Aircraft Vs Thread 5

[Temjin]

Anti-slip stuff for when you're walking on top of the intakes.

ah thanks, I was hoping something cooler.

[the white drew carey]

ah thanks, I was hoping something cooler.

That plane is so chock full of awesome, I don't think it can get any cooler.

[hobbes221]

That plane is so chock full of awesome, I don't think it can get any cooler.

Truer words were never spoken.

Man, I love that Grumman 'Cat!

Edited March 3, 2009 by hobbes221

[Nied]

I was under the impression a large number of F15s would be upgraded with active phased array radars?

Some will, so far only one or two squadrons have been equipped on an experimental basis. If or how many more is still up in the air.

I don't believe airframes make that much of difference anymore (unless they are stealthy ofc). It's information warfare that wins or loses air superiority. Hence my belief that pretty much any decent fighter would do well in a high-tech airforce assuming its equiped with the latest radar and missle tech.

And to an extent you are right, but in the end it still comes down to fighter vs. fighter, and in that respect an F-15 isn't always going to be able to engage an Su-27 or Mig-35 without occasionally getting an R-77 in the face. That something the USAF would (understandably) like to avoid.

[Shadow]

And to an extent you are right, but in the end it still comes down to fighter vs. fighter, and in that respect an F-15 isn't always going to be able to engage an Su-27 or Mig-35 without occasionally getting an R-77 in the face. That something the USAF would (understandably) like to avoid.

I forget, is the MiG-35 being built more for the export market or is it being considered for production and fielding into the Russian air force?

[Nied]

I forget, is the MiG-35 being built more for the export market or is it being considered for production and fielding into the Russian air force?

It's almost exclusively intended for the export market. The VVS has dangled the prospect of orders in front of Mig, but they seem pretty committed to the Su-27 and it's derivatives over the Mig-29 and it's brethren. Right now its one of the top contenders for the IAF's MRCA competition, and it's altogether likely it wont be built if it doesn't win that.

[David Hingtgen]

Is that an official term, or are you just re-using the term MRCA? To me, MRCA=Tornado, and nothing else.

[Nied]

Is that an official term, or are you just re-using the term MRCA? To me, MRCA=Tornado, and nothing else.

India apparently likes re-using acronyms from their former colonizers. They even stand for the same thing.

[Vifam7]

An excellent article on why the USAF needs to buy more F-22 Raptors : http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

An excellent article on why the USAF needs to buy more F-22 Raptors : http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force

North Korea, and Pakistan all now fly fighter jets with capabilities equal or superior to those of the F-15,

At that line in the first paragraph of the article, I stopped taking it seriously.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Vifam7]

North Korea, and Pakistan all now fly fighter jets with capabilities equal or superior to those of the F-15,

At that line in the first paragraph of the article, I stopped taking it seriously.

North Korea flies the MiG-29S which if used effectively could be a pain for F-15s.

The PAF flies F-16s and has on order Chengdu J-10s (deliveries to start this year IIRC). The J-10s are supposedly superior to F-15s (at least according to the sales pitch).

[Nied]

North Korea flies the MiG-29S which if used effectively could be a pain for F-15s.

The PAF flies F-16s and has on order Chengdu J-10s (deliveries to start this year IIRC). The J-10s are supposedly superior to F-15s (at least according to the sales pitch).

NK doesn't have any more Mig-29s than Serbia did, and they're likely in worse condition, I doubt their Mig-29s would give us any more trouble than the Serbian Migs did over Kosovo. While Pakistan now has Block 50 F-16s they got them from us last year and they would likely turn useless not long after some kind of revolution (we didn't sell them several years worth of spares like the Iranians). While the J-10 is a nice fighter it's nowhere near better than the F-15, most estimates (including one from the Pakistani Air Force) put it at as roughly equivalent to a block 30 or 40 F-16, and it's likely that the Chinese would cut off support for their fighters as well should an Islamic revolution overthrow the current govt. (they've got their own problem with Islamic radicals remember).

If you want real threats North Korea's IADS is more problematic to an F-15 (or F-16) than their tiny Mig-29 fleet, Iran with it's brand new S-300s and heavily refurbished F-14 and Mig-29 fleet would be a tougher nut to crack than that, and Saudi Arabia with it's large F-15 fleet, AWACS and new Typhoons would be a bigger conventional threat in the case of an Islamic revolution.

[miles316]

I thought the Pakistan air force just use F-16, and some chines knock off of the F-16. They don't use MIG or Sukoy fighters.

The US should just take the f-22 and redesign it to work with out the RAM.

That is what gives the air force the most difficulty in maintenance and repair which soaks up massive amounts of maintenance hours.

I know it is a cop out, but a non RADAR invisible F-22 will still have every one of its strengths with the exception of RADAR stealth.

A non RAM coated F-22 will still be a superior fighter to the current F-15 Eagle.

It will still have super maneuverability, super cruse, advanced RADAR, weapons systems. and cockpit displays/avionics.

The conventional F-22 will still be a superior plane compared to the MIG-35, Sukoy-flanker's which are the Russian planes the Air force says are a real threat.

Maybe that will allow the Air Force to wield several hundred in stead of the two hundred they are being allowed by the pentagon.

Edited March 4, 2009 by miles316

[Shadow]

The US should just take the f-22 and redesign it to work with out the RAM.

That is what gives the air force the most difficulty in maintenance and repair which soaks up massive amounts of maintenance hours.

I know it is a cop out, but a non RADAR invisible F-22 will still have every one of its strengths with the exception of RADAR stealth.

A non RAM coated F-22 will still be a superior fighter to the current F-15 Eagle.

It will still have super maneuverability, super cruse, advanced RADAR, weapons systems. and cockpit displays/avionics.

The conventional F-22 will still be a superior plane compared to the MIG-35, Sukoy-flanker's which are the Russian planes the Air force says are a real threat.

Maybe that will allow the Air Force to wield several hundred in stead of the two hundred they are being allowed by the pentagon.

While that would make the F-22 cheaper to build and maintain and despite its overall advantage in a fight over other aircraft. I'd imagine not having its stealth capabilities would make it far more susceptible to being taken down by anti-aircraft defenses especially the newer systems like the S-300. If this became the case then the F-22 would have a far more difficult time trying to obtain air superiority over a theater with it being constantly under threat from SAM platforms.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Shadow

[F-ZeroOne]

If you're after a less stealthy, but super-cruise capable air superiority fighter with good avionics and missiles... we have some Typhoons we'd like to sell you.

[Nied]

I thought the Pakistan air force just use F-16, and some chines knock off of the F-16. They don't use MIG or Sukoy fighters.

The PAF currently flies a motely crew of early model F-16As, some brand new Block 50 F-16Cs, Mirages (F-1 and 200 IIRC) and Chinese Mig-21 rip offs (F-7). They're about to put the JF-17 into production (a Chinese built off-shoot of a unused Mig design), and are in talks to purchase a handful of J-10s (Chinese Lavi rip off). They're unlikely to be buying any Russian fighters any time soon given the close relationship their arch-enemy India has with Russia. In fact they've already had trouble buying both the JF-17 and J-10 because both of those aricraft use Russian engines.

The US should just take the f-22 and redesign it to work with out the RAM.

That is what gives the air force the most difficulty in maintenance and repair which soaks up massive amounts of maintenance hours.

I know it is a cop out, but a non RADAR invisible F-22 will still have every one of its strengths with the exception of RADAR stealth.

A non RAM coated F-22 will still be a superior fighter to the current F-15 Eagle.

It will still have super maneuverability, super cruse, advanced RADAR, weapons systems. and cockpit displays/avionics.

The conventional F-22 will still be a superior plane compared to the MIG-35, Sukoy-flanker's which are the Russian planes the Air force says are a real threat.

Maybe that will allow the Air Force to wield several hundred in stead of the two hundred they are being allowed by the pentagon.

Lockheed was actually very careful to keep the level of RAM down to a minimum when designing the F-22, it mostly covers some panel edges and the leading edge surfaces. You can actually see it in some shots of Raptors fresh out of the factory before they get their paint, generally the areas already in gray have RAM. Besides as others have pointed out, if you're going to remove the RAM from the Raptor you might as well buy a Typhoon (just strip out the CAPTOR and replace it with an APG-79).

[miles316]

If you're after a less stealthy, but super-cruise capable air superiority fighter with good avionics and missiles... we have some Typhoons we'd like to sell you.

The typhoon does not have thrust vectoring, and is foreign built though I am sure it is a fine fighter.

[edwin3060]

If you're after a less stealthy, but super-cruise capable air superiority fighter with good avionics and missiles... we have some Typhoons we'd like to sell you.

...With a Mechanically scanned array, still none or minimal air-to-ground capabilities and having to deal with all the Euro-bickering? No thanks

P.S. I've got nothing against the Typhoon as an aircraft, I'm just really frustrated that all the politics surrounding it are hindering the development, when old aircraft like F-15s can get AESA, and Block 60 F-16s can Supercruise, and just about every other fighter has some LO stylings--- what does the Typhoon have that makes it better than those fighters I wonder? Not to mention that all the composites used in the airframe to reduce weight are going to come back and bite it in the ass 10 years down the road.

[Noyhauser]

...With a Mechanically scanned array, still none or minimal air-to-ground capabilities and having to deal with all the Euro-bickering? No thanks

P.S. I've got nothing against the Typhoon as an aircraft, I'm just really frustrated that all the politics surrounding it are hindering the development, when old aircraft like F-15s can get AESA, and Block 60 F-16s can Supercruise, and just about every other fighter has some LO stylings--- what does the Typhoon have that makes it better than those fighters I wonder? Not to mention that all the composites used in the airframe to reduce weight are going to come back and bite it in the ass 10 years down the road.

I don't know why the use of composites is "going to bite them in the ass." Composites have alot of advantages over conventional airplanes, including increased corruption resistance and greater durability. Its why something like 90% of the new Boeing Dreamliner is constructed out of composites.

If you want to see all these great improvements on the capability of the Eurofighter I have a really easy answer for you; money. Where is the money for further development of the Eurofighter? If it was there you'd see Tranche 3, and all those capabilities you want to see. Its not the politics thats the problem here, its that no one has the money to purchase the new fighters.

[David Hingtgen]

Composites have one huge disadvantage----when you have to repair them.

[Noyhauser]

Composites have one huge disadvantage----when you have to repair them.

True, but what is the likelihood of that? Damage for an air superiority fighter is rare; either its hit by a missile and takes catastrophic damage (ie airframe lost or limps home and is unrecoverable) or it misses. Its really not something that one expects to take a few hits here and there like a CAS aircraft.

Thats not to say stuff like this won't happen:

Edited March 5, 2009 by Noyhauser

[Bri]

<snip>

P.S. I've got nothing against the Typhoon as an aircraft, I'm just really frustrated that all the politics surrounding it are hindering the development, when old aircraft like F-15s can get AESA, and Block 60 F-16s can Supercruise, and just about every other fighter has some LO stylings--- what does the Typhoon have that makes it better than those fighters I wonder?

Fair question: the answer is that the Typhoon aims at a niche market: heavy air superiority fighters. Like the F-15 and the F-22 it has 2 engines, can carry a lot of internal fuel and support a heavy radar. Their avionics/software are purely geared toward it's air-to-air mission. These planes can fly caps for extended periods of time without refueling and their large wingsurface gives an advantage at high altitude combat.. The two engine design gives some redundancy when operating over water.

The F-16/F-35 are lightweight single-engined fighters. Designed to be massproduced light attack aircraft and frontline fighters. They are very good at air to air but are not specialised in it and lack the internal fuel for the long range missions/prolonged combat. Same goes for the F-18 and the Rafale who are dual engine but are low weight due to design limits for carrier operations.

So the Typhoon only has 2 real competitors (not counting the Russians). The F-22(not for sale) and F-15E derivatives. So which is better? The Typhoon is newer design, has super cruise and is more maneuvarable but the F-15 comes with a proven combat record and air-to-ground capability . Sofar the F-15 has been selected by Korea and Singapore, mainly due to it's better air-to-ground capability.

I think it's tellling that Japan considers the Typhoon and not the F-15X as a replacement for the F4s if they can't get the Raptor. Off course it's a political ploy to get F-22s but the seriousness of the threat leaves little doubt about the capabilities of the Typhoon.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Bri

[F-ZeroOne]

The typhoon does not have thrust vectoring, and is foreign built though I am sure it is a fine fighter.

Thrust vectoring is a possible future option, and from my point of view the F-22 is the foreign fighter... My point, though, was that anyone who wants a F-22 will probably want the "full" deal; there are other options available if you can live without fully specc-ed stealth, and as far as I understand the F-35 will be the primary Air-to-Ground vehicle for the US forces .

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Sofar the F-15 has been selected by Korea and Singapore, but mainly due to it's better air-to-ground capability.

IIRC, thats the official line from Singapore's Ministry of Defence (me from Singapore). We like everything about the Typhoon but the manufacturer couldn't commit to the air-to-ground capability within the specified timeline.

[edwin3060]

I don't know why the use of composites is "going to bite them in the ass." Composites have alot of advantages over conventional airplanes, including increased corruption resistance and greater durability. Its why something like 90% of the new Boeing Dreamliner is constructed out of composites.

If you want to see all these great improvements on the capability of the Eurofighter I have a really easy answer for you; money. Where is the money for further development of the Eurofighter? If it was there you'd see Tranche 3, and all those capabilities you want to see. Its not the politics thats the problem here, its that no one has the money to purchase the new fighters.

David Hingten is right--- and damage doesn't come only from enemies. Birdstrikes, flying through hail, bad weather, or just normal operational fatigue--- all these will cause more problems with composites than it will with metal. With a metal airframe, it is actually pretty easy to do NDT-- non-destructive testing-- which will pretty much tell you when a part will fail and when you have to replace it--and metals have very good failure behaviour. Unlike metals, composites fail catastrophically, which means you have no idea when it will fail, and when it does, the whole thing will fall apart quite spectacularly.

Also, composites don't always have better corrosion resistance or durability-- yes, they are not made of metal and they don't rust, but they face the problems of delamination and fibre pull-out, so it is really a trade-off.

Finally-- money still comes down to politics. Each country wants to pay the least possible, and half the European politicians don't even think that they should maintain an armed force. So defence budgets are cut, and the money dries up.

It's not just because of the air-to-ground capability that we dumped the Typhoon--- its also because of the AESA and the other funky things that we could do with the F-15, given our defence-technological links. Especially the AESA-- people just don't understand that generational leap in capabilities that it offers.

Bri: Actuall, the Typhoon is closer in weight to the F-16--- it is basically an F-15C crammed down into the size and weight of an F-16 . Also, the Typhoon is not designed to be a dedicated air-superiority fighter like the F-15. Remember, part of it's design requirements was to replace the Tornado as well.

The Typhoon may be able to supercruise, but AFAIK that is only with a light A2A loadout and then only at around Mach 1.1-1.3, which is just barely Supercruising. The Block 60 F-16s can supercruise as well, thanks to the thrust of the new engines, so really, supercruise is nothing much.

Otoh, Thrust vectoring is over-rated--- it is only really useful at high altitudes or low airspeeds, and when you use them in a dogfight you pretty much get creamed by an enemy who knows what to do-- just search around for last year's red flag involving the Indian SU-30s and how they got beat by F-15s in close combat. The F-22 needs them because it's operational altitude is much higher than any current fighter, the Typhoon doesn't operate that high and so doesn't need it--it is plenty maneuverable without it due to its low wing loading and canards and certainly doesn't need the weight penalties that thrust vectoring incurs.

Ultimately, I'd say that the Typhoon has greater potential, but that's because of the new technologies that it was built with. It is far from realising that potential, unfortunately. The F-15, and even late model F-16s and Super Hornets are more than a match for it at a lower cost-- which is why the Typhoon isn't selling.

[Bri]

The Typhoon is much lighter due to it's use of those despised composites. Compare the wingspan, volume and internal fuel cappacity and you'll see its closer to an F15 then an F16. Note that composite panels can be replaced and composites do not suffer from metal fatigue. The life span of F-15 was cutshort by that problem. (7000 flight hours versus 9000 planned I think it was, not sure, don't have the data at hand.) So there are advantages and disadvantages to the use of composites.

As for replacing the Tornado: It will only replace the airdefence Tornados not the attack version. The Uk and Itally will buy F-35s for the attack task. Many of the smaller European countries (mainly F-16 users) decided to go for the F-35 as they considered the EF Typhoon to be to heavy and overcomplicated for their needs a desire a more multi-role aircraft. The Typhoon like pretty much any other fighter can be turned into a groundattack version but was first and foremost designed as a air-superiority craft (see F15E strike eagle). It's the best pure fighter that is for sale but that is a very small market.

The US never considered the Typhoon, that was a joke by FZero-one to someone who suggested using the F22 without the maintenance heavy stealth material, which leaves you roughly with a plane similar to a Typhoon.

[Vifam7]

As for replacing the Tornado: It will only replace the airdefence Tornados not the attack version. The Uk and Itally will buy F-35s for the attack task. Many of the smaller European countries (mainly F-16 users) decided to go for the F-35 as they considered the EF Typhoon to be to heavy and overcomplicated for their needs a desire a more multi-role aircraft.

Hmm... that kinda doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the F-35 with all of it's stealth characteristics be more complicated and maintenance intensive than the Typhoon? And I can't see how difficult it would be to turn the Typhoon into a bomb truck.

The US never considered the Typhoon, that was a joke by FZero-one to someone who suggested using the F22 without the maintenance heavy stealth material, which leaves you roughly with a plane similar to a Typhoon.

Wouldn't it be funny (or sad) if the USAF was forced to buy Typhoons after cancelling the F-22? Chances of that happening is zero to nil but if the F-22 is cancelled and the F-15 Eagle line has closed shop then what?

[F-ZeroOne]

The US never considered the Typhoon, that was a joke by FZero-one to someone who suggested using the F22 without the maintenance heavy stealth material, which leaves you roughly with a plane similar to a Typhoon.

As it happens, I wasn't thinking of the US but those countries, such as Japan, that have expressed interest in the F-22.

[miles316]

As it happens, I wasn't thinking of the US but those countries, such as Japan, that have expressed interest in the F-22.

I'm all for japan and Australia buying the F-22 but the congress is not. I'm a pragmatist, and we the US will need a replacement for the F-15 Eagle's that are not going to be covered by the 200 F-22 the pentagon will allow the air force to buy. The last time the US military tried to buy a foreign aircraft (Airbus) for a military contract met with a massive s**t storm.

[Bri]

Hmm... that kinda doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the F-35 with all of it's stealth characteristics be more complicated and maintenance intensive than the Typhoon? And I can't see how difficult it would be to turn the Typhoon into a bomb truck.

The F-35 was marketed over here as the new no-nonsense standard lightweight NATO fighter to replace the F16A/Bs. It isn't so much a maintenance issue but more of a cost issue. The F-35 was expected to have the same cheap operating costs like the F-16 and have low unit costs due to its large production run.

I don't know if it's hard to develop an attack version of the Typhoon but why redesign a 80 million euro fighter for an attack role when you can buy a plug-and-play 40 million euro bomb truck with stealth? (at least those were early estimates of the F-35 unit costs).

I'm not to sure if the F-35 will be so advanced compared to a Raptor or Typhoon. Why would congress opose exports of the F22 so strongly but allow those of the F-35 without issue if their performance is similar?

[miles316]

The F-35 was marketed over here as the new no-nonsense standard lightweight NATO fighter to replace the F16A/Bs. It isn't so much a maintenance issue but more of a cost issue. The F-35 was expected to have the same cheap operating costs like the F-16 and have low unit costs due to its large production run.

I don't know if it's hard to develop an attack version of the Typhoon but why redesign a 80 million euro fighter for an attack role when you can buy a plug-and-play 40 million euro bomb truck with stealth? (at least those were early estimates of the F-35 unit costs).

I'm not to sure if the F-35 will be so advanced compared to a Raptor or Typhoon. Why would congress opose exports of the F22 so strongly but allow those of the F-35 without issue if their performance is similar?

When the US air force put out the contract for the joint strike fighter that Boeing and Lockheed were not not exceed the maneuverability and speed performance of the F-16. The Air force did not want to give the congress an excuse to cut the F-22. I do not know why the congress wont sell F-22 to Japan or Australia. Why does a bureaucracy do any thing?

Edited March 7, 2009 by miles316

[edwin3060]

The Typhoon is much lighter due to it's use of those despised composites. Compare the wingspan, volume and internal fuel cappacity and you'll see its closer to an F15 then an F16. Note that composite panels can be replaced and composites do not suffer from metal fatigue. The life span of F-15 was cutshort by that problem. (7000 flight hours versus 9000 planned I think it was, not sure, don't have the data at hand.) So there are advantages and disadvantages to the use of composites.

As for replacing the Tornado: It will only replace the airdefence Tornados not the attack version. The Uk and Itally will buy F-35s for the attack task. Many of the smaller European countries (mainly F-16 users) decided to go for the F-35 as they considered the EF Typhoon to be to heavy and overcomplicated for their needs a desire a more multi-role aircraft. The Typhoon like pretty much any other fighter can be turned into a groundattack version but was first and foremost designed as a air-superiority craft (see F15E strike eagle). It's the best pure fighter that is for sale but that is a very small market.

The US never considered the Typhoon, that was a joke by FZero-one to someone who suggested using the F22 without the maintenance heavy stealth material, which leaves you roughly with a plane similar to a Typhoon.

Yes it is-- I believe I said an F-15 in the size and weight of an F-16 --- it is also much much harder to replace a composite panel than a metal panel since composite panels are glued together and not riveted-- much more 'single-piece' construction is also used which saves weight but makes maintenance hell. Note: The reason why they cut short the life of the F-15 was that they detected the increased metal fatigue-- you have no such thing with composites-- the only indication that the composites are not performing as they are designed to are when your expensive 100 million dollar plane falls out of the sky for no reason. And, like I stated, composites have many other modes of failure that metals do not have, so you are basically trading one for another.

You are wrong about the Tornado replacement-- The Eurofighter was initially marketed to replace all Tornado variants, as well as the F-104G interceptors in German and Italian service-- If you look at the early marketing materials you will notice that some of them prominently feature missiles such as the Storm Shadow, LGBs and such. Eventual politicking pushed back the air-to-ground capabilities, which is why it doesn't have them now. In this way, the Eurofighter is more like multirole fighters such as the F-16 and F-18, rather than a pure air-superiority fighter like the F-15 (which is not to say that it is deficient at A2A).

[edwin3060]

I'm all for japan and Australia buying the F-22 but the congress is not. I'm a pragmatist, and we the US will need a replacement for the F-15 Eagle's that are not going to be covered by the 200 F-22 the pentagon will allow the air force to buy. The last time the US military tried to buy a foreign aircraft (Airbus) for a military contract met with a massive s**t storm.

Considering the problems plaguing the Eurofighter development programme, and the current problems with the A400M, I think the US is better off not buying from Europe! That's not to say that current US defence companies are doing well either-- other than the F-18E/F and G programmes, I don't think any other defence programme has come in on time and more or less on budget.

[miles316]

The F-22 is already a perfected design. We need a high performance fighter to take on the MIGs and flankers of the third world.

I believe their has only been one crash of a F-22, and that was during the early testing period in the early ninety's.

I don't know how many Typhoon and Griffins have crashed.

The only all American alternative is some kind of super eagle retread.

Does any one know how much heaver the strike eagle is to regular eagle?

[Ghost Train]

The F-22 is already a perfected design. We need a high performance fighter to take on the MIGs and flankers of the third world.

I believe their has only been one crash of a F-22, and that was during the early testing period in the early ninety's.

I don't know how many Typhoon and Griffins have crashed.

The only all American alternative is some kind of super eagle retread.

Does any one know how much heaver the strike eagle is to regular eagle?

F-15E Strike Eagle: 14,300 kg

F-15C Eagle: 12,700 kg

Difference: 1,600 kg