Eurofighter Cost At 20 billion pounds and growing
- Thread starter DarthAmerica
- Start date
- Status
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #62
tphuang said:
Yes there is which is why I havent responded to the previous questions which are being worded to suggest that I was refering to "flyaway" cost. Thats why my figures ranged from 100 to 130 million USD to cover the range. As to which is more important, well thats obvious. And yes EADS would build in some profit as would any aerospace company.
LOL Darth you refered to UNIT FLYAWAY COST... for the JSF, thats not a system price..
Darth you seem to be getting confused with Flyaway costs and full system price, it would be best if you compare flyaway to flyaway because if you compare the JSF flyaway to the Typhoons full system price as you have done that would give the false impression the JSF is drastically cheaper!!.
System costs cannot be made like for like, surely you can even you see the error of this, all experts in the field and defence magazines know this, and that quantitys of weapons would squew the results one way or the other, thats why flyaway price is the benchmark used.
For those that are interested - 7% was the profit margin on Typhoon this was asked to be waived for the first export customers (I have no information/evidence if this was ever actually waived), the Tranche 2 negotiations were seeking a 10-20% cost reduction (once again the actual figure has not been released but the UK was said to be happy with the new price).
Darth you seem to have had a go at the Typhoon in lots of areas, citing vague sources that often contradict you..
Oh and re:- My websites information on AMSAR (I'm still awaiting the PM!!).
Cheers
Darth you seem to be getting confused with Flyaway costs and full system price, it would be best if you compare flyaway to flyaway because if you compare the JSF flyaway to the Typhoons full system price as you have done that would give the false impression the JSF is drastically cheaper!!.
System costs cannot be made like for like, surely you can even you see the error of this, all experts in the field and defence magazines know this, and that quantitys of weapons would squew the results one way or the other, thats why flyaway price is the benchmark used.
For those that are interested - 7% was the profit margin on Typhoon this was asked to be waived for the first export customers (I have no information/evidence if this was ever actually waived), the Tranche 2 negotiations were seeking a 10-20% cost reduction (once again the actual figure has not been released but the UK was said to be happy with the new price).
Darth you seem to have had a go at the Typhoon in lots of areas, citing vague sources that often contradict you..
Oh and re:- My websites information on AMSAR (I'm still awaiting the PM!!).
Cheers
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #64
JWCook said:
Bottom line on cost. Typhoon is overpriced 4th Generation fighter and offers far less capability overall when compared to the latest 4th Gens. And compared to the JSF not only is it overpriced by double, but its entirely outclassed. Even so there may be merit for a partner nation to purchase because of the industrial benefits associated with production. There may even be a nation with political reasons for not buying Russian or US like Saudi Arabia. But beyond that the Typhoon just doesnt offer the kind of performance that other less expensive types can.
Thats your opinion, and as I said before its a fine opinion to have apart from the obvious - i.e.DarthAmerica said:
It flys in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Contradicts every expert opinion.
Ignores the aviation press.
I am forced to conclude that we are in the presence of some one whos convictions are not swayed by the facts and [SIZE=-1]someone who's debating style is severely hampered by choosing links and articles which support the opposing view... Its funny really, its like masturbating with a cheese grater, fun at first - but mostly painful
.Here's a saying that I should take heed of in future:- [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]arguing with an idiot has it perils. It is very likely that you will win, but if you do win, no one cares. You've just beaten an idiot[/SIZE][SIZE=-1].
Oh nearly forgot to mention I won't be holding my breath for the PM.
Good bye:ban
[/SIZE]
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #66
Thats the opinion of Singapore and South Korea as well.JWCook said:
And I concluding that I am not able to have a different opinion that yours without being insulted. So much for professionalism.JWCook said:I am forced to conclude that we are in the presence of some one whos convictions are not swayed by the facts and [SIZE=-1]someone who's debating style is severely hampered by choosing links and articles which support the opposing view... Its funny really, its like masturbating with a cheese grater, fun at first - but mostly painful
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
I would say that if you look at all the other post you would see that rather that argueing. We discuss our disagreement to reach mutual understandings of each others points of view. Not one gets insulted.JWCook said:
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
I choose personal corespondence carefully.JWCook said:
Last edited:
darth and JW
you two need to stay away from each other.
this is like the "good old days" when pakistani and indian posters in here went ballistic at each other... :grab
agree to disagree and find other sparring partners.
you two need to stay away from each other.
this is like the "good old days" when pakistani and indian posters in here went ballistic at each other... :grab
agree to disagree and find other sparring partners.
Scorpion82
New Member
@DarthAmerica
I read nearly all posts of this thread and I now I want to give away my "2 cent" on that topic. I don't insert directly quotes from you but speak about some topics.
1.) Supercruise:
In the first post you doubt the Typhoon can supercruise at all, later you switched to "not combat usable".
Please tell me what the EJ200 thrust and overall fuel consumption of the Typhoon is at 36000 ft and above? Let me guess you don't know.
For sure the Typhoon isn't a supercruiser like the F-22A, but flies faster without reheat than any other operational fighter in service. As long as you can't come up with exact figures how long (or short) the Eurofighter can hold supersonic speeds of Mach 1,2+ I suggest you to skip the topic, instead of presenting your opinion as facts.
Only for info:
According to an industrial source the Eurofighter reached Mach 2 with external tank and at least 6 AAMs.
2.) AESA:
The most fighters is service are still using mechanical scanned array (MSA) radars. CAESAR as mentioned is an AESA demonstrator for the Captor radar. Maybe it's only available from 2011, but why should the radar be limited or more worse than other AESA designs. The AN/APG-63 is nothing other than a mechanical array radar, with AESA being retroffited in newer version.
But you state this radar as more advanced and capable as the Captor, which is a newer and more capable radar than the APG-63/70 series with MSA.
The Captor has already sufficient tracking performance, functionality and a high range. It fits the requirements for the moment and will be replaced with AESA in the not to distant future.
As you can't know about the Captor AESA production version capabilities don't allege things and present them as fact!
Additionally Europe is working on AESA technology since years and Captor as well as RBE2 and other radar systems will built on common less expansive T/R-modules. Also I'm sure the current AN/APG-63V2/3 are more expensive to purchase than the older versions, so what do you want to express with statements like "AESA will further increase purchasing costs"?
3.) Costs:
The 180 EF2000 for the german Luftwaffe will cost ~85 mio. € each (system price!). For the 68 tranche 2 examples the Luftwaffe pays ~61 mio. € per aircraft (fly away cost). So also the austrian cost can be seen as representive!
For the F-35:
Originally the US wanted to buy ~3000 JSF for 28-38 mio. USD each, and with total programm costs of 200 bln $. So what's fact for now?
~2000 aircraft for 45-61 million $ and total programm costs of 276 bln $. Can you guarantee the costs will not rise? No you can't and within such a short time the JSF programm costs has been risen by ~40%!
If you divide total programm costs through the number of aircraft (276 bln/2000) you get a system price of 138 mio. $. Ok we don't know exact numbers yet, but experiences of other project show the tendency that costs will further rise while numbers being reduced.
4.) Eurofighter VS Legacy fighters:
Sure from the technological standpoint current versions of F-15, F-16 etc. have many similar systems on board. But are they all equiped with the numerous systems as the Typhoon? Mostly not. Further more the Eurofighter stand at its beginning of operational service and has a lot of growth potential. Upgraded F-15/16 etc. have now similar capabilities to the baseline Eurofighter configuration (Block 5) but their growth potential is nearly reached.
So does Europe would have sticked better with another type? Hardly. Maybe the Rafale but no other fighter now has the performance (overall), growth potential and is currently available as the Eurofighter.
5.) The Eurofighter programm:
In fact the Eurofighter programm was started on december 16th 1983. Early studies were done, but that doesn't mean the aircraft was developed for 30-40 years. Further more look at when the USAF thought about a new fighter to replace the F-15. It was the later 1970's, but developement did not begun until the 80's. In 1985 USAF wanted the ATF to enter production in 1992. It actually entered it in 2001/2. The russians weren't even able to bring their MiG MFI or Su-47 to that standard and they are now developing a new aircraft the T-50. To sum it up, yes the Eurofighter is late and more expensive than originally intended but which new fighter aircraft isn't it too?
Scorpion
I read nearly all posts of this thread and I now I want to give away my "2 cent" on that topic. I don't insert directly quotes from you but speak about some topics.
1.) Supercruise:
In the first post you doubt the Typhoon can supercruise at all, later you switched to "not combat usable".
Please tell me what the EJ200 thrust and overall fuel consumption of the Typhoon is at 36000 ft and above? Let me guess you don't know.
For sure the Typhoon isn't a supercruiser like the F-22A, but flies faster without reheat than any other operational fighter in service. As long as you can't come up with exact figures how long (or short) the Eurofighter can hold supersonic speeds of Mach 1,2+ I suggest you to skip the topic, instead of presenting your opinion as facts.
Only for info:
According to an industrial source the Eurofighter reached Mach 2 with external tank and at least 6 AAMs.
2.) AESA:
The most fighters is service are still using mechanical scanned array (MSA) radars. CAESAR as mentioned is an AESA demonstrator for the Captor radar. Maybe it's only available from 2011, but why should the radar be limited or more worse than other AESA designs. The AN/APG-63 is nothing other than a mechanical array radar, with AESA being retroffited in newer version.
But you state this radar as more advanced and capable as the Captor, which is a newer and more capable radar than the APG-63/70 series with MSA.
The Captor has already sufficient tracking performance, functionality and a high range. It fits the requirements for the moment and will be replaced with AESA in the not to distant future.
As you can't know about the Captor AESA production version capabilities don't allege things and present them as fact!
Additionally Europe is working on AESA technology since years and Captor as well as RBE2 and other radar systems will built on common less expansive T/R-modules. Also I'm sure the current AN/APG-63V2/3 are more expensive to purchase than the older versions, so what do you want to express with statements like "AESA will further increase purchasing costs"?
3.) Costs:
The 180 EF2000 for the german Luftwaffe will cost ~85 mio. € each (system price!). For the 68 tranche 2 examples the Luftwaffe pays ~61 mio. € per aircraft (fly away cost). So also the austrian cost can be seen as representive!
For the F-35:
Originally the US wanted to buy ~3000 JSF for 28-38 mio. USD each, and with total programm costs of 200 bln $. So what's fact for now?
~2000 aircraft for 45-61 million $ and total programm costs of 276 bln $. Can you guarantee the costs will not rise? No you can't and within such a short time the JSF programm costs has been risen by ~40%!
If you divide total programm costs through the number of aircraft (276 bln/2000) you get a system price of 138 mio. $. Ok we don't know exact numbers yet, but experiences of other project show the tendency that costs will further rise while numbers being reduced.
4.) Eurofighter VS Legacy fighters:
Sure from the technological standpoint current versions of F-15, F-16 etc. have many similar systems on board. But are they all equiped with the numerous systems as the Typhoon? Mostly not. Further more the Eurofighter stand at its beginning of operational service and has a lot of growth potential. Upgraded F-15/16 etc. have now similar capabilities to the baseline Eurofighter configuration (Block 5) but their growth potential is nearly reached.
So does Europe would have sticked better with another type? Hardly. Maybe the Rafale but no other fighter now has the performance (overall), growth potential and is currently available as the Eurofighter.
5.) The Eurofighter programm:
In fact the Eurofighter programm was started on december 16th 1983. Early studies were done, but that doesn't mean the aircraft was developed for 30-40 years. Further more look at when the USAF thought about a new fighter to replace the F-15. It was the later 1970's, but developement did not begun until the 80's. In 1985 USAF wanted the ATF to enter production in 1992. It actually entered it in 2001/2. The russians weren't even able to bring their MiG MFI or Su-47 to that standard and they are now developing a new aircraft the T-50. To sum it up, yes the Eurofighter is late and more expensive than originally intended but which new fighter aircraft isn't it too?
Scorpion
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #69
Scorpion82 said:
Speak only for yourself. I do know for a fact. Let me tell you its measurable in seconds. As for your source, scrap it. Not only is that a BS(Brochure Statistic). But its not true in any operational sense. Eurofighter does not and can not supercruise any more than an F-14 could. And it is not the fastest fighter without after burner either.
Scorpion82 said:
CAPTOR is outdated and has cost the Eurofighter at least two potential export orders. CAESAR or whatever its called will be many times less capable than US designed AESA arrays in this timeframe. Again, stop assuming what I know.
Scorpion82 said:
Sorry but your data is incorrect. In 2012 the Eurofighter will not have reached the capability of year 2000 fighters in US service or in developement. Eurofighter is at the lower end of the spectrum when compared to ANY new or evolved US fighter.
Scorpion82
New Member
You are the guy who alleged Eurofighter isn't that capable, so not me or anyone else is in the duty to proove it, but you! In fact you can't do that so I suggest to stop alleging such things.
At least Singapore might be interested in AESA, but there were other reasons stated. Which one was else lost? South Korea gets an mechanical array radar (AN/APG-63V1).
Show me one evolved US fighter which is so superior to Typhoon and more important back up it. People say much when time is long. In fact there were enough persons already claiming Eurofighter Typhoon's superiority compared to the US teen series fighters. And I don't speak about a manufacturer saying that, but about air force pilots, from different airforces even the US. Even in it's current form with not all capabilities which will form the baseline.
Ah yes what data is incorrect and why?
Sorry you seem not be able to back up any of your statements and I strongly assume your opinion might be subjective due to national pride or something similar. No offence only a thought.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #71
I'm only responding to whats relevant. Everything else is just your opinion which is fine. But just to deal specifically with this one rhetorical quesion. ANY of the latest evolutions of the F-Teens currently in service is superior overall to the Eurofighter.Scorpion82 said:
By what criteria are you judging the Eurofighter? Its easy to nit pick at my post. But you arent exactly in a position to ask me to back anything up when
a. You havent singled out anything specific or identified your own positions
b. You havent backed up your criticism
If there is some specific reason you feel the Eurofighter is competetive against an F-Teen then by all means lets read it. Otherwise we will be running around in circles with opinions.
References:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/index.htm
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/index.htm
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html
Last edited:
Scorpion82
New Member
Ok so I will start at first with the hint, that I'm referring to the Eurofighter Typhoon Block 5 (basic configuration with austere AG-capability). I will add comments for further standards.
Compared to the teen series of US fighters the Eurofighter Typhoon has at first a more advanced design. Typhoon's aerodynamics, flight controll systems and even the engines and materials used are more advanced than that used for F-15, F-16 or F/A-18. Without doubt are the newer F-100 and F-110 engines godd designs, but they reached their limits, while the EJ-200 has a lot of growth potential.
The result of all the features is an aircraft which will outperform the 3 US fighters in nearly all performance areas, and more important combat relevant areas too.
Only the F-15 has the range advantage, but it's a much larger aircraft too.
Additionally Typhoon has a reduced frontal RCS. In a typical AA-configuration it's a bit more difficult to detect the Typhoon than a F-16 for example. Only the F/A-18E maybe competetive in that direction, but the Superbug lakes performance.
Compared to the US teen series the Eurofighter provides real STOL capabilities too.
The aircraft is also better maintainable than the US teen series, but to be fair the newer F-16 Block 60 should have some more computer supporter maintainance system as well.
Coming to the cockpit. Eurofighter Typhoon does not rely on paper checklists, as all the various checklists are available in electronical format, as for the F-22. Typhoon's cockpit provides VTAS controlls (HOTAS+DVI) compared to the HOTAS only US teen series.
Avionics of the Eurofighter Typhoon has in the baseline configuration all the systems US teen series fighters have in their evolved versions.
Navigational suit include for example LINS/GPS, radar altimeter, TACAN, ILS/MLS, DME-P, DMG and GPWS. At least GPWS is rare to non existent to the US teen series fighters currently in service.
Autopilot for the Eurofighter is much more effective than that of the US teen series which are only able to maintain altitude and attitude, catch up and hold heading to waypoint, terrain following in flight direction with associated systems.
Typhoon's autopilot will catch and hold speed, altitude and heading for cruise flight, including auto-terrain following. It will automatically to a locked target, fly CAPs, making auto-approachs (only Hornet can that too from the US teen series) etc.
Eurofighter Typhoon also includes full life cycle engine and structure stressing monitoring and recording systems (a feature that helps to maintain the aircraft).
Eurofighter self defence suit include ESM, LWR, MAW, ECM, TRD as well as deployables and is fully automated. The Us teen series is lacking MAW and LWR, mostly TRD too and these aircraft are only using RWRs, not the more capable ESM like the Eurofighter or the F-22/35 for example.
Also only using a mechanical array the Captor outperforms every mechanical array radar in service be it AN/APG-63V1, AN/APG-68V9 or AN/APG-73. And currently the most US teen series fighters in service are using such radars and not the newer AN/APG-63V3, AN/APG-80 and AN/APG-79. But these US radar systems are already available and some aircraft are using them.
However looking at the APG-80 is has not a better range or can't track a higher number of targets than the Captor in it's current form. But for sure AESA radars are superior due to agile beaming, multibeaming and all the advantages that result from this technology.
As you know Captor AESA is already under developement and testing. Already in the AMSAR project it was studied to use this technology not only for standard radar purposes, but also for new functions like radar warning, jamming and even datalinking is studied (the US studies such possibilities too). At all the Captor is still sufficient and will probably be replaced by a compareable or better AESA version. With around 1500 T/R modules such a Captor has more potential than AN/APG-79/80 with ~1000 modules.
And for your information Europe already fielded AESA radar systems in service, but only ground based and navale. Don't exspect "us" to be be that behind...
Eurofighter Typhoon is additionally equiped with the PIRATE IRST/FLIR. I don't know about the nearer capabilities of the F-15K's IRST or F-16E's FLIR, but it looks like they are not that flexible as the PIRATE (if only used as FLIR or IRST).
MIDS-LVT datalinks is common standard on all new western fighters, so no advantage here for any type.
Typhoon's Striker helmet includes HMD, HMS and optional NVC/E. The Night Vision cameras have a field of view of 40°, compared to the narrow field of conventional NVGs used by the US teen series. Even FLIR pictures can be displayed on the HMD and the HMD is already very HuD like. JHMCS of the US teen series fighters provides at least display and cueing functions, but will it be able to display night vision/FLIR pictures? Has a eye tracking capabilities as Striker?
The last thing in the avionics area I won't to speak about the sensor fusion and EMCON does the evolved US teen series incooperate? It's not that I couldn't imagine that, but I have never ever heared or read about sensor fusion for a F-15, F-16 or F/A-18. Maybe you have there other informations?
Eurofighter Typhoon uses sensor fusion as well as EMCON technologies similar to the F-22, while I'm not completly sure about the EMCON functionality in the Eurofighter.
When it comes to weapons all newer western types today are using highly advanced and effective weapon systems. To be honest the Eurofighter is currently very limited and not competetive in the AG domain. But that will change in the not to distant future. In typical configurations Typhoon will be able to deploy more weapons than the F-16 or F/A-18. Only the much larger F-15 has an advantage here.
So summing the short comparison up, I can't see why the Eurofighter Typhoon should be inferior to the US teen series.
And why in hell all military analysts, experts and also pilots confirm the Eurofighter as a superior platform?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #73
Scorpion82 said:
Again, dealing only with whats relevant to the discussion. Not that the other parts of your post arent informative. Its just that they are more akin to comparing creature comforts and preferences between BMW's and Benz's and arent a good measure of capability. But as you are conceding. THe Eurofighter is very limited in its multirole capability and in air to air it lacks a competitive radar. The US radars in the evolved teens series are by far more capable than CAPTOR in almost every measurable way to include range and that also includes the APG-80. In terms of payload the F-16 is about as close as the Eurofighter will get but to be fair I no longer consider absolute payload to be important beyond certain limits that my analysis says all major modern designs surpass. Never the less the F-Teens exceed the Eurofighters payload maximum and diversity by considerable margins. In terms of RCS the Eurofighter is most likely to be in the region of some RCS reduced designs but suffers from the disadvantage of a mechnanical dish which is not very good against passive or active detection. The F/A-18E is clearly the stealthiest of all these aircraft but down in the region where these aircraft RCS is and with external ordinance the differences are so minor as to be rough equivilents except when compared to AESA equipped F-Teens which will have superior stealth characteristics including RCS.
In terms of growth potential, you would notice that the F-Teens have evolved into the F-22/35. Also the F-teens themselves have the room for bmore powerful engines, more avionics and fuel. The UAE experience shows that if a customer is willing and wants an evolved F-Teen, the sky is the limit. And no one in the industry questions the superiority of a F-16 Blk 60 over the Eurofighter. The evolved F-15 has already proven superiority at the platform level to the Eurofighter as a multirole platform so I wont go into more detail for now other than to point you in the direction of Singapore and South Korea. In the case of the F/A-18E, well of course its the most advanced of all in terms of multirole capability and its a 5th Generation design thats continuing to extend its capabilities futher ahead. Your swipe at flight performance is ignorant of the fact that the Super Hornets roles are far more diverse and include carrier compatibility. Something the UK sorely regrets not having in the Typhoon as the ITARS controversy shows. So we can say the Eurofighter suffers from poor Naval fighter performance? Do you see where I'm going with this? The flight performance is a non issue as all of these types are designed for different roles originally with the exception of the F/A-18E which was a multirole platform from the beginning.
So to sum this up, all the Military Experts and analyst do not agree that the typhoon is more advanced than the F-Teens. I am one of those who disagrees if we are talking about over all combat capability. And within the scope of our comparison which was the evolved F-Teens vs the Eurofighter, even you conceeded the F-Teens are superior. The market agrees with that assessment as well. Of course feel free to discuss the more evolved proposed Eurofighter blocks. If some of the capabilities are realised it may be superior to some of the evolved teens by then but that will be because the US Defense aviation industry has moved on to the 5th Generation F-22, F-35 and F/A-18E and will be withdrawing the US F-Teens with few exceptions. So your evolved Eurofighter will have to be compared vs the F-22/35, F/A-18E and evolved F-15E variants.
Last edited:
Scorpion82
New Member
@DarthAmerica
Please don't get me wrong, I didn't conceded the Teen series to be superior to the Eurofighter, but that their multirole capabilities are currently more evolved. In fact if you compare the F-35 to the Eurofighter you will simply come to the same result. The F-35 is simply not flying yet and its technologies aren't fully developed. Sp what to do when you want to compare both types? Right you take the proposed baseline and compare it to the other platform.
I strongly assume you underesteminate the Eurofighter Typhoons radar. Yes the mechanical scanned array is outdated at all, but the Captor is still one of the best performing and most advanced fighter radars in the world. Captor is not early 80's technology as you claim. No doubt the mechanical array technology isn't up to date, but I get the feeling that you limit many things to to few factors. Air combat isn't a matter of radar performance only as well as overall capabilities can't be limited to radar and stealth only!
About Korea or Singapore that says nothing! You simply exclude politics and other facts and that seems to be your problem. You have to take a look from all directions.
About RCS of Eurofighter and F/A-18E say me what is their specific RCS from different angels? Again you reduce the topic to one thing the radar antenna. Only for your information Typhoon's radom will not allow radar frequencies to pass the radom except it's own as it is the case for the F-22...
The F-22 is in my opinion wthout a doubt the best AA-fighter in the world but it is also the most expensive and not that flexible due to its design.
Please don't get me wrong, I didn't conceded the Teen series to be superior to the Eurofighter, but that their multirole capabilities are currently more evolved. In fact if you compare the F-35 to the Eurofighter you will simply come to the same result. The F-35 is simply not flying yet and its technologies aren't fully developed. Sp what to do when you want to compare both types? Right you take the proposed baseline and compare it to the other platform.
I strongly assume you underesteminate the Eurofighter Typhoons radar. Yes the mechanical scanned array is outdated at all, but the Captor is still one of the best performing and most advanced fighter radars in the world. Captor is not early 80's technology as you claim. No doubt the mechanical array technology isn't up to date, but I get the feeling that you limit many things to to few factors. Air combat isn't a matter of radar performance only as well as overall capabilities can't be limited to radar and stealth only!
About Korea or Singapore that says nothing! You simply exclude politics and other facts and that seems to be your problem. You have to take a look from all directions.
About RCS of Eurofighter and F/A-18E say me what is their specific RCS from different angels? Again you reduce the topic to one thing the radar antenna. Only for your information Typhoon's radom will not allow radar frequencies to pass the radom except it's own as it is the case for the F-22...
The F-22 is in my opinion wthout a doubt the best AA-fighter in the world but it is also the most expensive and not that flexible due to its design.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #75
Scorpion82 said:
More evolved or better known as superior. What ever you want to call it as I'm not going to get bogged down by semantics. As far as the Typhoons radar it is indeen a development of the 1970's 1980's technology. It may be decent next to other mechanical arrays of its day but it is entirely outclassed now and would be a negative attribute today. AESA radars are the diefining feature of any modern fighter. Without it you are at an immediate and almost insurmountable disadvantage. Also the Typhoon's nose cone doesnt only pass the CAPTORs Tx. Who told you that? Its a band pass system and vulnerable within a very exploitable frequency range. I'm not underestimating anything regarding the Typhoon. Its simply not competitive next to the evolved F-Teens. Also Im not going to quote any RCS numbers because in isolation that would be meaningless. There are a great many factors to be considered and specific details are not available. I do know without question that the F/A-18E is both more capable and more survivable than the Typhoon especially against other fighters. US Defense Aviation industry has far more technical and combat experience with aircraft survivability and the funding to make the marketing claims and R&D a reality. Thats a fact.
As far as politics goes they play a part and are a valid consideration. If you are dependent on an external source for your spares and/or to come to your assistance in emergency then you better have proper interoperability/integration. Is Europe going to commit thousands of lives and billions in materials to the defense of South Korea or Singapore? No, case closed. But in addition to the politics the aircraft themselves, F-15K and F-15SG were superior and better suited to the customers requirements. Greater range, payload, diversity of payload, combat proven systems and much greater platform flexibility. Add to that far more advanced Radar/Avionics. Thats also a fact. Your making whats called category error with regard to the F-35 so there is no point in developing that futher except to say that your assumptions are wrong. Bottom line is that there isnt a single scenario where an evolved teen would'nt offer superior performance than a Typhoon. The only possible exception may be MH/FH but that remains to be seen for the F-15K and F-15SG.
Also your comment regarding the F-22 is incorrect. The F-22, just like the Typhoon, can carry external ordinance. Unlike the Typhoon though, it has an AESA which offers the potential for far more a2g AND EW capability. Also unlike the Typhoon the F-22 actually supercruises and can operate as a true stealth penetrating platform and is comparitively invulnerable to threats that the Typhoon would face. In a head to head comparisson a Typhoon would be detected by the F-22 at distances measured in the "hundreds of km" while not being able to detect the F-22 via CAPTOR until < 20~10 km. Enourmous difference.
Last edited:
Scorpion82
New Member
In fact you do nothing else than dribbling arround with the same nothing proving statements. I see there is no need to further discuss with you as you don't come up with some facts. Instead you alleging things repeating them again and again without backing them up.DarthAmerica said:
So believe what you want, it's your good right to do that...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #77
Don't lose your cool. Everthing I told you is true and if you are in the business or do the digging, you could verify yourself. Feel free to dispute anything I say.Scorpion82 said:
Scorpion82
New Member
Sorry Darth but bla bla neither impresses me nor convinces me or someone else. I tried to lead a serious discussion but you are not willed or incapable in doing so.
I came up with facts and some data, also it was only a slight approach. Your answer is
For radar systems the future definitely belongs to the AESA technology, which is without doubt far superior to MSA in capabilities and performance. But what does it mean for a F/A-18E or F-16E VS Eurofighter scenario? The Eurofighter will be able to detect and track the opposite at the same or larger distance. And as mentioned often enough AESA technology in Europe is more advanced than you might think. CAESAR was realized within 3 years ad is only the beginning.
And again how many F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 flying out there have AESA? Has the USN received a single Super Hornet equiped with the AN/APG-79 and fielded it? How much F-15s are flying with AESA except the 18 F-15C in Alaska? F-16E/F is currently the only US fighter fielded in larger numbers with the UAE using an AESA radar. According to my current information the AN/APG-80 has a low detection range than the current Captor and it can't even track a larger number of targets at once at the same time.
In terms of flexibility the Raptor will dramatically reduce its stealth capabilities if carrying external stores. Further more how much different AG weapons will be integrated into the Raptor and what tasks can fullfilled with Block 20 or 30?
But honestly I don't care what you think about Europes capabilities in that direction.
I came up with facts and some data, also it was only a slight approach. Your answer is
So please specify what's relevant! If you want to compare aircraft with each other you have to define what you want to compare and identify which parameters and factors are relevant for that and then simply doing it by analysing the available facts and data, maybe with some more knowledge you can also estaminate some things which then come close to the reality.
Not true but YOUR truth. Your truth is your opinion but that means nothing. You are free to express your opinion, but as long as you can't effectivly back up your arguments it has no value.
Typhoon's radar is still very good at all and AESA alone will not make an F-16 or F/A-18E a much better or superior fighter compared to the Eurofighter. AA combat depends on much more factors than stealth and radar technology only. Super sonic performance, passive target detection, tracking and identification are as important as self defence systems, SA and weapons.
For radar systems the future definitely belongs to the AESA technology, which is without doubt far superior to MSA in capabilities and performance. But what does it mean for a F/A-18E or F-16E VS Eurofighter scenario? The Eurofighter will be able to detect and track the opposite at the same or larger distance. And as mentioned often enough AESA technology in Europe is more advanced than you might think. CAESAR was realized within 3 years ad is only the beginning.
And again how many F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 flying out there have AESA? Has the USN received a single Super Hornet equiped with the AN/APG-79 and fielded it? How much F-15s are flying with AESA except the 18 F-15C in Alaska? F-16E/F is currently the only US fighter fielded in larger numbers with the UAE using an AESA radar. According to my current information the AN/APG-80 has a low detection range than the current Captor and it can't even track a larger number of targets at once at the same time.
Specify what's inccorrect in my comment! I have no doubt the F-22 being superior in AA combat to the Typhoon, but as mentioned at twice the cost and with flexibility. Compare current platform configurations or future ones, but don't compare Eurofighter now with the F-22 in a 2010 configuration.
In terms of flexibility the Raptor will dramatically reduce its stealth capabilities if carrying external stores. Further more how much different AG weapons will be integrated into the Raptor and what tasks can fullfilled with Block 20 or 30?
Back it up with some facts and data.
More experience doesn't mean Europe has no compareable capabilities. You seem to forget or not know about the experiences Europe has made. We were also fighting along with you in Iraq, Afghanistan or Kosovo for example...
But honestly I don't care what you think about Europes capabilities in that direction.
So come on prove it. What makes an F-16 Blk 60 superior and don't limit to the radar only.
The main problem was the desired time frame where different capabilities has to be available. Sure the F-15 is combat proven and currently more flexibile as the Typhoon hasn't even reached its basic configuration, but that will be in the not to distant future.
Do you want to tell me the F/A-18E to be a generation ahead of Eurofighter? In fact you probably do not know that in Europe the generation definition is another. Types stated as 4th generation in russia or the US are defined as 3rd generation in Europe. Logically you call F-22 5th generation in the US and the Eurofighter 4th generation in Europe. In fact both aircraft belong to the same generation at all, but then maybe some will define 5th generation with stealth only...
Scorpion82
New Member
Another thing related to the Captor radar
But to prove the oppisite of the argument Captor is a 1970's/80's technology radar show me a single fighter radar of that time including ALL the features of Captor I will list here:
- 4 servo motors for antenna movement
- data adaptive scanning technology
- modular design concept
- calculation power of 3 bln operations per second for the radar computer
- automatic selection of PRF best suited to the situation and operating mode
- interleaving of AA and AG-modes at the same time
- 3rd data processing channel (used in the Captor for much better ECCM)
- NCTR
- Raid assessment
- trace following
- 3-D picture generation of the airspace
- TWS within the FULL azimuth coverage
- SAR mapping with 1 m resolution
- automatic identification and priorization of targets tracked
The AESA technology is at least a developement of that time too. Ground based ESA radars where available back in the 1970's/80's. I don't want discuss the advantages of AESA as they are clear to everyone who deals with that matter.
But to prove the oppisite of the argument Captor is a 1970's/80's technology radar show me a single fighter radar of that time including ALL the features of Captor I will list here:
- 4 servo motors for antenna movement
- data adaptive scanning technology
- modular design concept
- calculation power of 3 bln operations per second for the radar computer
- automatic selection of PRF best suited to the situation and operating mode
- interleaving of AA and AG-modes at the same time
- 3rd data processing channel (used in the Captor for much better ECCM)
- NCTR
- Raid assessment
- trace following
- 3-D picture generation of the airspace
- TWS within the FULL azimuth coverage
- SAR mapping with 1 m resolution
- automatic identification and priorization of targets tracked
Will be interested to see what happens if the CAESAR radar is added to the Typhoon for Tranche 2 (for any customers), it is due to be tested in a Typhoon this autumn (fall). I can see the Saudi's opting for it, and any other export customers, as well as possibly the RAF.
As it was, the singaporeans were supposedly very impressed with the Captors range/ performance.
As it was, the singaporeans were supposedly very impressed with the Captors range/ performance.
- Status