Eurofighter or F-15 for S.Korea?

[JWCook]

Responding to an earlier post that stated the EF2000's ability to supercruze as a decisive advantage over the F15K. i dont think it can supercruze operationaly, and if it cant do that, then it might as well not do it at all.

My apologies for butting in.

Mr Blizzard

What makes you think it can't do it operationally ? I'm curious?.

The figures I have is without drop tanks, with the present engines and a less than half fuel it can go M1.5 MAX, with a drop tank + 4 BVRAAM and two ASRAAM its ~M1.21, and is limited by fuel not by engine temperature.

With war setting or uprated engines this figure goes up...

What figures are you working on?.

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

" The aircraft is powered by a pair of Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofans, rated at 13,500 lbf dry and 20,000 lbf reheated at sea level, which is comparable to growth variants of the F/A-18's GE F404. The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance rather than cruise burn. Eurofighter claim the engine has a supercruise capability, although the duration of possible supercruise has not been disclosed. As the engine is technologically of the same generation as evolved teen series engines, expectations that it can deliver the kind of supercruise performance provided by uniquely designed supercruising powerplants like the US F119 and F120 are difficult to accept.

In an OCA/DCA combat configuration, clean, at 50% internal fuel (~6,500 lb), the Typhoon delivers a nominal sea level dry thrust/weight ratio of 0.82:1 and reheated thrust/weight ratio of 1.22:1 with a wing loading of 60.8 lb/ft^2. Both are in the class of the F-15A/C, F-16A/C, MiG-29 and Su-27SK."

http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html

That aint amazing if you ask me. If these figures are wrong then i stand corrected. Also, 13000lb is a small internal fuel load. For an effective operational range several external fuel tanks will be needed so an operational air to air load would include this. So the dry thrust to weight ratio's above would be negatively effected by the extra weight, and its effect would be exaserbated by the extra drag created, especially at high speed. I doubt the usefullness of the EF2000's "supercruze", the only really efective supercruzing aircraft is the F22 and its ability to fly clean is a big part of that.

 

[120mm goodness]

The Typhoons' delta wing generates lower drag in straight and level flight, especially in the transonic region, so less thrust is needed to go supersonic and to maintain those speeds. Carlo Kopp has an agenda to push the Australians towards the F-22 and away from all possible alternatives, so his opinion should not be taken as authoritative.

EDIT:
"What about... ...IR signature and RCS?"

LOL, I just spotted this, I dont believe anyone would want to try and claim that the F-15K has better IR signature and RCS than anything other than a 747

 

[Dave H]

The Aussie air article is 7 years old written by a chap called Copp who seems to be slated on these very same message boards.I suspect the data he used for his tuppence worth was even older so the capabilities of the Typhoon and his US comparisons might be underselling the various products. Im not sure how accurate his information is but He seems clearly to be against the Typhoon...why He is would seem to be more because He represents a particular agenda, possibly favouring american designs. Isnt He the fella who thinks the F111 is the be all and end all of strike aircraft and the vastly expensive F22 the only option for the Aussies?

Various factors will come into the choice. Cost per flight hour, technology transfer, assembly rights etc.

However biggest factor will be not annoying the Americans, They could and would defend S.Korea. Buying into UK, German and Spanish industrial favour would mean very little if thier neighbour turned up the heat.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

If you look at my previous posts i am also scheptical of Dr Kopp, however the numbers tend to speak for themselvs, and i doubt that his F111S/F22A plan has much to do with his analysis of the EF2000 as it was never a major contender. And allthough i do definatly disagree with his dogged opposition to the F35, that doesn't mean a man as knowlagable as him should be written off.

This article had nothing to do with the possibility of an australian purchase. God, just because he put foreward the evolved F111 plan (a bad one IMHO) no one will take any of his analysis seriosly. He may have an agenda in puting forward said plan, however does that mean none of his work can be taken seriosly???

How about these articles, all motivated by his agenda to huh?

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Sov-ASuW.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/subs-vs-air-power.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-ODS-Perspective-92.html

Discrediting someones argument because they have a sertain stance on a topic, that may not be directly connected to the conversation/article, when thier points are factually based and have evidence cited is no argument at all. Its just mud slinging. If you disagree with the analysis/information used then rebutt the factual analysis made by Kopp. If he's wrong then i'll happily admit that I am too. But just saying he cant be trusted and not dealing with the substance of his statements will not convince me.

 

[Ryttare]

" The aircraft is powered by a pair of Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofans, rated at 13,500 lbf dry and 20,000 lbf reheated at sea level, which is comparable to growth variants of the F/A-18's GE F404. The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance rather than cruise burn. Eurofighter claim the engine has a supercruise capability, although the duration of possible supercruise has not been disclosed. As the engine is technologically of the same generation as evolved teen series engines, expectations that it can deliver the kind of supercruise performance provided by uniquely designed supercruising powerplants like the US F119 and F120 are difficult to accept.

Static thrust at sea level do not convince me. What matters is the thrust at level at speed minusdrag and that decides the real speed. Getting these numbers is not possible, not here anyway. So we have to go for real life preformance. And if Eurofighter should lie about the Typhoons supercruise ability they would probably soon get caught.

The Super Hornet has been accused of having a draggy airframe and is as a naval strike aircraf tprobably optimized for for low and slow. That it has lesser chans of supercruise than Typhoon is not strange.

The engine does not alone decide the performance of a plane and static sea level thrust does not decide the engines performance.

 

[Dave H]

The second link about subs verses airpower is very interesting but I would suggest quite controversial particularly from a RAN point of view. I cant knock Mr Copp, never met the chap and Im only a casual browser of these boards...but come on...I know its ten years old...

"The Collins class submarine represents the state of the art in conventional attack submarine capabilities. Due its slow transit time and limited payload, it is an inferior sea control asset to tanker supported tactical jets. The submarine can however play a vital role in supporting air strikes, by driving shipping into kill zones, mopping up stragglers, carrying out Bomb Damage Assessment and by providing Combat Search and Rescue if needed."

"For the cost of a single additional Collins submarine, the ADF could acquire a squadron of KC-135R tankers which would allow the F-111 Wing to conduct sea control operations to greater radii than that of the submarine force, as well as make all F-111G aircraft Harpoon capable."

If thats doesnt hint at an agenda I dont know what does. However He may be correct, perhaps it would make an interesting thread?

Cheers for the links though, good reading.

 

[tphuang]

" The aircraft is powered by a pair of Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofans, rated at 13,500 lbf dry and 20,000 lbf reheated at sea level, which is comparable to growth variants of the F/A-18's GE F404. The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance rather than cruise burn. Eurofighter claim the engine has a supercruise capability, although the duration of possible supercruise has not been disclosed. As the engine is technologically of the same generation as evolved teen series engines, expectations that it can deliver the kind of supercruise performance provided by uniquely designed supercruising powerplants like the US F119 and F120 are difficult to accept.

In an OCA/DCA combat configuration, clean, at 50% internal fuel (~6,500 lb), the Typhoon delivers a nominal sea level dry thrust/weight ratio of 0.82:1 and reheated thrust/weight ratio of 1.22:1 with a wing loading of 60.8 lb/ft^2. Both are in the class of the F-15A/C, F-16A/C, MiG-29 and Su-27SK."

http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html

That aint amazing if you ask me. If these figures are wrong then i stand corrected. Also, 13000lb is a small internal fuel load. For an effective operational range several external fuel tanks will be needed so an operational air to air load would include this. So the dry thrust to weight ratio's above would be negatively effected by the extra weight, and its effect would be exaserbated by the extra drag created, especially at high speed. I doubt the usefullness of the EF2000's "supercruze", the only really efective supercruzing aircraft is the F22 and its ability to fly clean is a big part of that.

I believe Typhoon achieve supercruise at mach1.4 in singapore trials in its A2A configuration. Someone correct me here if I'm wrong.

F15K seems like a much better choice. The EF2000's ability to supercruize in battle loadout (ie not clean) is questionable, its range and payload are inferior and it is not a decent strike platform. F15K is still a potent AA platform, and would be a real handfull for a J10, aswell as the air to ground capability. I'd say F15K all the way.

I'd say that's a little short termed. They already have enough F-15K for strike missions. And in a couple of years, F-15K will no longer be the best A2A fighter in East Asia.

 

[jaffo4011]

i dont think that we need to do the typhoon v f15 thing again.its not a debate over their respective abilities.the only comparative aircraft to the typhoon is the f22 not a 30 yr old design as the last gen f15(tho i still love that aircraft!)

the debate is will they seriously consider buying a european design after relying on the us for so long?
if the japanese also go down the typhoon route its going to change the military geography of the region forever and upset the american applecart in a very big way....get ready for tantrums......

does anyone know who is the lead negotiator from eurofighter for the far eastern contracts???...britain germany?

 

[JWCook]

I believe Typhoon achieve supercruise at mach1.4 in singapore trials in its A2A configuration. Someone correct me here if I'm wrong.

It was M1.21 demonstrated. Supercruise was something the other contenders failed to do, and in conditions that were not perfect (eg temp).

The Supercruise capability is limited by fuel and not turbine tempreture/capability, I've seen this quoted, I'll will try to find the link.

The figures that are being bandied about are only part of the equation, (eg drag) the fact is it supercruises fine (even by the ever fluid US definition), with weapons and external fuel.

People can doubt it, I'm sure there are people who doubt the F-22 can supercruise for any significant time, (whats its fuel fraction compared to the Typhoon.)

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

i dont think that we need to do the typhoon v f15 thing again.its not a debate over their respective abilities.the only comparative aircraft to the typhoon is the f22 not a 30 yr old design as the last gen f15(tho i still love that aircraft!)

Um comparting the typhoon and the F22 is like comparing the F14 and the F104. Thyphoon may be an 80's/90's design, but it is still an expression of 4th generation theory, the same generation as the F15. And i have to say that the F15 family has some serious advantages over the typhoon, as dous the SU 30 family for that matter. You guys designed a 4th gen fighter (and not the most capable one around mind you) when the yanks were designing true 5th gen platforms. Sorry but IMO you missed the boat.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The Typhoons' delta wing generates lower drag in straight and level flight, especially in the transonic region, so less thrust is needed to go supersonic and to maintain those speeds. Carlo Kopp has an agenda to push the Australians towards the F-22 and away from all possible alternatives, so his opinion should not be taken as authoritative.

EDIT:
"What about... ...IR signature and RCS?"

LOL, I just spotted this, I dont believe anyone would want to try and claim that the F-15K has better IR signature and RCS than anything other than a 747

1. drag makes those equasions worse not better.

2. The typhoon was never a serious contender so the possibility of an australian purchase had nothing to do with it. If you cant argue the facts then dont bother

3. IR signauture and RCS are irrelevant in this comparison i agree, was just trying answer the question on what i think the typhoon would need that it doesent have. Although i forgot that its a 4th gen fighter. Two major things it would need to fulfull a decent cas role, low speed handling and loiter time.

 

[120mm goodness]

Um comparting the typhoon and the F22 is like comparing the F14 and the F104. Thyphoon may be an 80's/90's design, but it is still an expression of 4th generation theory, the same generation as the F15. And i have to say that the F15 family has some serious advantages over the typhoon, as dous the SU 30 family for that matter. You guys designed a 4th gen fighter (and not the most capable one around mind you) when the yanks were designing true 5th gen platforms. Sorry but IMO you missed the boat.

I think you're wrong on this, "4th generation theory" from a US perspective is based on their experiance in Vietnam and put the stress on high subsonic sustained maneuverability while diminishing the importance of supersonic performance.
"5th generation" fighters like Typhoon (and F-22) was designed in the wake of the AIMVAL/ACEVAL tests, which showed that exchange ratio's in the subsonic dogfight don't vary that much from 1:1 when everyone has all-aspect missiles; so quantity becomes more important than quality (which would obviously benefit the Warsaw Pact). The solution that the NATO allies developed during the 80's was the fire and forget capable AIM-120 missile, coupled to improved target recognition systems and datalinks.
Typhoon was designed as the "ideal" conventional platform to use with AMRAAM type missiles. This means that it is designed to be able to launch the missiles from high supersonic speed and altitude to maximise range and then turn away to avoid any missiles coming the other way, while maintaining as much speed/altitude as possible. Compare this to the 4th generation fighters which turn slowly when supersonic and bleed speed/altitude when they try.
Typhoon uses the highly unstable canard-delta because it gave them all the benefits of the pure-delta with regard to supersonic performance, while minimising or eliminating the problems of the pure-delta at low speeds.
F-22 takes that one step further and tries to avoid the counter-fire by not being detected in the first place, which is obviously the better solution, but does cost a lot more.

At least, that's how I see it

 

[120mm goodness]

1. drag makes those equasions worse not better.

2. The typhoon was never a serious contender so the possibility of an australian purchase had nothing to do with it. If you cant argue the facts then dont bother

3. IR signauture and RCS are irrelevant in this comparison i agree, was just trying answer the question on what i think the typhoon would need that it doesent have. Although i forgot that its a 4th gen fighter. Two major things it would need to fulfull a decent cas role, low speed handling and loiter time.

1. Since when does less drag make speed lower? The pure delta has been recognised as the best wing design for supersonic performance since the '50s.

2. None the less, Carlo Kopp is not regarded as a serious commentator by anyone I know. If you look carefully at his article (written in 2000), he makes no mention of AIMVAL/ACEVAL, no mention of AMRAAM. When discussing basic planform he damns Typhoon because it "probably" doesnt have the supersonic agility of the cranked-delta F-16XL/E which never entered service (while providing no figures to support his claim), while also damning it for having lower wing loading than the F/A-18 which will reduce it's low-level strike performance. This allows him to "prove" that the Typhoon is inadaquate; not good enough at air-air because it isn't as agile as the F-16XL/E and not good enough at air-ground because it isn't as good as the F/A-18 at low level strike. He makes no real discussion of the costs/benefits of supersonic performance and makes no attempt to discuss whether it is important.

This quote makes no atempt to explain what features of the EJ200 should make it incapable of supercruise other than a vague non-factual comment about "generations":

"Eurofighter claim the engine has a supercruise capability... As the engine is technologically of the same generation as evolved teen series engines, expectations that it can deliver the kind of supercruise performance provided by uniquely designed supercruising powerplants like the US F119 and F120 are difficult to accept."

I could go on, but really it isn't worth my time.

3. Glad you admit that the Typhoon has better IR and RCS than the F-15K )

 

[swerve]

...3. IR signauture and RCS are irrelevant in this comparison i agree, was just trying answer the question on what i think the typhoon would need that it doesent have. Although i forgot that its a 4th gen fighter. Two major things it would need to fulfull a decent cas role, low speed handling and loiter time.

You keep saying the F-15K is a better choice than the Typhoon, & citing (without any discussion of them) supposed inadequacies of the Typhoon to support that assertion, without comparing the Typhoons performance in those areas to F-15.

Can you please say why you think the Typhoons IR signature & RCS make it less suitable than the F-15, which is worse - immensely worse! - in both respects. Also the low-speed handling. Why do you think Typhoon is poor in this respect?

Loiter time I'll grant you.

BTW, S. Korea isn't planning to use F-15s (or the new fighter, whether or not its F-15) for CAS. That's currently done by F-5E & F-16, & is planned to be done in the future by A-50. And AFAIK they don't think long loiter time is much of an advantage, since they plan for operating in an extremely target-rich environment with an immense volume of ground fire. I believe the philosophy is "shoot & scoot".

 

[Dae JoYoung]

Could be a ploy. Koreans would prefer F-22.

Eurofighter is keen to break into Asia

The new requirement is being opened up to competition even though Boeing won a contract to supply the South Korean air force with 40 F-15Ks in 2002, plus 40 options. The F-15 was chosen over the Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Sukhoi Su-35, although the Rafale came out on top in the evaluation.

The decision hardened perceptions that South Korea is biased towards procuring US military hardware, and prompted Seoul to launch an open bid for the second phase of its contest. However, in a possible indication of its platform preference, the DAPA's K-X requirement calls for the acquisition of an "F-15 class" aircraft.

Eurofighter's confidence is based on its sales record and the fact that the aircraft has now proven its capabilities, says the industry source. Around 100 are now operational with launch users Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, and deals to export a further 90 to Austria and Saudi Arabia are progressing. "It [Eurofighter] is determined to break into the Asian market, and the fact that it had more representatives at the meeting than any other company shows how seriously it is taking this," the source notes.

Boeing and Eurofighter must submit their proposals for the K-X deal by 18 April, with a contract to be signed around February 2008 and deliveries to occur in the 2010-12 timeframe.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/20/212657/typhoon-to-battle-f-15k-in-seoul.html

Japan considers the Eurofighter

By Mariko Sanchanta and David Pilling in Tokyo

Published: March 18 2007 22:01 | Last updated: March 18 2007 22:01

Japan’s defence ministry is considering adopting the Eurofighter as its next- generation fighter jet, a potentially momentous move for a country that has until now only purchased fighters from the US, its closest military ally.

A decision could be made within the next six months, people familiar with the negotiations said, and the pro*curement deal could run to tens of billions of dollars as Tokyo is looking to replace 250-300 ageing aeroplanes. “We are looking at the Eurofighter, along with other fighters,” said a *defence ministry spokesman. “We are looking at all available data, not just American data.”

Military analysts say that Japan might be assessing the Eurofighter Typhoon as a ploy to press the US on price and access to highly sensitive technology.

Robert Dujarric, a defence expert at Temple University, said Japan would want the political insurance that went along with US jets. He pointed out that Singapore and South Korea both considered buying European fighters before eventually opting for US technology.

 

[contedicavour]

i dont think that we need to do the typhoon v f15 thing again.its not a debate over their respective abilities.the only comparative aircraft to the typhoon is the f22 not a 30 yr old design as the last gen f15(tho i still love that aircraft!)

the debate is will they seriously consider buying a european design after relying on the us for so long?
if the japanese also go down the typhoon route its going to change the military geography of the region forever and upset the american applecart in a very big way....get ready for tantrums......

does anyone know who is the lead negotiator from eurofighter for the far eastern contracts???...britain germany?

The Far East is still very much America's backyard when it comes to air force jets procurement. Though things are moving a bit. Seeing Anglo-Italian EH101s fly with the Japanese Navy (for a long time Seahawk-restricted domain) - part of an initial contract for 14 EH101s to replace MH53 and S61 - would have been unthinkable just a decade ago.
I think what is key is finding a regional partner to build under licence and eventually co-develop regional variants. If you've got a partner the size of Mitsubishi conglomerate, just to give an example, you do have a chance to beat the US competition. Though there is still a long, long path ahead to come close.

cheers

 

[Scorpion82]

Um comparting the typhoon and the F22 is like comparing the F14 and the F104. Thyphoon may be an 80's/90's design, but it is still an expression of 4th generation theory, the same generation as the F15. And i have to say that the F15 family has some serious advantages over the typhoon, as dous the SU 30 family for that matter. You guys designed a 4th gen fighter (and not the most capable one around mind you) when the yanks were designing true 5th gen platforms. Sorry but IMO you missed the boat.

You are defining fighter generations by technologies and capabilities right? 5th generation is only stealth, supercruise and bla bla... <-- That is pure marketing BS from the industry not more not less!
Aircraft generations can't be defined by technologies and capabilities though you can offen refer some technologies or capabilities to aircraft of a specific generation but it's not a must!

The Typhoon was designed at the same time as the F-22 to encounter the same threats (MiG-29 & Su-27 and future developements). The F-15, F-16 etc. were designed to encounter types like the MiG-21 or MiG-23. With encounter I mean being superior to these platforms.

That the Typhoon is not in the same class as the F-22 has 2 reasons:
1.) Different requirements
2.) Costs

Of course do the F-15 or Su-30 have advantages over the Typhoon, but they have even advantages over the Raptor in some areas! No aircraft is the best in all areas. You have often to make trade offs for other benefits!

 

[Thumper]

i dont think that we need to do the typhoon v f15 thing again.its not a debate over their respective abilities.the only comparative aircraft to the typhoon is the f22 not a 30 yr old design as the last gen f15(tho i still love that aircraft!)

But yes we do. Your inference here is that just because it is a 30 year design it is somehow inferior to the Typhoon when in fact updated versions of the F-15 clearly are not.

The Euros did a good job with Tiffy but the fact is it is just another 4.5 genfighter for which many of its advanced features are still in development.

Lets keep in mind that 30 years ago when the Eagle first came out there was no AC in production that even came close to it's performance. Lets keep in mind that 30 years ago the Eagle was light years ahead of anything else and the worlds AC manufacturers are just now starting to be able to come close to it's performance.

The Koreans are using the Tiffy as a bargaining chip to reduce the price and have AEASA thrown in. They originally wanted to spend 80 million and they wound up spending $110 million a copy.

Boeing should call their bluff, offer them the AESA radar and tell the thats the best offer they are going to get. If they don't like it they can buy the second rate, still in development, one dimensional (A2A) Eurocrapper and play games with integrating it in to the rest of their arsenal.

Before we go one with any claims about how wonderful Europcrapper is lets keep the discussion to what has been tested and is available within the next 24 months. No tanch, trench or whatever stories.

 

[Thumper]

Of course do the F-15 or Su-30 have advantages over the Typhoon, but they have even advantages over the Raptor in some areas!

Care to elaborate on that one.