Been thinking it over a bit and I think we will soon be able to say the F-22A is the most advanced Multi-Role Fighter since it is to have a SEAD, ISR/ELINT/AEA and strike role in addition to its fighter mission.
DA
DA
Current F-16 Versions Are World's Most Advanced Multi-Role Fighters?
- Thread starter webmaster
- Start date
Edit: Da
Last edited:
The F22A is a tremendous aircraft and I have no doubt that it could be developed into the most advanced multi-role fighter but from what I have read in other threads it doesn't seem that it is planned to develop it in this way. It seems to me that the USAF is developing the F35 as its multi role fighter and unless this aircraft is cancelled I expect the F22 to remain a highly capable but specialised fighter, almost certainly the best in the world in the air combat role.
Cheers
F 16
I dont know when ı ever heared of name F 16 ı remember THK lıved a problem whıth them few years ago ıt was lıke radar and braın ıssue sımılar to ısraels complaıns I realy dont know u pay money for your car and producer says you cant drıve ıt on sundays but u pay a lot for that toy sure ıt ıs not nıce
and ı never heared a sımmılar problem SU s or mırage dıd F 16 ıs a nato aır carft and basıcly most nato countrıes buy .That doesnt show F 16 ıs a good craft compare to mırage raffael and expecıally russıan varıants
If f 16 was an realy perfect multı role aır craft Turkısh aır force woudnt need to upgrade theır phantoms to termınator serıes
I dont know when ı ever heared of name F 16 ı remember THK lıved a problem whıth them few years ago ıt was lıke radar and braın ıssue sımılar to ısraels complaıns I realy dont know u pay money for your car and producer says you cant drıve ıt on sundays but u pay a lot for that toy sure ıt ıs not nıce
and ı never heared a sımmılar problem SU s or mırage dıd F 16 ıs a nato aır carft and basıcly most nato countrıes buy .That doesnt show F 16 ıs a good craft compare to mırage raffael and expecıally russıan varıants
If f 16 was an realy perfect multı role aır craft Turkısh aır force woudnt need to upgrade theır phantoms to termınator serıes
They never "needed" to in the first place. Under the Peace Diamond plan the Turks got a deal on the F4s they couldnt pass up and the Terminator upgrade made to much sense to pass up. The Turks were always mad about the Phantom. I remember how they admired them when the NATO squadrons took off for training. Even today, so many decades after it first flew, the F4 is an airplane to be respected and feared. Most of all in the air to ground role. And for such a big heavy fighter Ive seen USAF pilots do some real stunts with them.
The TUAF has gotten good service with the mix of F-16 and F-4. In a troubled region they have an air force thats respected.
True. But it matters to India, which is currently a target market for Boeing & LM. Indias most likely adversary is Pakistan, which operates US weapons - an obvious problem if they came to blows again. Pakistan has not found US restrictions a great problem in the past, because it hasn't had any US weapons it couldn't continue to operate when US support was temporarily withdrawn, but it is likely to be a concern for the future, with the new weapons the US is supplying.
I agree in the Indian case export restrictions, tech transfers and selectvie availability matter. This is why they diversify their sources with all the logistical nightmares that entails. It will be interesting to see which direction India chooses in their fighter competition. I suspect Mig-35 and PAK-FA(or its 5th Gen equivalent). Russia has a strong foothold there. In fact the Indians seem to like Hybrids. Russian fighters and weapons with multi-national and local avionics completing the package.
DA
Scorpion82
New Member
@da
Do I understand you right, that you mean the aircraft with the most weapon options is the most advanced multirole fighter?
In my opinion the F-22 is right now the most advanced multirole fighter, though its flexibility is limited to AA missions a precision strikes on preprogrammed targets. Defining most advanced multirole fighter has nothing to do with the range of available weapons or missions which could be performed IMO.
In terms of most flexible platforms I agree that the US and russian teen series examples leading right now ahead of any new generation fighters (except SH which isn't a completly new developement at all). Though the Gripen is relative mature in that direction as well. Rafale, Typhoon and Raptor still lack the flexibility in terms of weapons selection and missions which could be performed. But in the roles that are possible I would rate these 3 fighters superior to previous generation fighters.
You speak about superior sensors, but it seems to me you limit this statement to the radar alone. But the radar isn't the only sensor on an aircraft, nor is the radar soley responsible for situational awerness.
Additionally I think you underrate the European combined/networked operations capability which is partitially available right now and which will be further enhanced in the future. But there is no doubt about the US superiority in that area.
Do I understand you right, that you mean the aircraft with the most weapon options is the most advanced multirole fighter?
In my opinion the F-22 is right now the most advanced multirole fighter, though its flexibility is limited to AA missions a precision strikes on preprogrammed targets. Defining most advanced multirole fighter has nothing to do with the range of available weapons or missions which could be performed IMO.
In terms of most flexible platforms I agree that the US and russian teen series examples leading right now ahead of any new generation fighters (except SH which isn't a completly new developement at all). Though the Gripen is relative mature in that direction as well. Rafale, Typhoon and Raptor still lack the flexibility in terms of weapons selection and missions which could be performed. But in the roles that are possible I would rate these 3 fighters superior to previous generation fighters.
Comparing US fighters in US service with non US fighters in other service does not exactly tell you about the aircrafts capabilities. What about an US aircraft not in US service? This wouldn't benefit from all the goodies the US military has to offer in terms of support...
You speak about superior sensors, but it seems to me you limit this statement to the radar alone. But the radar isn't the only sensor on an aircraft, nor is the radar soley responsible for situational awerness.
Additionally I think you underrate the European combined/networked operations capability which is partitially available right now and which will be further enhanced in the future. But there is no doubt about the US superiority in that area.
I think its exactly the other way round. Weapons integration is one topic and something which can be done without huge problems. Though it will still need some time especially for the Eurofighter to evolve into a flexible multirole fighter, Rafale and Gripen are already very capable multirole assets and in many areas they offer significant advantages over teen series modells. You should also take into account that a lot of the most advanced versions of the teen series examples are in very limited service, while the less capable version are widely used.
It's not just weapons options. It's overall effectiveness and flexibility to conduct a wide variety of missions. This makes the SH the undisputed leader of the pack. BTW, it is a new design and only shares a the physical likeness of the original Hornet. Rafale and Typhoon are currently the most limited of all multi-role fighters. Its why they aren't out there doing anything else but CAP.
No it wouldn't. I thought I made that clear?
No but Radar is the primary sensor and most efficient. Additionally, the USA has the best FLIR(Pods) and RWR out there. But none of these systems compares to Radar.
OK???
Weapons integration is not trivial. Also, Rafale is not a very capable multi-role fighter except on paper. Look at its weapons options and the poor range of its sensors. Right now, Rafales aren't particularly good at anything. They have poor radar, incomplete ECM, outdated IRST and you can count their a2g weapons options on one hand. They can't even designate targets for LGB's.
I notice you say in "significant advantages" in "many areas". What areas? Be specific please. I already know you aren't talking about...
Flexibility
Air to Air Performance
Air to Ground Performance
NCW
Weapons
Avionics
Flight Performance
Range
Speed
Stealth
Cost
ECM
So which areas are you talking about? Please, if you respond, lets not refer to features that aren't available. I think you will find them falling critically short which is why they are still in development while there are hundreds of SUs, Migs and F-Teens of the most advanced types in combat now. Until the arrival of the Rafale F3 or the Typhoon Tranche 3. These types are simply not in the same class as multi-role platforms.
DA
Scorpion82
New Member
What has the SH more than other fighters, if you let alone the weapons selection?
I agree with you that the radar is the primary sensor of a fighter aircraft, but only because the Captor or RBE2 aren't AESA doesn't mean they are bad, ineffecient or not compareable in any area. The Typhoons Captor can already track more targets than the initial APG-80, the Rafales RBE2 can track twice the number of targets and that though the APG-80 is AESA.
Ok tell me about the Damocles pod or the Litening AT. Your "better" RWRs where do you base these informations on? Interestingly is the RWR for the F-22 developed by BAE Systems and it will be built by BAE for the F-35 as well
Has any of the teen series examples internal IRST/FLIR, TV, Laser-range-finder? The only example I know is the FLIR camera of the F-16 blk.60 which seems to be limited to the FLIR role only.
The RBE2 radar might be limited in range, but this trade off was selected for other benifits and as it was conceived from the very early days that the Rafale would operate in an NCW environement radar range is not that important. It might be important under specific circumstances, i.e. without comprehensive support from AWACS..., but it is also seen as a temporary solution until the AESA version is mature enough.
What do you mean with incomplete ECM and outdated IRST?
Target designation for LGBs is delayed as the use of LGBs it self, as the AdA has sufficient capable LGB capable aircraft. Tests were already carried out more than 5 years ago and F3 configuration is not that far away from being introduced into service. Already now the Rafale has the ability to use IIR/INS/GPS guided bombs, and Scalp-EG stand-off missiles. LGBs, Excot, ASMP-A and a lot of other stuff will soon be added.
Though AG weapons integration for the Typhoon will still need some time (though an austere AG capability should be available in 2008) the aicraft is at all fully developed NOW in terms of its planned avionics. Nearly the same for the Rafale F2 which is fully operational NOW and features the most of the planned systems functionalities.
To take your list:
Air to Air Performance: ECDs should be superior which is underlined by studies.
Air to Ground Performance: F-teens have the edge in terms of weapons selection and with thus they can carry out a wider range of missions. In terms of avionics I see no advantages for the F-teens
NCW: ECDs are at least as capable as all other current fighters. BTW the Gripen featured a datalink with capabilities for years long before any other nation has fielded a compareable system.
Weapons: The available weapons don't lack behind. The numbers are still limited
Avionics: ECDs lead here in front of the F-teens
Flight Performance: ECDs lead here as well in nearly every area.
Range: Rafale has a similar range as the F/A-18E and that while weighting 2/3s of the SH and being much smaller
Speed: Supercruise and higher operational speeds than most F-teens
Stealth: Not stealth, but lower signatures as the F-teens
Cost: Procurement costs equivalent to F-15E or F/A-18E, but operating costs are lower
ECM: Fully integrated EWS comprising RWR/ESM, ECM, CFD, MAW, LWR and TRD for Typhoon, ELINT capabilities for the Rafale (Show me such a comprehensive EWS equipement for any of the F-teen or even new 5th gen fighters!)
We use external pods by choice because it allows for lower cost and flexibility. It's also much easier to keep current with upgrades. All the Teens have this capability...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._on_FA-18.jpg/200px-Litening_Pod_on_FA-18.jpg
No, the RBE2 is a technological dead end. It's been found wanting and the French are very disappointed with its performance, especially in BVR...
From DSI no. 15 concerning the Rafale and its poor showing in bvr. Le véritable problème opérationnel du Rafale, notamment à l’égard des éventuels clients à l’export, c’est, aujourd’hui, l’insuffi sance de son système d’armes en matière de combat aérien longue portée. C’est-à-dire au-delà des 60 à 70 km. N’emportant que des missiles air-air MICA à moyenne portée, doté d’un radar RBE2 effi cace mais souffrant d’une « myopie » certaine au regard des compétiteurs américains et russes, le Rafale, lorsqu’il fonctionne de manière autonome, court de sérieux risques de se faire détecter et abattre par l’adversaire avant d’avoir pu lui-même réagir. Les exercices réalisés avec des Su-30 indiens et des F/A-18 américains l’ont démontré. À un tel point que, d’un commun accord, les protagonistes s’entendent, lors de ces exercices, afi n de ne pas irrémédiablement pénaliser les pilotes français, pour limiter la confrontation au volume de détection et de tir du Rafale.
Translation: "The Rafale's real operational problem, notably concerning eventual export clients, is today the inadequacy of its weapons system in long range air to air combat. Which is to say, at ranges beyond 60 or 70 kilometers. Carrying only medium-range MICA air to air missiles, and equipped with a RBE2 radar which is effective but which suffers from a "nearsightedness" relative to its American and Russian competitors, the Rafale, when functioning autonomously, runs serious risk of being detected and shot down by its adversary before being able to react. The exercises performed with Indian Su-30s and American F/A-18s have demonstrated this. To such an extent that, in order not to excessively penalize the French pilots during these exercises, all parties agreed to keep these engagements within the detection and firing range of the Rafale." So basically the problem is such that they have to change the ROEs of the exercises so that the Rafales have any chance of competing.
The radar on the F/A-18E at the time was the AN/APG-73. Also, the Flanker was using Bars IIRC. So much for the DERA study.
"The DGA also described Rafale's OSF ("Optronique Secteur Frontal") as "obsolescent" and production has been cut back to just 48 units, rather than the planned number, which was to have been sufficient to equip all F1 and F2 versions."
From: Electronic Aviation
"Dufour also says negotiations with prime contractor Dassault Aviation and the main Rafale system suppliers--Thales, Safran and MBDA--for a package of improvements aimed at further expanding the Rafale's multirole capability are at an advanced stage and should be completed "within the coming weeks." Dufour says the specifics of the package, dubbed Post-F3, are still in discussion. However, Jean-Marc Gasparini, deputy Rafale program director at Dassault, says the likely configuration will include an active-array antenna to replace the present passive-scan array, along with a new-generation OSF infrared track-and-scan system and missile warning receiver (MWR) and bigger GBU-24/Paveway 3 laser-guided bombs.
An enhanced prototype of the active-array antenna flew in May. Together with the MWR and OSF, with its TV/IR/laser range finder sensor package, the antenna is expected to greatly augment the fighter's data fusion capability. Obsolescence issues related to the Rafale's drawn-out development program caused the MWR and OSF to be left off a 59-unit batch-three order placed in 2004. "
From: http://www.electronicaviation.com/aircraft/Dassault_Rafale/819
You are grossly misinformed-
Air to Air Performance: F-Teens have AESA and are better
Air to Ground Performance: F-Teens have AESA and are better
NCW: F-Teens have AESA and are better and WNW
Weapons: Yes they(ECD) do lack behind
Avionics: F-Teens have AESA and are better
Flight Performance: No they don't. The notion that ECD fly any faster ot fight any differently than F-Teens is an internet myth. Numerous competitions have proven this. ECD and F-Teens were designed around the same set of requirements(Cold War) All of them are essentially on par. The only three that stand out are the F-15, F/A-18E and SU-27 by virtue of their size which is why they dominate the markets and battlefields.
Range: All built to for Euro-Cold War scenario with similar values.
Speed: Nonsense, ECD do not operate any differently than F-Teens and are all similar in operating speed and top speeds.
Stealth: F/A-18E has the most extensive signature management.
Cost: No, operating cost are on par.
ECM: F-Teens have AESA and all have ECM Pods, external jamming support from EA-6B's per doctrine and/or internal Jammers of equal or better performance with actual combat experience.
If you understood the advantages offered by AESA technology. You wouldn't have made your previous post. By the way, the F-Teens are several generations beyond where the First operational Euro or Russian AESA's will be when they are fielded next decade.
Last edited:
Scorpion82
New Member
@da
I'm interested when the Rafale flew excercises with Su-30MKI...
Additionally the RBE2 in the F1 aircraft was more limited. Its more developed by now with the F2 standard. I agree its a dead end technology and it has its weaknesses, but you have to consider the operational environement.
About the "outdated" IRST. The OSF uses IRST, TV and laser. The main problem is with the TV camera as it is limited to daytime and good weather conditions. The TV camera is used to track single targets and identify them. This TV camera will be replaced by a mid-wave IR sensor.
BTW how many F-teens have AESA?
18 F-15C out of ~1600 Eagles all over the world have the AN/APG-63(V2) which is nothing else than the V1 with the MSA replaced by the AESA. For sure it has advantages in terms of performance, but it does not introduce new functionalities or capabilities. The V3 isn't operational with any F-15 for now!
Soon 80 F-16 out of ~4300 Falcons have the AN/APG-80 on board. Used by the UAE only
Maybe a handfull F/A-18E/F have the AN/APG-79 by now. No one of them is in operational service with a frontline unit. The first examples are flown by test and evaluation units. BTW more than 200 SH were already delivered.
BTW. why to consider the F/A-18E/F? Its 5th gen and a completley new aircraft with similar looks to the F/A-18 only.
In fact the SH used 90 % of the Cs avionics. By now some new technologies has been introduced many of which are available for upgraded A-D modells as well.
Can the FLIR pictures be presented on the HMD, is a HuD-like HMD available and how about the IRST capabilities of such pods. Seem to be very limited to not existent. There is a difference between a targeting pod and an IRST+stuff system.
As mentioned the PESA was selected for the Rafale as AESA wasn't mature at that time. Its seen as a stop gap solution. Though the range is limited the radar offers other advantages and the Rafale normally operates in an NCW environement at least using AWACS, EW...
I'm interested when the Rafale flew excercises with Su-30MKI...
Additionally the RBE2 in the F1 aircraft was more limited. Its more developed by now with the F2 standard. I agree its a dead end technology and it has its weaknesses, but you have to consider the operational environement.
About the "outdated" IRST. The OSF uses IRST, TV and laser. The main problem is with the TV camera as it is limited to daytime and good weather conditions. The TV camera is used to track single targets and identify them. This TV camera will be replaced by a mid-wave IR sensor.
Lol you are kidding aren't you? You limit all things to AESA or not, but that is stupid, narrow minded and wrong. NCW hasn't much to do with AESA radar or not. Avionics consist of dozens of systems not of the radar alone. AA and AG combat depends on much more than only the AESA radar.
Show me an F-16 or F/A-18 which fly mach 2 with 6 AAMs! Show me one teen series example which reaches mach 1.2 in supercruise with AAMs and external fuel tanks. Show me any teen series example which can operate up tp 19000 m. Show me one F-teen which can pull 9 g within a half second and sustain 9 g for such a wide flight envelope and for such a long time. The F/A-18E is for sure not a high performance fighter its at the lowest end in terms of flight performance in contrast to other fighters. And since when are F/A-18E and F-15 are dominating the markets?
Rafale still has a similar range as the SH and that while being much smaller and weighting 2/3s of the SH. If the aircraft would match the requirements only the Rafale would be limited to a 3500 kg payload and a 650 km operating radius.
Especially the Typhoon still enjoys an edge in many specific areas, be it achievable speed with operational load, speed over the flight envelope or supercruise.
Still not proven that the F/A-18E has superior signature characteristics than the Rafale and Typhoon as well. What is managed by the SH in terms of signatures?
For the F-16 maybe as it is rather small and single engine. Where are complete health monitoring systems in the F-teens? Paperless maintainance concept etc..
Jamming support from EA-6B isn't available for non US airforces, except in combined operations and ECDs could operate there as well. You don't know about the exact performance of any ECM system nor does me. In fact you claim things you aren't able to back-up. And where is your actual combat experience which isn't there for european nations?
I understand the advantages of AESA very well! But it is still not the only factor for anything. And if you believe that the first AESA systems in the ECDs will not be better than the US first generation AESAs than dream on. Only as such a system isn't fielded yet, it doesn't mean there is no experience. Europe is working on that since more than a decade (I only speak about airborne AESA for fighter radars) and a number of trials were successfully completed. For sure the US has an edge, but I wouldn't bet that it will be that great.
BTW how many F-teens have AESA?
18 F-15C out of ~1600 Eagles all over the world have the AN/APG-63(V2) which is nothing else than the V1 with the MSA replaced by the AESA. For sure it has advantages in terms of performance, but it does not introduce new functionalities or capabilities. The V3 isn't operational with any F-15 for now!
Soon 80 F-16 out of ~4300 Falcons have the AN/APG-80 on board. Used by the UAE only
Maybe a handfull F/A-18E/F have the AN/APG-79 by now. No one of them is in operational service with a frontline unit. The first examples are flown by test and evaluation units. BTW more than 200 SH were already delivered.
BTW. why to consider the F/A-18E/F? Its 5th gen and a completley new aircraft with similar looks to the F/A-18 only.
In fact the SH used 90 % of the Cs avionics. By now some new technologies has been introduced many of which are available for upgraded A-D modells as well.
Scorpion,
In the interest of time, I'm just going to link you to sites that invalidate your theory's on ECD exclusivity. Read them at your leisure.
http://www.dsd.es.northropgrumman.com/DSD-Brochures/litening/LITENING_AT.pdf
http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/pages_hmcs/02_jhm.html
http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2006/q2/060418b_nr.html
http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=1539
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...tory/01-11-2007/0004504422&EDATE=Jan+11,+2007
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...tory/10-31-2005/0004204304&EDATE=Oct+31,+2005
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...story/12-05-2005/0004227797&EDATE=Dec+5,+2005
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/AA_Feb06_EOE.pdf
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...gint-will-f35-f22-also-play-ew-role/index.php
Supercruise
The definition of supercruise
Engineers have always considered supercruise to mean flying
supersonically -- that is with all airflow around the airframe
supersonic (subsonic = no supersonic airflow, transsonic =
some airflow supersonic; So different aircraft goes supersonic
at different speeds, all faster than Mach 1, typically around
Mach 1.3) -- without the use of afterburner.
There is no clear agreement whether afterburner can be used
to accellerate through the transsonic region or not, but it doesn't
seem unreasonable to allow it, since the definition is about
the cruise phase.
In more recent times some people have started to use another
definition, one meaning anything faster than Mach 1 without afterburner,
usually as to include some aircraft in the very small group of
supercruisers.
Supercruising aircraft
Using the strict definition the supercruisers include
Concorde and F-22.
If one includes anything faster than Mach 1 the list becomes
longer with English Electric Lightning (M 1.2), Lockheed F-104A
with J79-19 engine (M 1.05 at altitude), probably Draken,
F/A-18C/D Hornet with F404-402 engines, F-15E Eagle with CFTs
and LANTIRN either -220 or -229 engines (with the -229 engines
it's reported to have accelerated to M 1.15 from subsonic and
from supersonic speeds with afterburner slowed down to M 1.3
when the afterburner was turned off), Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon,
Rafale and likely others.
This is of course depending on altitude, weights and external
loads and exact numbers are usually classified.
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/faq/ramfaq3.txt
ECD and F-Teens have similar performance with intangible differences and DO NOT SUPERCRUISE OPERATIONALLY in the way the term is used to describe the F-22 PERIOD. They don't have the fuel or persistance. It's not just thrust. They all have the thrust and aerodynamics to get to supersonic speeds. Its the material science behind the engines. The F-35 has the most powerful of engines with a T/W ratio of 1.22 when configured for air to air but it isn't a supercruising jet, by design. The Engines have to incorporate expensive advanced technologies to stay reliable under those operating conditions.
As far as Mach 2.0 with 6 AAM, That is a BS(Brochure Statistic). No ECD or F-Teen could sustain such flight in operational circumstance. Thats what makes the F-22 stand out because it can.
The SFC(Specific Fuel Comsumption) of the Typhoon in AfterBurner is...
http://www.eurojet.de/default2.php?p=4&cid=6
...or ~50g/kNs. Do the math and you will see its not a practical capability. Most jets except the F-22 rarely ever fly to Vmax due to fuel inefficiency. F-Teens, ECD, Su-27s and Mig-29 are designed to fight subsonic, transonic with brief supersonic flight.
I'm not saying the ECD are inferior in flight performance maximums. Just on par all things considered since they were aiming for nearly identical performance parameters with the F-Teens and Su/Migs.
As far as your altitude question. F-15s and Su-27s can reach 65,000 ft or ~19300m. Again, identical from an operational point of view and by design. F/A-18, F-16, Mig-29, Gripen and Rafale which are all similar in concept are designed to fly at lower altitudes.
With regard to manuverability, again they are all roughly the same with their own advantages over each other in specific regions. Contrary to your assertion of the F/A-18E being low performance, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as a multi-role platform, its probably the best all around...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7317698505552705186&query=van halen dreams
...it can maneuver with the best...
http://www.alert5.com/newsphotos/f18fgunf22.jpg
I don't think it's necessary to cover the F-Teens vs ECD export sales as thats been debated many times with the ECD losing whenever competing against an F-teen in open markets with Tier 1 high profile users.
I hope this clears up any confusion you may have had and settles the comparison. I have provided examples, explanation and evidence supported by links to industry and users regarding the capabilities I described. The bottom line is that the ECD are still in development and not yet flying at the potential of the F-Teen, Su or Mig series. They do have similar flight performance making differences academic unless we are talking about specific mission profiles. But when it comes to sensors, weapons, cost and getting into operational status they lag behind.
DA
In the interest of time, I'm just going to link you to sites that invalidate your theory's on ECD exclusivity. Read them at your leisure.
The difference is one is saves 2 million dollars on your unit production cost. Other than that, they do the same things with the Pod being more advanced and compatible across the board...
http://www.dsd.es.northropgrumman.com/DSD-Brochures/litening/LITENING_AT.pdf
http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/pages_hmcs/02_jhm.html
No, I'm not kidding. Why don't you look at the industry. AESA technology is the future of air combat PERIOD. If you don't have it, your platform is at a huge disadvantage in combat and in OPEN markets. Look at all the times the ECD had a fly off with F-Teens. I'm afraid your understanding of NCW is quite limited if you don't think NCW has much to do with AESA...
http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2006/q2/060418b_nr.html
http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=1539
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...tory/01-11-2007/0004504422&EDATE=Jan+11,+2007
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...tory/10-31-2005/0004204304&EDATE=Oct+31,+2005
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...story/12-05-2005/0004227797&EDATE=Dec+5,+2005
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/AA_Feb06_EOE.pdf
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...gint-will-f35-f22-also-play-ew-role/index.php
Supercruise
The definition of supercruise
Engineers have always considered supercruise to mean flying
supersonically -- that is with all airflow around the airframe
supersonic (subsonic = no supersonic airflow, transsonic =
some airflow supersonic; So different aircraft goes supersonic
at different speeds, all faster than Mach 1, typically around
Mach 1.3) -- without the use of afterburner.
There is no clear agreement whether afterburner can be used
to accellerate through the transsonic region or not, but it doesn't
seem unreasonable to allow it, since the definition is about
the cruise phase.
In more recent times some people have started to use another
definition, one meaning anything faster than Mach 1 without afterburner,
usually as to include some aircraft in the very small group of
supercruisers.
Supercruising aircraft
Using the strict definition the supercruisers include
Concorde and F-22.
If one includes anything faster than Mach 1 the list becomes
longer with English Electric Lightning (M 1.2), Lockheed F-104A
with J79-19 engine (M 1.05 at altitude), probably Draken,
F/A-18C/D Hornet with F404-402 engines, F-15E Eagle with CFTs
and LANTIRN either -220 or -229 engines (with the -229 engines
it's reported to have accelerated to M 1.15 from subsonic and
from supersonic speeds with afterburner slowed down to M 1.3
when the afterburner was turned off), Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon,
Rafale and likely others.
This is of course depending on altitude, weights and external
loads and exact numbers are usually classified.
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/faq/ramfaq3.txt
ECD and F-Teens have similar performance with intangible differences and DO NOT SUPERCRUISE OPERATIONALLY in the way the term is used to describe the F-22 PERIOD. They don't have the fuel or persistance. It's not just thrust. They all have the thrust and aerodynamics to get to supersonic speeds. Its the material science behind the engines. The F-35 has the most powerful of engines with a T/W ratio of 1.22 when configured for air to air but it isn't a supercruising jet, by design. The Engines have to incorporate expensive advanced technologies to stay reliable under those operating conditions.
As far as Mach 2.0 with 6 AAM, That is a BS(Brochure Statistic). No ECD or F-Teen could sustain such flight in operational circumstance. Thats what makes the F-22 stand out because it can.
The SFC(Specific Fuel Comsumption) of the Typhoon in AfterBurner is...
http://www.eurojet.de/default2.php?p=4&cid=6
...or ~50g/kNs. Do the math and you will see its not a practical capability. Most jets except the F-22 rarely ever fly to Vmax due to fuel inefficiency. F-Teens, ECD, Su-27s and Mig-29 are designed to fight subsonic, transonic with brief supersonic flight.
I'm not saying the ECD are inferior in flight performance maximums. Just on par all things considered since they were aiming for nearly identical performance parameters with the F-Teens and Su/Migs.
As far as your altitude question. F-15s and Su-27s can reach 65,000 ft or ~19300m. Again, identical from an operational point of view and by design. F/A-18, F-16, Mig-29, Gripen and Rafale which are all similar in concept are designed to fly at lower altitudes.
With regard to manuverability, again they are all roughly the same with their own advantages over each other in specific regions. Contrary to your assertion of the F/A-18E being low performance, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as a multi-role platform, its probably the best all around...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7317698505552705186&query=van halen dreams
...it can maneuver with the best...
http://www.alert5.com/newsphotos/f18fgunf22.jpg
I don't think it's necessary to cover the F-Teens vs ECD export sales as thats been debated many times with the ECD losing whenever competing against an F-teen in open markets with Tier 1 high profile users.
I hope this clears up any confusion you may have had and settles the comparison. I have provided examples, explanation and evidence supported by links to industry and users regarding the capabilities I described. The bottom line is that the ECD are still in development and not yet flying at the potential of the F-Teen, Su or Mig series. They do have similar flight performance making differences academic unless we are talking about specific mission profiles. But when it comes to sensors, weapons, cost and getting into operational status they lag behind.
DA
F-teens have AESA?
F-15 - 18 equipped with AESA so far.
F-16A to D - none with AESA.
F-16E - 80 with AESA ordered by the UAE. Not yet all in service. No other operators or orders.
F-18A to C - none with AESA.
F-18E - first AESA-equipped aircraft in service last year. October?
Most F-teens do not have AESA & will never have it before being scrapped. AESA is not automatically superior. Depends on the radar. For example, would you back an F-2 or a Typhoon in air-air combat? Would you replace a Captor with a Vixen 500E?
All operational fighter borne AESAs are superior and more advanced than CAPTOR, PERIOD. Also, the number of AESA's in F-teens is irrelevant to the question of which is the most advanced multi-role fighter. AESAs are available for all models of F-Teen in service except the F/A-18A-D upon request by the user. Moreover, all F-16E deliveries will be complete by this year.
If you would like, I could put together a list of all the operational AESA equipped fighters in the world compared to the number of operational ECD in the world. But I don't think that would be relevant to the discussion or anything else for that matter. Please, I'm trying not to turn this into a ECD vs F-Teen debate. That question has been asked and answered. My only intent is to discuss which fighter is the most advanced multi-role fighter. Clearly that answer is the Block II Super Hornet or F-22A depending on how the question is interpreted.
DA
P.S. By the time an AESA is available for ECD in operational status, the F/A-18A-D and F-16s will be retired and replaced by F/A-18E/F, F-35, F-16E or ECD. So including F/A-18A-D and F-16E is only relevant to the discussion if we are discussing the 2007-2012 timeframe in direct comparison to ECD.
Scorpion82
New Member
@da
About JHMCS it still lack the capabilities I mentioned above, so your link proves nothing!
BTW Rafale won on technical grounds in SK over the F-15K.
Litening is a product of Rafael from Israel and is mainly license produced by Northrop-Grumman. The PDF still lacks more comprehensive information about AA capabilities. And only to your information Typhoon uses Litening as well.
About JHMCS it still lack the capabilities I mentioned above, so your link proves nothing!
AESA radars as single sensor contribute to the network, but they are "only" a part of the whole networking which includes multiple sensors from a couple of platforms! That's a fact. And again I'm still aware of the fact that the future belongs to AESA and that has advantages in nearly every area. But that doesn't mean that the older radars are ineffective or make the entire aircraft as a weapons platform inferior to another platform.
Still no of the teen series fighters matches the possible speed performance without reheat of the Eurofighter Typhoon. With or without a weaponsload! I never had the intention to put the Typhoon in the same class as the Raptor in that direction. For sure no aicraft except the Raptor will fly with speeds in excess for mach 1.5 for an extended period of time, but the Typhoon is still able to fly faster safeing some fuel and time to accelerate to moderate supersonic speeds to launch a missile. BTW the Raptor doesn't fly a complete mission in supercruise. But it can fly for extended periods.
Right but I outlined it to underline the aircraft's superior performance in that area. Only designs like the F-15 can do that as they were designed for high speeds.
60000 ft would be more correct. And flying at such altitudes is one thing, remaining a significant performance the other. That's what is important in operational use.
This is the specifical fuel consumption at sea level under normal 0 conditions. That has nothing to do with the consumption at altitude...
There're many Eurofighter pilots who have previously flown F-16, F-15, F/A-18 and MiG-29 and EVERYONE of them would disagree with you. But you are free to believe what you want...
The Super Hornet offers good low speed/high AoA handling qualities and manoeuvreability, but its acceleration falls way behind, its climb rate isn't that impressive at all and it isn't worse the time to lose a word about supersonic and altitude performance of the aicraft. Subsonic agility falls way behind except the mentioned regime above.
Export sales today have rarly to do with the aicraft's capabilites but more with political connections, influence and other factors. How many Super Hornets are contracted to date by export customers? ZERO! Why does SK want to purchase new aircraft rather than simply ordering further F-15K?
BTW Rafale won on technical grounds in SK over the F-15K.
As mentioned I do not doubt the F-teens being more mature now and more flexible in terms of weapons selection as well, but that doesn't mean they are more advanced. I weren't confused about anything and the links you provided to not prove my statements wrong. Additionally buying an aircraft which is now good isn't a wise decision if you take into account that they should serve for a couple of decades to come.
Last edited:
f16 v others
From AFM "Singapore very impressed with the Typhoon" and Western Daily Press
".....................It is a very capable aircraft and better than the American F16 he champions. In a recent competition run by Singapore to find a replacement for its F16 fighters, Typhoon was up against the American F15E and the French Rafale. Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests. According to one observer, neither competitor aircraft could claim the same (Defence Analysis August 2004)."
From AFM "Singapore very impressed with the Typhoon" and Western Daily Press
".....................It is a very capable aircraft and better than the American F16 he champions. In a recent competition run by Singapore to find a replacement for its F16 fighters, Typhoon was up against the American F15E and the French Rafale. Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests. According to one observer, neither competitor aircraft could claim the same (Defence Analysis August 2004)."
Current F16 Versions - The Great Debate
Wow, this is one of the best debates I have followed on this forum. Thanks DA and Scorpion82, for the terrific links and the quality of the argument in recent posts. Short of the aircraft concerned being involved head to head in actual combat, and flown by pilots with similar training and experience I guess we will never have a definitive answer to some questions being discussed.
What I am now thinking as a result of the info supplied by the technically and professionally knowledgeable ones in this forum is:
1. The latest versions of the F16 are excellent multi role fighters but they are certainly not the most advanced.
2. The F22 Raptor is a stand alone as an air superiority fighter - unfortunately its cost and sales restrictions means that it is a non starter for countries other than the US.
3. Leaving aside the Raptor the Eurofighter Typhoon seems to shade its competitors in the air combat role.
4. The FA18E/F Super Hornet seems to have a superb multi role capability that makes it an attractive proposition to air forces which can only afford to operate one type, or as a back up to aircraft like Typhoon or Raptor which would be superior in the air superiority area.
5. The absence of the F35 Lightning in the more recent debate probably reflects the fact that the aircraft is not currently in service. When it is it may well prove, IMHO, to be the most advanced multi role fighter.
One thing that stands out to me is that no one aircraft can ever be the best at all roles.
Cheers
Wow, this is one of the best debates I have followed on this forum. Thanks DA and Scorpion82, for the terrific links and the quality of the argument in recent posts. Short of the aircraft concerned being involved head to head in actual combat, and flown by pilots with similar training and experience I guess we will never have a definitive answer to some questions being discussed.
What I am now thinking as a result of the info supplied by the technically and professionally knowledgeable ones in this forum is:
1. The latest versions of the F16 are excellent multi role fighters but they are certainly not the most advanced.
2. The F22 Raptor is a stand alone as an air superiority fighter - unfortunately its cost and sales restrictions means that it is a non starter for countries other than the US.
3. Leaving aside the Raptor the Eurofighter Typhoon seems to shade its competitors in the air combat role.
4. The FA18E/F Super Hornet seems to have a superb multi role capability that makes it an attractive proposition to air forces which can only afford to operate one type, or as a back up to aircraft like Typhoon or Raptor which would be superior in the air superiority area.
5. The absence of the F35 Lightning in the more recent debate probably reflects the fact that the aircraft is not currently in service. When it is it may well prove, IMHO, to be the most advanced multi role fighter.
One thing that stands out to me is that no one aircraft can ever be the best at all roles.
Cheers
Including the MELCO radar in the F-2? Y'know, I thought it had a greatly inferior range, & was inferior in some other characteristics.
More advanced antenna, in principle - but that doesn't mean the back end is more advanced, & it doesn't automatically make the overall radar superior. Brick is a superior building material to wattle and daub, but it's still possible to make a wattle & daub house which is better to live in than some - indeed, many! - brick houses. Been in some. Former girlfriend of mine used to own a very cosy 400 year old mud hut in Hampshire, worth a lot more than my Victorian brick house - and easier to heat.
It's astonishingly naive to assume that use of a newer technology with greater potential will, by itself, make a product superior to those using an older technology. And "superior" needs definition. Please provide.
OK, some good arguments posted from both sides in the past few pages, and perhaps more importantly, it hasn't degenerated into a pissing contest.
My take on the argument is...
* F-16 - the best F-16 in terms of performance from what I've heard was the 'big mouth' Block 25. A friend of mine flew Block 15s on exchange and then flew a Block 25 on a delivery flight and was lown away by its grunt. Later marques have been loaded up with so much extra gear (pods, jugs, conformal tanks, antennae, more boxes inside etc) that they are now suffering aerodynamically and in the T/W game.
* F-15 - In later F-15K and F-15SG form, the F-15 will be an awesome jet. The Koreans chose it because it was the only contender that met its range/payload requirements, i.e. able to cover the entire Korean peninsula without AAR. The Koreans' close links to the USAF in terms of support and interoperability no doubt also played a part. Singapore had similar requirements so their competition produced a similar result. The Koreans' recent call for a new fighter is just the way they do their buying process - it doesn't preclude the F-15K and will likely result in that jet being ordered. There are currently two F-15Cs flying with APG-63(v) 3 and one squadron of F-15Cs flying with APG-63(v)2 (in Alaska I believe?). There are a total of 48 USAF and ANG F-15Cs funded to receive the (v)3, and Boeing is pitching to upgrade the F-15E with either a (v)4 (a (v)3 with some APG-79 bits added) or the APG-77 from the F-22.
* F/A-18E/F - There are about 60 Block 2s in service now, but only one suqadron so far with the APG-79 which, although showing promise in OT&E, is experiencing some software glitches. The remaining Block 2s will be retrofitted with the -79. The 140ish Block 1s will then revert to tanking, training, conversion, airshow etc duties and will rarely be seen in frontline combat units. The Block 2 also introduced some significant enhancements to the aircraft's avionics, cockpit displays, comms etc, all of which contribute to improving sensor/data fusion, i.e. the pilot's SA, especially once the APG-79 is online. Jet is very manoeuverable at low altitudes but suffers up high from lack of grunt - hopefully new EPE version of F404 will address this issue.
* Typhoon - nice jet, great dogfighter, awesome T/W ratio, baseline radar is about as good as a non-AESA radar can get, but very limited A2G and not what you could call multi-role...yet. As for being able to supercruise - this has only been demonstrated with two AAMs on board and could only be sustained for a limited time at altitude and I believe in high humidity conditions. Supercruise is not a requirement for this jet and, with any kind of weapons load on board, is unlikely to ever be used operationally. Once this jet's sensor/data fusion, DASS and other Tranche 2/3 features are operational, it will probably be a (still distant) second in terms of paper capabilities to the F-22.
* Rafale - again a nice jet, but somewhat underpowered when carrying a load. Its radar, data fusion and other sensor performance were quite advanced when under development in the late 90s, but there's not much recent information on how these have matured. More developed in terms of role expansion than the Typhoon, but still not fully developed yet.
* Su-30MK - Awesome range, payload and manoueverability/ability to point nose at will. Radar has a lot of grunt but very low reliability, no data fusion, steam-era cockpit ergonomics and functionality. In Indian service, anecdotal evidence suggests it requires three times the man/flight hours maintenance ratio than other types - will be interesting to see an MKM vs F/A-18D comparo in Malaysian service. Support from Russia used to be a bit suspect, but is said to be improving.
Cheers
Magoo
My take on the argument is...
* F-16 - the best F-16 in terms of performance from what I've heard was the 'big mouth' Block 25. A friend of mine flew Block 15s on exchange and then flew a Block 25 on a delivery flight and was lown away by its grunt. Later marques have been loaded up with so much extra gear (pods, jugs, conformal tanks, antennae, more boxes inside etc) that they are now suffering aerodynamically and in the T/W game.
* F-15 - In later F-15K and F-15SG form, the F-15 will be an awesome jet. The Koreans chose it because it was the only contender that met its range/payload requirements, i.e. able to cover the entire Korean peninsula without AAR. The Koreans' close links to the USAF in terms of support and interoperability no doubt also played a part. Singapore had similar requirements so their competition produced a similar result. The Koreans' recent call for a new fighter is just the way they do their buying process - it doesn't preclude the F-15K and will likely result in that jet being ordered. There are currently two F-15Cs flying with APG-63(v) 3 and one squadron of F-15Cs flying with APG-63(v)2 (in Alaska I believe?). There are a total of 48 USAF and ANG F-15Cs funded to receive the (v)3, and Boeing is pitching to upgrade the F-15E with either a (v)4 (a (v)3 with some APG-79 bits added) or the APG-77 from the F-22.
* F/A-18E/F - There are about 60 Block 2s in service now, but only one suqadron so far with the APG-79 which, although showing promise in OT&E, is experiencing some software glitches. The remaining Block 2s will be retrofitted with the -79. The 140ish Block 1s will then revert to tanking, training, conversion, airshow etc duties and will rarely be seen in frontline combat units. The Block 2 also introduced some significant enhancements to the aircraft's avionics, cockpit displays, comms etc, all of which contribute to improving sensor/data fusion, i.e. the pilot's SA, especially once the APG-79 is online. Jet is very manoeuverable at low altitudes but suffers up high from lack of grunt - hopefully new EPE version of F404 will address this issue.
* Typhoon - nice jet, great dogfighter, awesome T/W ratio, baseline radar is about as good as a non-AESA radar can get, but very limited A2G and not what you could call multi-role...yet. As for being able to supercruise - this has only been demonstrated with two AAMs on board and could only be sustained for a limited time at altitude and I believe in high humidity conditions. Supercruise is not a requirement for this jet and, with any kind of weapons load on board, is unlikely to ever be used operationally. Once this jet's sensor/data fusion, DASS and other Tranche 2/3 features are operational, it will probably be a (still distant) second in terms of paper capabilities to the F-22.
* Rafale - again a nice jet, but somewhat underpowered when carrying a load. Its radar, data fusion and other sensor performance were quite advanced when under development in the late 90s, but there's not much recent information on how these have matured. More developed in terms of role expansion than the Typhoon, but still not fully developed yet.
* Su-30MK - Awesome range, payload and manoueverability/ability to point nose at will. Radar has a lot of grunt but very low reliability, no data fusion, steam-era cockpit ergonomics and functionality. In Indian service, anecdotal evidence suggests it requires three times the man/flight hours maintenance ratio than other types - will be interesting to see an MKM vs F/A-18D comparo in Malaysian service. Support from Russia used to be a bit suspect, but is said to be improving.
Cheers
Magoo
Last edited: