Posted on 07/22/2010 10:08:30 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
FARN10: Eurofighter boasts Typhoon reign over F-35
Eurofighter has launched a new campaign to assert the supremacy of the Typhoon against the Lockheed Martin F-35 in air-to-air combat, describing internal simulations giving the former an advantage over a numerically superior F-35 attack force.
The campaign is aimed at challenging Lockheed's claims that the F-35 enjoys a 6:1 exchange ratio over modern fighters. Eurofighter also hopes to dispel creeping global acceptance of Lockeed's description of the F-35 as a fifth generation fighter that is implicitly superior to so-called fourth generation fighters, such as the Typhoon.
The challenge appears as several countries face decisions over buying both aircraft. On 20 July, Italy announced a decision to cancel a planned Tranche 3B contract for 25 Typhoons.
In Eurofighter's view, buying F-35s at the expense of fewer Typhoons reduces the air force's overall capability. Eurofighter respects the F-35 as a world-class fighter for the air-to-ground mission, but not as a fighter in the traditional role as an air-to-air machine, says Craig Penrice, a Typhoon pilot and marketing adviser.
Lockheed and programme officials have claimed that the days of traditional dogfighting are over. A promotional video released last year by F-35 supplier Northrop Grumman claims, for example, that "manoeuvrability is irrelevant" to a modern fighter. The video shows the F-35 can defeat opponents not with dogfighting skill, but by firing missiles agile enough to turn 180º.
Eurofighter, however, claims the F-35 lacks all-aspect, very low observable stealth, and is vulnerable to detection and defeat by non-stealthy opponents.
In an internal simulation series, Eurofighter found that four Typhoons supported by an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) defeated 85% of attacks by eight F-35s carrying an internal load of two joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs) and two air-to-air missiles, Penrice says.
According to Laurie Hilditch, Eurofighter's head of future requirements capture, the F-35's frontal-aspect stealth can be defeated by stationing interceptors and AWACS at a 25º to 30º angle to the F-35's most likely approach path to a target.
I maybe wrong, but I think the f-35 is a design compromised fighter, being designed by committee, rather than engineers.
It is going to be a big fiscal and military failure through no fault of the contractors.
(the F-35’s frontal-aspect stealth can be defeated by stationing interceptors and AWACS at a 25º to 30º angle to the F-35’s most likely approach path to a target.)
Now that is funny! Of course, now that we know this, the F-35 pilots will have the death wish of coming in at the required 5% window where they could be detected!
I’m not surprised by this. Look at this link and consider the vast differences presented between a true air superiority fighter, and a fighter that was designed to replace the F-16/F-18 in their multi-role capabilities.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml
The F-22 needs to be funded. We can’t rely on the F-35 to perform all the missions required of it and be as good in an AS role as well as a truly dedicated air superiority fighter.
On the other hand, if the F-35 is successful in consistently taking down F-22s in simulations, I might be a believer.
It sounds like they are comparing the Typhoon in fighter mode, with awacs support, over friendly territory, to the F-35 in attack mode, with no tactical support, over enemy territory.
Perhaps they should be comparing apples to apples. What transparent losers.
“manoeuvrability is irrelevant”
Famous last words,,,, didn’t they say something similar about a gun back in the early 60s?
“In an internal simulation series, Eurofighter found that four Typhoons supported by an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) defeated 85% of attacks by eight F-35s carrying an internal load of two joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs) and two air-to-air missiles, Penrice says.”
And that’s why you’ll need F-22s to escort F-35s in and out of hostile areas.
The Germans thought they had built the perfect dogfighter/light bomber when they built the BF-110. They thought it would be agile enough to dogfight its way into a target area, drop its bombs on the target, then dogfight its way out.
Spitfires and Hurricanes sent huge numbers of them to the bottom of the English Channel.
Moral of the story: multi-role aircraft are “good enough” if the other guy doesn’t have something better.
Did they not try to assert the same over the Raptor?
F-35 is a flying computer. The systems - and training and use of the systems - on board are miles ahead.
So - even if Typhoon wins one dogfight - the lessons learned are transferred from one JSF to another. Typhoon never wins again.
I work on the computer systems and it is frankly shocking.
JSF is a decent airframe, designed for ground support AFTER air superiority has ben achieved. But its advantages are not in airframe, or engine, etc. Its advantages are as an information system.
They are all great aircraft - but fighting JSF would be like fighting a Ninja.
Fair enough; but, what is the Navy supposed to do? There will be no F22s on carriers to establish air superiority in the first place.
“Simulated Conditions”
The F-35 pilot has been drinking because he found out his house is being repoed because the wife left and hadn’t been making the payments. He fired off all of his missiles before the dogfight “because he wanted to see some fireworks”... etc., etc.
The British Mosquito did everything the Germans thought the ME110 was going to do and then some.
IIRC it was both BF110 and ME110 ....one came before the other. Both names are technically correct.
“The Messerschmitt Bf 110, often (erroneously) called Me 110[2], was a twin-engine heavy fighter (Zerstörer - German for “Destroyer”) in the service of the Luftwaffe during World War II.”
I think they mean that anything more than 25-30° off-boresight allows the F-35 to be detected.
I don’t care what that says, it was the ME110. So was the 109, but they persist in calling it BF anyway. They were both invented by Willie M., it doesn’t matter who actually built them, the designer deserves the credit. ME110 and ME109 in my book, and so they were called by my WWII airmen relatives when I was little. The 110 was a big disappointment.
Whatever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.