a radar. Some how I doubt the Eurofighter will somehow be "behind" when it comes to its radar in relation to the other warplanes on the market.

Tranche 3 will be build, the UK what them, the German government just swatted down a proposal to not buy there tranche 3's, and I have never read of any thing that the Spanish or Italians do not want there tranche 3's.
Moreover, RSAF want tranche 3's and so will turkey no doubt (if they bye them). so from a marketing and a production perspective tranche 3 is fairly secure. I am sure one will find the Captor radar to be a rather modular design with easy of up-grade, a common feature in modern radar's.

Cyclops makes a good point about weapon and avonics up-grades, effecting the 'generation" label, however, there is few who would argue against the notion the f-22/f-35 are nothing but 5G. However, to think that most of euro will be flying about in warplanes one generation behind the american's does not quite add up.

Anyone else got views on the typhoon radar and super-cruise ability.

[DarthAmerica]

Originally Posted by Dr Phobus

Some interesting points in the ariticle. I learned a lot about super and trans cruise, not being much of a scientist

The OFFICIAL Eurofighter website claims a super-cruise ability, heres the link, but maybe they are wrong if so they really should be told ! http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/

I was talking large in reference to gripens nose, it was a frame of reference, If i remember rightly there were concerns that Gripens nose would make for a rather small AESA scanner thus limiting its performance. Of course, this factor could also effect Eurofighter. But also, the size of the Su-30;s noise and its scanner will be effected by the efficiency of there electronic designs, which standing on history is poorer than the west.

I do not know how LPI works, I would take it is a combination of software and phased array scanner, maybe you can help me with this. Moreover, the British are soon to field AESA (Sampson) radar scanner so one hopes there will be technology transfer to aircraft radar. We both agree that Eurofighter will have a AESA radar and I understand the "idea" is that the scanner is developed along with Rafale requirements for such a radar. Some how I doubt the Eurofighter will somehow be "behind" when it comes to its radar in relation to the other warplanes on the market.

Tranche 3 will be build, the UK what them, the German government just swatted down a proposal to not buy there tranche 3's, and I have never read of any thing that the Spanish or Italians do not want there tranche 3's.
Moreover, RSAF want tranche 3's and so will turkey no doubt (if they bye them). so from a marketing and a production perspective tranche 3 is fairly secure. I am sure one will find the Captor radar to be a rather modular design with easy of up-grade, a common feature in modern radar's.

Cyclops makes a good point about weapon and avonics up-grades, effecting the 'generation" label, however, there is few who would argue against the notion the f-22/f-35 are nothing but 5G. However, to think that most of euro will be flying about in warplanes one generation behind the american's does not quite add up.

Anyone else got views on the typhoon radar and super-cruise ability.

---Thanks for responding. I'll take things in order from your quote.

SUPERCRUISE:

-The Eurofighter sight claims supercruise indeed. But notice a slight difference between them and the Official F-22 site?

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/supercruise.html

F-22's site give DETAILED explaination of what they mean by supercruise or cruising supersonically where ALL AIRFLOW IS SUPERSONIC and the aircraft is outside of the drag intensive TRANSONIC region. This means the F-22 will be ablt to sustain its "supercruise" for long durations that will give tangible benefits. The Eurofighter site merely state accelerate from subsonic to supersonic or greater the Mach 1 IAS, which is misleading, because the aircraft is actually in transonic flight. Futher such flying is highly drag intensive even with a delta wing and not fuel efficient. Remeber, an F-14/15/18 can also do this as well but again because of efficiency reasons do not. A rough analogy for the TRANSONIC DRAG CURVE is to a car reaching a certain speed but in two different gears. the higher gear with a lower ratio will be for cruise which is efficient while the lower gear is for acceleration which is unsustainable and consumes more fuel. Eurofighter is in a tough market with 4th and 5th Generation types and makes tricky use of its literature to offset the differences with the current state of the art to readers. Obviously its very effective marketing technique to people without a complete understanding of the terminology.

SU-30:

The SU-30MKI is more of a Hybrid design or a Russian poor man equivilent to the the F-35 program considering the origins of some avionics in it. I will deal more with the SU-30 in a dedicated post. But I will take a little time to deal with its radar and briefly compare it to the CAPTOR. The main sensor on the Su 30 MKI is the N011M Phased Array radar. This multimode Phased Array sensor is using a more advanced technology than the Mechanical Array sensor known as CAPTOR. To read the differences between the two types of sensor refer to this link:

http://kuku.sawf.org/Emerging+Technologies/2667.aspx

So not only is the big SU's radar more advanced. It is using a more reliable design. Futher, the big SU will be recieving an AESA sometime around 2010. Because the SU-30 is using a radar technique more closely related to AESA technology, it will be easier to integrate AESA compared to CAPTOR which is actually an derivative of the BLUE VIXEN mechanical dish radar of Sea Harrier origin. CAPTOR is not a bad radar. In fact its one of the best from its generation. But its not in the same class of the newer Phased Array and is why AMSAR is being marketed even before it is ready. CAPTOR is one of the Eurofighters greatest handicaps and has hurt it when it had to compete against AESA and ESA equipped platforms.

LPI:

This is a hardware and software based technique too detailed for me to explain here. There is plenty on the internet to give you a general overview. Integration of software and hardware assumes compatibility. Because CAPTOR is derived from a technology base not suitable for LPI operation. I suspect integration is proving to be quite a challenge. But without LPI, the CAPTOR and AMSAR will be at serious disadvantages when compared to todays 3rd and 4th generation AESAs. Especially considering that some modern AAMs have Anti-radiation homing features.


Tranche 3:

Most likely it will be built. No arguement there. I would argue about it being available before 2010-2012.


Cyclops Generation arguement:

Basically its invalid. Generational improvements and upgrades mean a lot. Notice the very lop sided nature of the 1980s air battles when US and Soviet derived types of different generations encountered each other. Yes you can take newer avionics and put them into previous designs to buy time with interm types. But that represents evolutionary progress rather than RMA like revolutionary progress seen when fighters of different generations are compared. All of this keeping in mind the effects of pilot training and employment doctrine. You cannot use types of the 4th generation in the same way that 5th generation types can operate. It is possible to upgrade and transcend generational characteristics. But none of the Euro Canard Delta platforms have done that. Also due to the size and types of technologies used in their designs. It would be more difficult for them to do it when compared to bigger F-15/SU-27 class platforms. Argueably, the F/A-18E, SU-30MKI and Rafale are the closest to being 5th generation types. But I still think they are also firmly in the 4th generation at this point.



Thanks
DA

[tphuang]

EF's supercruise scenario isn't as complete as F-22, but it can still supercruise with light weapon load.

As for Captor vs Bars, go check the stats on them. The captor has much better range and engagement despite having much smaller radius. It's probably the most advanced mechanically steered radar today. As for bars, it can really be called fully electronically steered since it only steers 45 degrees electronically and the remaining 25 degrees is done mechanically. Whereas Bars, I think it has steers 110 degrees to both sides?

As for Bars being closer to AESA, yes it is closer in some aspect, but not if you look at the development path. The Russians skipped slotted array radar to go from twist casegrain directly to PESA radar. Whereas the Americans/europeans are skipping PESA radar to go directly from slotted array to AESA. If you look at it that way, they are both one step away from AESA.

The fact that you put F-18 and flankers ahead of the typhoon is a joke all by itself. Back it up with some real proof. You do realize that one British typhoon beat two F-15Es in that mock air fight and that typhoon was the only one that managed to beat the 3 F-16s in the Singapore trial.

[DarthAmerica]

Originally Posted by tphuang

EF's supercruise scenario isn't as complete as F-22, but it can still supercruise with light weapon load.

As for Captor vs Bars, go check the stats on them. The captor has much better range and engagement despite having much smaller radius. It's probably the most advanced mechanically steered radar today. As for bars, it can really be called fully electronically steered since it only steers 45 degrees electronically and the remaining 25 degrees is done mechanically. Whereas Bars, I think it has steers 110 degrees to both sides?

As for Bars being closer to AESA, yes it is closer in some aspect, but not if you look at the development path. The Russians skipped slotted array radar to go from twist casegrain directly to PESA radar. Whereas the Americans/europeans are skipping PESA radar to go directly from slotted array to AESA. If you look at it that way, they are both one step away from AESA.

The fact that you put F-18 and flankers ahead of the typhoon is a joke all by itself. Back it up with some real proof. You do realize that one British typhoon beat two F-15Es in that mock air fight and that typhoon was the only one that managed to beat the 3 F-16s in the Singapore trial.

---OK first of all lets keep this discussion PROFESSIONAL. Not that you have done anything "wrong" but I sense your passion and I am familiar enough with forums to know how quickly civil discussion can break down.

I'm not argueing R_Max of Captor vs any system. Such comparisons are meaningless in an environment where both sides are supported by GCI and/or AWACs and datalinks. I will argue technology in which case the BARs is superior being more multimode, less vulnerable to jamming and more stealthy. These my friend are facts. Also the French, Europeans as Im sure you know, use a PESA set with LPI characteristics in the Rafale. So not all European radars are created equal. BARs is also much more closely related to AESA.

Also there is no such thing as "supercruise isnt as complete". Either you are supercruising, or you arent. Without all the airflow being supersonic around the aircraft. You are TRANSONIC even though your Mach number exceeds 1. This induces a huge drag penalty and subsequent high fuel consumtion. Like I said, F-15, F-14, F-18 and even the old Electric Lightning and F-104 could do this. Some even faster than Typhoon but none supercruising. I am telling you industry standard definitions of the terms and not EADs marketing hype. TO better your understanding of the principles I am discussing, I will refer you to the following book. ("Modern Compressible Flow with Historical Perspective", by John D. Anderson, ISBN 0-07-001673-9). But even thats not necessary as the things I have told you are available for free on the internet as well.

Also F-18E and Flankers are using more advanced radars, are more multirole, have better range are more stealthy(F-18E not sure about the Flanker from a passive point of view) and posses similar manuverability or better to include TVC options, offer dual seperate pit(F-18F), Helmet mounted sights, can engage more targets simultaneously and in the case of the F-18E they can be both a2a or a2g and are both bigger with more room for upgrades.

Notice I'm not talking about Platform x vs Platform y in mock dog fights. Notice NO FIGHTER PILOT DOES THAT AS A COMPARISON of which is better. This is because DACT is about pilot skill and scenarios. Did you know that an F-86 beat some F-15s in a mock dogfight?

http://f-86.tripod.com/pmtc.html

Do you think that in anyway implies which one is better? Did you also notice the platform that Singapore decided was their next generation fighter? Have you notices the success of the SU-30 on the export market? So please spare the x platform is better based on some DACT training. It doesnt even mean the pilot is better in DACT. Just that he did his/her job right ans won the scenario based on the ROE. In TOP GUN school the instructors routinely beat more advanced types in F-5's and A-4's. Are those types better than F-14s and F-18s? So while I have provided proof of which types(and it wasnt all inclusive) have superior technology yielding tangible benfits in combat. You have cited less than a handful of meaningless DACT scenarios as your proof. Based on the Preponderance Of The evidence, you have lost the arguement.


Thanks
DA

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by DarthAmerica

---OK first of all lets keep this discussion PROFESSIONAL. Not that you have done anything "wrong" but I sense your passion and I am familiar enough with forums to know how quickly civil discussion can break down.

trust me, I stay civil.

I'm not argueing R_Max of Captor vs any system. Such comparisons are meaningless in an environment where both sides are supported by GCI and/or AWACs and datalinks. I will argue technology in which case the BARs is superior being more multimode, less vulnerable to jamming and more stealthy. These my friend are facts. Also the French, Europeans as Im sure you know, use a PESA set with LPI characteristics in the Rafale. So not all European radars are created equal. BARs is also much more closely related to AESA.

the scanning frequency of captor is actually quite fast. Not as fast as an electronically steered radar, but as I said, BARS is only semi-ESA. As far as AESA development goes, it's questionable how far the Russians are from it. They did display Zhuk-A, but amsar was on display even earlier. I think the Europeans probably got this AESA thing figured out better. Frankly, the Russian semi-conductor industry just isn't strong enough to allow for fast manufactoring of AESA radars.

Do you have any proof that BARs is more multimode? Captor steers fast enough that it can handle both A2A and A2G tasks. What difference does it make that BARs is more stealthy? Flankers have some of the largest RCSs amongst fighters today. They can turn off the radar and use IRST, their RCS will still be huge.

Also there is no such thing as "supercruise isnt as complete". Either you are supercruising, or you arent. Without all the airflow being supersonic around the aircraft. You are TRANSONIC even though your Mach number exceeds 1. This induces a huge drag penalty and subsequent high fuel consumtion. Like I said, F-15, F-14, F-18 and even the old Electric Lightning and F-104 could do this. Some even faster than Typhoon but none supercruising. I am telling you industry standard definitions of the terms and not EADs marketing hype. TO better your understanding of the principles I am discussing, I will refer you to the following book. ("Modern Compressible Flow with Historical Perspective", by John D. Anderson, ISBN 0-07-001673-9). But even thats not necessary as the things I have told you are available for free on the internet as well.

read what I wrote. typhoon can supercruise under certain weapon loads. F-22 is special, because it can supercruise with maximum weapon load. Once typhoon gets upgraded with EJ-230, it should be able to supercruise like F-22.

Also F-18E and Flankers are using more advanced radars, are more multirole, have better range are more stealthy(F-18E not sure about the Flanker from a passive point of view) and posses similar manuverability or better to include TVC options, offer dual seperate pit(F-18F), Helmet mounted sights, can engage more targets simultaneously and in the case of the F-18E they can be both a2a or a2g and are both bigger with more room for upgrades.

Notice I'm not talking about Platform x vs Platform y in mock dog fights. Notice NO FIGHTER PILOT DOES THAT AS A COMPARISON of which is better. This is because DACT is about pilot skill and scenarios. Did you know that an F-86 beat some F-15s in a mock dogfight?

You are joking right? You think flankers and F-18E have better manuverability than typhoon? Check the turn rates on typhoon and that of flankers and F-18E. Flankers actually manuver like pigs until their fuel tanks are about 2/3 empty. Check the T/W ratio of typhoon vs the other two. AL-31F have T/W ratio of 7.1. Whereas EJ-200 is at around 9 I think. TVC just increases your low-speed manuverability. Do you know that the maximum speed of flankers get decreased to mach1.9 due to TVC engines? In terms of medium and high speed manuverability, typhoon totally dominates the bug and flanker. Typhoon supposedly has even better manuverability than F-22 in certain situations. And you want to compare it to the bug?

As for stealthiness, that's even more of a mistake. Flankers have huge RCS numbers. Like 10 to 15 m^2. The bug is actually quite large too 5 m^2, but super bug is supposedly < 1m^2. EF-2000 is a totally different story. It uses 70% composite material and RAM coating and such. It's maker claim that it has the smallest RCS numbers outside of F-22 and F-35.

As for avionics, what gave you the impresison that typhoon doesn't have HMS?http://www.eurofighter.com/News/Arti...NewsItemId=135
How else do you think it can use IRIS-T?
Why would you need dual separate cockpit if it's not a trainer version? lol
Engage more targets? What gave you that impression? The original Bars can track 15 and engage 4 targets concurrently. The upgraded N-011M with MKI supposedly can track 20 and engage 8 targets concurrently. http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/janes013.htm
The captor radar can also do that. http://www.edefenseonline.com/defaul..._15_2005_IF_01

And let's not forget, typhoon gets equipped with Meteor and IRIS-T compared to AIM-120C/AIM-9X and R-77/R-73.

Check this, a study done on the kill ratio of different fighters vs Su-35. http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...ghter/tech.php
Typhoon is what it is. It's an air superiority fighter. In later tranches, it will become more of a multirole fighter.

Do you think that in anyway implies which one is better? Did you also notice the platform that Singapore decided was their next generation fighter? Have you notices the success of the SU-30 on the export market? So please spare the x platform is better based on some DACT training. It doesnt even mean the pilot is better in DACT. Just that he did his/her job right ans won the scenario based on the ROE. In TOP GUN school the instructors routinely beat more advanced types in F-5's and A-4's. Are those types better than F-14s and F-18s? So while I have provided proof of which types(and it wasnt all inclusive) have superior technology yielding tangible benfits in combat. You have cited less than a handful of meaningless DACT scenarios as your proof. Based on the Preponderance Of The evidence, you have lost the arguement.


Thanks
DA

Check some of the other threads here. Typhoon got rejected due to pricing and delivery timetable. It actually performed the best in terms of air superiority. They provided equal scenario for all three fighters: F-15, Rafale and Typhoon. Typhoon was the only one that took down 3 F-16s.

As for export, more export doesn't mean better aircraft. Would you say F-7 is better than typhoon then?

[DarthAmerica]

Originally Posted by tphuang

trust me, I stay civil.

the scanning frequency of captor is actually quite fast. Not as fast as an electronically steered radar, but as I said, BARS is only semi-ESA. As far as AESA development goes, it's questionable how far the Russians are from it. They did display Zhuk-A, but amsar was on display even earlier. I think the Europeans probably got this AESA thing figured out better. Frankly, the Russian semi-conductor industry just isn't strong enough to allow for fast manufactoring of AESA radars.

Do you have any proof that BARs is more multimode? Captor steers fast enough that it can handle both A2A and A2G tasks. What difference does it make that BARs is more stealthy? Flankers have some of the largest RCSs amongst fighters today. They can turn off the radar and use IRST, their RCS will still be huge.

read what I wrote. typhoon can supercruise under certain weapon loads. F-22 is special, because it can supercruise with maximum weapon load. Once typhoon gets upgraded with EJ-230, it should be able to supercruise like F-22.

You are joking right? You think flankers and F-18E have better manuverability than typhoon? Check the turn rates on typhoon and that of flankers and F-18E. Flankers actually manuver like pigs until their fuel tanks are about 2/3 empty. Check the T/W ratio of typhoon vs the other two. AL-31F have T/W ratio of 7.1. Whereas EJ-200 is at around 9 I think. TVC just increases your low-speed manuverability. Do you know that the maximum speed of flankers get decreased to mach1.9 due to TVC engines? In terms of medium and high speed manuverability, typhoon totally dominates the bug and flanker. Typhoon supposedly has even better manuverability than F-22 in certain situations. And you want to compare it to the bug?

As for stealthiness, that's even more of a mistake. Flankers have huge RCS numbers. Like 10 to 15 m^2. The bug is actually quite large too 5 m^2, but super bug is supposedly < 1m^2. EF-2000 is a totally different story. It uses 70% composite material and RAM coating and such. It's maker claim that it has the smallest RCS numbers outside of F-22 and F-35.

As for avionics, what gave you the impresison that typhoon doesn't have HMS?http://www.eurofighter.com/News/Arti...NewsItemId=135
How else do you think it can use IRIS-T?
Why would you need dual separate cockpit if it's not a trainer version? lol
Engage more targets? What gave you that impression? The original Bars can track 15 and engage 4 targets concurrently. The upgraded N-011M with MKI supposedly can track 20 and engage 8 targets concurrently. http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/janes013.htm
The captor radar can also do that. http://www.edefenseonline.com/defaul..._15_2005_IF_01

And let's not forget, typhoon gets equipped with Meteor and IRIS-T compared to AIM-120C/AIM-9X and R-77/R-73.

Check this, a study done on the kill ratio of different fighters vs Su-35. http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...ghter/tech.php
Typhoon is what it is. It's an air superiority fighter. In later tranches, it will become more of a multirole fighter.

Check some of the other threads here. Typhoon got rejected due to pricing and delivery timetable. It actually performed the best in terms of air superiority. They provided equal scenario for all three fighters: F-15, Rafale and Typhoon. Typhoon was the only one that took down 3 F-16s.

As for export, more export doesn't mean better aircraft. Would you say F-7 is better than typhoon then?

---OK first, there are a whole buch of things wrong with your post. I will deal with them one at a time in the interest of time. You need to understand supercruise. Eurofighter CANNOT DO IT. What it does is exceed Mach 1 IAS under very optimum conditions. In a combat application it is not possible. The type does not have the fuel capacity to stay in the transonic region for a period of time long enough to be considered cruise. I'm not disputing that it can accelerate into the transonic speeds. But it cannot cruise there and to enter SUPERSONIC speeds it must use the afterburner. In these respects it is no different than any other 4th generation type.

As far as the SU-30MKI radar goes I do have proof but its in print. Other proof is online and can be read by a google search. If you still wish to dispute this point thats fine but I and other engineers know better and that is enough. Also you should know that CAPTOR does not have the same type of multimode capability and doesnt hold a candle to AESA or ESA in terms of simultaneous mode operation. Especially the latest AESAs on US fighters which can fire multiple missiles at a2a targets AND SIMULTANEOUSLY drop JDAMS on moving ground targets while jamming and acting as a communication hub and ELINT harvester.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/apg79aesa/

As far as manuverability, F-18E and FLanker do indeed have similar manuverability. I'm not going to say which is best because that depends on a lot of things ands all three are better in their ideal conditions to the others. So the trick is making the enemy fight your fight while you avoid his/hers. None, not Typhoon, Flanker, F-18E have enough of an advantage over the others in WVR combat to say one is better then the other. Anyone who says that is probably a net warrior and doesnt know anything about ACM. The only possible exception is the FLanker which does use TVC but again like I said TVC tactics are only one way to have a fight. Another flaw in your analysis is that you forget that the Flanker and F-18E carries significantly more fuel. Fuel=Energy. Energy=Speed, manuverability, altitude. These are ACM fundamentals. None of these planes is going to encounter the other just after take off. So the Full tanks will be depleted some when they merge. This means that while the Eurofighter can choose a high energy fight. His persistance will be lower. If he chooses a turning fight. The energy lost in the turns will have to be made up with thrust which means, you guessed it, fuel consumtion. Because the F-18E and Flanker are bigger and have more fuel to give, well that kind of settles the arguement. Now a bit about Dual pit technology and the F-18F that seems to have went over your head. The WSO can fight independently against air and ground targets. So If Typhoon or Flanker 1 and 2 merge with the F-18F one on the port side and the other on starboard. Both "Maverick" and "Goose" can shoot at them simultaneously.

As to the issue of RCS. Simply put Typhoon does have a RCS reduction measures. But they are not as extensive and thourough as those found on the F-18E or Rafale. In any case all three carry external ordinance and fuel so the benefits are marginal against more modern radars. Ironically, the AESA and ESA designs are better at dealing with low RCS targets. And in fact. CAPTOR using a mechanical dish has an adverse effect on Typhoons RCS because just as good as CAPTOR is at recieving signals, its an excellent reflector unlike AESA and ESA designs. Futher since CAPTOR is not LPI, ANYTIME the Typhoon uses its radar it betrays its presence and makes for a nice target for the anti radiation homing feature of the latest AMRAAM, R-27 and R-77.

By the way. Quoting DERA's study, which is mocked industry wide as an irrelevant marketing ploy 10 years out of date. Says a lot about your understanding. If you would like futher debunking of DERA then post the detailed text of the study so I can parse it piece by peice into oblivion.

[DarthAmerica]

Originally Posted by tphuang

As for stealthiness, that's even more of a mistake. Flankers have huge RCS numbers. Like 10 to 15 m^2. The bug is actually quite large too 5 m^2, but super bug is supposedly < 1m^2. EF-2000 is a totally different story. It uses 70% composite material and RAM coating and such. It's maker claim that it has the smallest RCS numbers outside of F-22 and F-35.

And let's not forget, typhoon gets equipped with Meteor and IRIS-T compared to AIM-120C/AIM-9X and R-77/R-73.

Check some of the other threads here. Typhoon got rejected due to pricing and delivery timetable. It actually performed the best in terms of air superiority. They provided equal scenario for all three fighters: F-15, Rafale and Typhoon. Typhoon was the only one that took down 3 F-16s.

As for export, more export doesn't mean better aircraft. Would you say F-7 is better than typhoon then?

---Sigh...I suppose you are an engineer and defense professional? No ok well then let me give you a little advice for free. Stop quoting those meaningless RCS numbers. Unless you can tell me what was the source, as in where was the RCS measured, from what aspect and against what frequencies and detection technigues. Otherwise you are grossly mistaken in your assumtions. Oh and with what external payloads...lol. And its makers would be foolish to make such a claim as the B-1B and F-117 would most certainly have lower RCS.

FYI- No meteor until 2012 at the EARLIEST. AMRAAM, AIM-9X and R-77 are already here and continually being upgraded.

Also you have no idea what you are talking about in regard to which type performed better in regard to airsuperiority in Singapore. DO you want to know why? Because they werent doing a Platform vs Platform airsuperiority contest in Singapore. They were comparing the Platforms to a set of requirements and chose the one that fit best. For many of the requirements, the Typhoon could not even compete as the capabilities didnt exist, and still dont, at the time of the competition. Pay attention to the two finalist and eventual winner.