typhoon vs f-35, who is win?

[Hummingbird]

According to what? It sounds ridiculous because there is nothing anyone can base that on. The F-35 is on paper a F-16. It's not short on wing area, it's not short on thrust, and it doesn't have to carry drag spoiling external stores (especially fuel tanks). It has better nose pointing ability than the F-16 (50 degrees AoA vs 25), a comparable usable top speed (1.6 vs mid-high 1.x, 2.0 if clean), it can supercruise.

 

Actual performance charts are not available, but I'd think they would be the only way you could back up the claim that the F-35 turns like the MiG-21. What public data indicates that?

 

The F-16 can do Mach 2.1, and is limited to this because of the canopy (one of the reasons that Japan went with a two piece canopy for the J-2), the F-35 can do a little over Mach 1.6 but is limited to 1.6 also by the canopy. The shape and new stealth materials apparently don't handle the friction generated heat that well.

 

As for WVR, keep in mind that if the F-35 is to be able to out turn the F-16C then it will first have to be able to outturn the F-15C, and I really don't see that happening.

 

The only advantage I see the F-35 have in a WVR fight against the F-16 is its high alpha capability, but the F-35 will loose speed extremely fast if it tries to immediately pull 50 AoA, and its really of very limited use if the fight starts out head on.

 

As such I think it's pretty clear that the EF would eat the F-35 for lunch in a WVR fight, as the EF out turns, out climbs & out accelerates all of the legacy fighters, and according to the LW holds an even steven record against the thrust vectored F-22.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Hummingbird

[StrongHarm]

What public data indicates that?

 

Why, the news media clearly reports the 'truth' of the F-35.. the same media that believes 'Evil Defense Spending' brings down the quality of school lunches and beats elderly people with croquet mallets.

 

In reality the F-35 would have to call for backup against the Typhoon.. they'd request an F-4 Phantom to take it out.. so they could go pick on someone their own size.

 

Only the parts made by BAE would actually function, and that wouldn't be enough to save it. It's like putting a Fiat engine in a Jaguar and running it on French biofuel. It would look great.. but you wouldn't want to actually drive it.

[Hummingbird]

Why, the news media clearly reports the 'truth' of the F-35.. the same media that believes 'Evil Defense Spending' brings down the quality of school lunches and beats elderly people with croquet mallets.

 

In reality the F-35 would have to call for backup against the Typhoon.. they'd request an F-4 Phantom to take it out.. so they could go pick on someone their own size.

 

Only the parts made by BAE would actually function, and that wouldn't be enough to save it. It's like putting a Fiat engine in a Jaguar and running it on French biofuel. It would look great.. but you wouldn't want to actually drive it.

 

Welcome to the other side of the ridiculous spectrum gents :doh:

[Tirak]

The F-16 can do Mach 2.1, and is limited to this because of the canopy (one of the reasons that Japan went with a two piece canopy for the J-2), the F-35 can do a little over Mach 1.6 but is limited to 1.6 also by the canopy. The shape and new stealth materials apparently don't handle the friction generated heat that well.

 

As for WVR, keep in mind that if the F-35 is to be able to out turn the F-16C then it will first have to be able to outturn the F-15C, and I really don't see that happening.

 

The only advantage I see the F-35 have in a WVR fight against the F-16 is its high alpha capability, but the F-35 will loose speed extremely fast if it tries to immediately pull 50 AoA, and its really of very limited use if the fight starts out head on.

 

As such I think it's pretty clear that the EF would eat the F-35 for lunch in a WVR fight, as the EF out turns, out climbs & out accelerates all of the legacy fighters, and according to the LW holds an even steven record against the thrust vectored F-22.

 

The Japanese went with a 2 piece canopy because of bird strike regulations and the fact that the F-2's ground attack mission is much more heavily emphasized than the F-16, making a stronger canopy more important. And the moment you hang anything on the wing of an F-16 it's speed drops to around Mach 1.6, that's why the F-35 was designed with that limit in mind, because functionally it made it comparable to a combat kitted F-16.

 

Where are you getting your info about the stealth materials reacting poorly to heat and friction?

 

While I agree that the EF-2000 eats a stealth configured F-35 for lunch in WVR, I'm not so convinced once you give it sidewinders, which by the way, the new AIM-9Xs are capable of being linked to aircraft sensors, allowing them to be carried internally and exposed only for firing, as opposed to previous generation sidewinders, that needed to be exposed to gain a lock. That could mean that it's only a matter of time before the internal bays are configured to allow mounting of AIM-9X internally, instead of just on external rails. Once that happens, well 360 degree awareness goes a hell of a long way with a HOBS missile.

 

The Eurofighter has superiority in a gunfight, but the F-35 is small, can bring the nose around just as hard, and has vastly superior situational awareness. With close range missiles fitted, the F-35 isn't bully'd so easily. Without them, well the Eurofighter is quite obviously a superior gunfighter.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Tirak

[Hummingbird]

The Japanese went with a 2 piece canopy because of bird strike regulations and the fact that the F-2's ground attack mission is much more heavily emphasized than the F-16, making a stronger canopy more important. And the moment you hang anything on the wing of an F-16 it's speed drops to around Mach 1.6, that's why the F-35 was designed with that limit in mind, because functionally it made it comparable to a combat kitted F-16.

 

Again that is just another one of the reasons, the other is the known delamination issues with the original single piece bubble canopy above Mach 2.1, hence the limitation.

 

Where are you getting your info about the stealth materials reacting poorly to heat and friction?

 

From an article qouting several issues raised in a report, incl. the delamination of the canopy and even issues with the airframe stealth coating coming off during high alt high speed flight.

 

While I agree that the EF-2000 eats a stealth configured F-35 for lunch in WVR, I'm not so convinced once you give it sidewinders, which by the way, the new AIM-9Xs are capable of being linked to aircraft sensors, allowing them to be carried internally and exposed only for firing, as opposed to previous generation sidewinders, that needed to be exposed to gain a lock. That could mean that it's only a matter of time before the internal bays are configured to allow mounting of AIM-9X internally, instead of just on external rails. Once that happens, well 360 degree awareness goes a hell of a long way with a HOBS missile.

 

The Eurofighter has superiority in a gunfight, but the F-35 is small, can bring the nose around just as hard, and has vastly superior situational awareness. With close range missiles fitted, the F-35 isn't bully'd so easily. Without them, well the Eurofighter is quite obviously a superior gunfighter.

 

Well it all might come down to the gun if countermeasures become effective enough to rule out missiles, and in that case the EF's superior agility will prove crucial.

[Tirak]

Again that is just another one of the reasons, the other is the known delamination issues with the original single piece bubble canopy above Mach 2.1, hence the limitation.

 

And yet the F-2's maximum speed is still Mach 2, funny that.

[Hummingbird]

And yet the F-2's maximum speed is still Mach 2, funny that.

 

Sure, but that's because it's a bigger aircraft. However it is still able to go faster (in a shallow dive for example) without fear of its canopy experiencing delamination.

 

Edited June 1, 2015 by Hummingbird

[StrongHarm]

I don't know about the Typhoon winning a gun fight. The BK-27 is 1700rpm and the GAU-22 is 4200rpm... not to mention the 100% situational awareness and "other" superior avionics.

 

Aviatia gives the fight a 50-50 chance. Based on a number of factors.

 

Operability and quality would tip the balance, and I'd put my money on Lockheed Martin.. they have more experience building for this envelope. Hell, with projects like the F-4, F-16, F-117, C-130, and the absolutely amazing U-2 (still nothing better after 58 years).. I'd bet on them against just about any manufacturer.

 

As I said in my last post the Typhoon is a "Jaguar with a Fiat engine running on French biofuel" .. that's a serious identity crisis.

Still, the Euro fighter is a 'nice' idea...

but so was the Euro monetary note.

[Hummingbird]

A Jaguar with a Fiat engine running on French biofuel? Hahaha :D

 

In that case more aircraft should do that combination as the EF is punching in at Mach 2.35 with the ability to supercruise and probably the highest climb rate of any current fighter.

 

Also considering that the EF is holding even with the F-22 in mock fights, I'd say the F-35 is in for a serious beating if the fight ever becomes WVR.

 

Finally regarding the guns, remember that the GAU needs time to spool up, where'as the BK-27 instantly shoots at 1700 rpm, and it fires a larger round as well.

[Hummingbird]

The fact that the EF can be kitted out accordingly is also a big plus in my book:

 

Yes, that's 4x 2,000 lbs GBU's, 4x AMRAAMS, 2x IRIS-T IR AAMs & 3x 2,000 liter drop tanks.

[Tirak]

The delamination isn't going to be a factor for brief dives, it's a sustained performance issue. If the delamination were an important factor in making the decision, the F-2 would have to be able to consistently hit and exceed the speed in which delamination occurred. It does not, therefore considering it an important factor in the design is frankly more than a little suspect. It was standing safety requirements that were the important factor in the two piece canopy, not an out of operational limits requirement.

 

@Harm

As to the Eurofighter as a gunfighter vs the F-35: While the situational awareness aid to the F-35 pilot is huge, and in a short range missile engagement would open up things mightily to an F-35 pilot, I really don't think it's reasonable to say that the F-35 would hold its own in a guns only dogfight against a Eurofighter. The Eurofighter's canard design is specifically set up to allow it to hit high AoAs, as opposed to the Rafael's which is meant for better sustained turn performance, and you cannot ignore the amount of oompf the engines put out. It does outclimb the F-35, and it can outrun the F-35, and I'm willing to bet that it can hold a sustained turn better than the F-35. The F-35 can match the Eurofighter's turns in short bursts, enough to get set for a HOBS missile shot, but enough to set up for a guns kill shot? I think that 8 out of 10 gun engagements starting from Neutral go in favor of the Eurofighter. The other two engagments only because the F-35 is quite small and because the Eurofighter pilot has less SA than the F-35 pilot, it's reasonable to believe he could lose track and get taken advantage of.

 

As to the weapons pic: That's cute, but the F-35 can meet and exceed that. With upcoming upgrades it'll be packing 6 AMRAAMs internally, it can mount 4 2,000lb JDAMS on wing hardpoints, and tack on a pair of AIM-9Xs on the wingtip pylons.

[Hummingbird]

The delamination isn't going to be a factor for brief dives, it's a sustained performance issue. If the delamination were an important factor in making the decision, the F-2 would have to be able to consistently hit and exceed the speed in which delamination occurred. It does not, therefore considering it an important factor in the design is frankly more than a little suspect. It was standing safety requirements that were the important factor in the two piece canopy, not an out of operational limits requirement.

 

Mach 2.0 will quite easily be exceeded in a dive, hence it is not a non-issue.

 

 

As to the weapons pic: That's cute, but the F-35 can meet and exceed that. With upcoming upgrades it'll be packing 6 AMRAAMs internally, it can mount 4 2,000lb JDAMS on wing hardpoints, and tack on a pair of AIM-9Xs on the wingtip pylons.

 

Cute? :megalol:

 

Tirak the EF can mount 6x 2,000 lbs bombs and still carry 4x AMRAAMs and 2x IRIS-T's plus a 2,000 liter centerline fuel tank. If that's cute by your standards, then the F-35 must be like my little pony for you :D

[StrongHarm]

Well, you might be right. If the F-35 has handicaps imposed like the F-22 did against a Typhoon, I'm sure that every kid on the playground will feel good about themselves.. but if the gloves came off that Typhoon might find itself feeling a bit like 435 Iraqi MIGs.. a little 'down'.

 

You think the GAU would loose because it 'takes time to spool up'?

 

I guess it depends on how much grease is on the crank handle hehe

 

[Tirak]

Well, you might be right. If the F-35 has handicaps imposed like the F-22 did against a Typhoon, I'm sure that every kid on the playground will feel good about themselves.. but if the gloves came off that Typhoon might find itself feeling a bit like 435 Iraqi MIGs.. a little 'down'.

 

You think the GAU would loose because it 'takes time to spool up'?

 

I guess it depends on how much grease is on the crank handle hehe

 

 

Well we were talking purely gunfight here. You really can't deny the advantage the Eurofighter has in that envelope. Toss in AIM-9X and that equation goes out the window, and go BVR, and frankly even the Typhoon guys had to admit when they fought Raptors BVR they stood no chance, and BVR the F-35 is a baby Raptor.

 

RE: Cute: well since we're gonna do the weapon swinging contest :megalol: Well if we kit out, we've got 2 AIM-9X, 6 2000lbs JDAMS and 2 AMRAAMs. The F-35 doesn't need nor does it use a drop tank for combat operations. Not bad for a plane with half the engines :thumbup:

[StrongHarm]

http://www.aviatia.net/versus/eurofighter-vs-f35/ 50-50 probability (based on declassified information)

http://www.aviatia.net/versus/eurofighter-vs-f-22/ 9% margin to F-22 (based on declassified information)

[Tirak]

http://www.aviatia.net/versus/eurofighter-vs-f35/ 50-50 probability (based on declassified information)

http://www.aviatia.net/versus/eurofighter-vs-f-22/ 9% margin to F-22 (based on declassified information)

 

I'm not sure how much faith I'd place in it. For one thing it's wrong about the Eurofighter being cheaper, which means it's information if nothing else is out of date.

 

I fail to see how specific cannon armament would be an important factor when both carry so little ammunition in the first place...

[Exorcet]

The F-16 can do Mach 2.1, and is limited to this because of the canopy (one of the reasons that Japan went with a two piece canopy for the J-2), the F-35 can do a little over Mach 1.6 but is limited to 1.6 also by the canopy. The shape and new stealth materials apparently don't handle the friction generated heat that well.

Well the clean performance isn't that crucial given that in that case the F-16 is about as effective as a C-130. I listed it, well, just because. The F-16 is sub 2.0 with weapons.

 

As for WVR, keep in mind that if the F-35 is to be able to out turn the F-16C then it will first have to be able to outturn the F-15C, and I really don't see that happening.

Well yes, the 16 out turns the 15. I can't say what the 35 does based on public data because public data doesn't exist. I can compare it to the F-16 and see that it is very, very similar in a number of ways.

 

The only advantage I see the F-35 have in a WVR fight against the F-16 is its high alpha capability, but the F-35 will loose speed extremely fast if it tries to immediately pull 50 AoA, and its really of very limited use if the fight starts out head on.

I agree on instantly pulling high AoA, I picked it out because it's a constant figure and one of the figures that is actually available.

 

As such I think it's pretty clear that the EF would eat the F-35 for lunch in a WVR fight, as the EF out turns, out climbs & out accelerates all of the legacy fighters, and according to the LW holds an even steven record against the thrust vectored F-22.

It can't out turn AIM-9's/ASRAAM. The EF beats the F-35 in maneuverability, but that does not assure it a victory in WVR.

 

For the record I want it to be made clear that I haven't picked a "winner" in this thread at all. It could certainly be a close fight, but I do not consider the EF's superior flight performance to be a golden bullet. For that matter I wouldn't even say that the F-22 could hands down beat the F-35.

 

The fact that the EF can be kitted out accordingly is also a big plus in my book:

 

....

 

Yes, that's 4x 2,000 lbs GBU's, 4x AMRAAMS, 2x IRIS-T IR AAMs & 3x 2,000 liter drop tanks.

Well I suppose the other dimensions to this comparison besides plane vs plane hasn't been looked at, but the EF holds no advantage here.

 

Replace internal bombs with AMRAAM as necessary. Don't forget than the F-35 carries a very high fuel fraction. I have seen conflicting info on the EF's fuel load, but early on I heard terms like "short-legged" tossed around. Not so much in recent years. It does have conformal tanks though and to my knowledge there is a claim of supercruise even with external weapons. The stealth is a big factor in why the F-35 stands a chance, the EF is your better classic fighter.

 

I would have to say though that EF vs Red force compared to F-35 vs Red force is another good debate given that there can be more than one way to skin a cat. The EF does not provide a price advantage over the F-35 though.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Exorcet

[Hummingbird]

Well the clean performance isn't that crucial given that in that case the F-16 is about as effective as a C-130. I listed it, well, just because. The F-16 is sub 2.0 with weapons.

 

Well yes, the 16 out turns the 15. I can't say what the 35 does based on public data because public data doesn't exist. I can compare it to the F-16 and see that it is very, very similar in a number of ways.

 

I agree on instantly pulling high AoA, I picked it out because it's a constant figure and one of the figures that is actually available.

 

It can't out turn AIM-9's/ASRAAM. The EF beats the F-35 in maneuverability, but that does not assure it a victory in WVR.

 

For the record I want it to be made clear that I haven't picked a "winner" in this thread at all. It could certainly be a close fight, but I do not consider the EF's superior flight performance to be a golden bullet. For that matter I wouldn't even say that the F-22 could hands down beat the F-35.

 

 

Well I suppose the other dimensions to this comparison besides plane vs plane hasn't been looked at, but the EF holds no advantage here.

 

Replace internal bombs with AMRAAM as necessary. Don't forget than the F-35 carries a very high fuel fraction. I have seen conflicting info on the EF's fuel load, but early on I heard terms like "short-legged" tossed around. Not so much in recent years. It does have conformal tanks though and to my knowledge there is a claim of supercruise even with external weapons. The stealth is a big factor in why the F-35 stands a chance, the EF is your better classic fighter.

 

I would have to say though that EF vs Red force compared to F-35 vs Red force is another good debate given that there can be more than one way to skin a cat. The EF does not provide a price advantage over the F-35 though.

 

Hang on, please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that 6x 1,000 lbs bombs + 2x AMRAAMs + 2x AIM-9s ?

 

By comparison the EF can carry 6x 2,000 lbs bombs + 4x AMRAAMs + 2x IRIS-Ts + 1× 2,000 liter CFT

[Tirak]

The inner and outer of the A/G hardpoints are rated for 5000 and 2500lbs respectivly, and the internal bays are capable of holding 2500lbs. They can handle the 2000lb JDAM no problem.

[Exorcet]

The A also has an 18000 lb payload limit, which would be equivalent to 9 2000 lb bombs.

[Hummingbird]

The A also has an 18000 lb payload limit, which would be equivalent to 9 2000 lb bombs.

 

Sure, but it can't carry that ^^

 

The Eurofighter can actually carry 6x 2,000 lbs GBU bombs + 4x AMRAAMs + 2x IRIS-Ts

 

If the F-35 is to carry 6x JDAMs then it can only carry an additional four missiles where'as the EF can carry six.

 

And if you want to go the low drag fighter route then the EF can carry 4x AMRAAM's on four very low drag weapons stations on the fuselage, causing little difference to its drag or radar signature.

[Tirak]

And if you want to go the low drag fighter route then the EF can carry 4x AMRAAM's on four very low drag weapons stations on the fuselage, causing little difference to its drag or radar signature.

 

That's an envelope you don't want to fight the F-35 in, because Lockheed has on the table a minor upgrade giving the F-35 the capability carry 6 AMRAAMs internally, which gives zero additional drag, and a fully stealthed radar signature. :pilotfly:

[Hummingbird]

That's an envelope you don't want to fight the F-35 in, because Lockheed has on the table a minor upgrade giving the F-35 the capability carry 6 AMRAAMs internally, which gives zero additional drag, and a fully stealthed radar signature. :pilotfly:

 

Sure, but it was to point out that the EF features low drag installations too.

 

The EF's payload advantage is being able to carry 6 bombs + 6 AAMs though.

[Exorcet]

Sure, but it can't carry that ^^

Right, it was to give an idea of the weight you could still play with even with a heavy bomb load.

 

The Eurofighter can actually carry 6x 2,000 lbs GBU bombs + 4x AMRAAMs + 2x IRIS-Ts

 

If the F-35 is to carry 6x JDAMs then it can only carry an additional four missiles where'as the EF can carry six.

True, though loadouts like this are pretty extreme. If you want more bombs though, then SDB's are the way to go and the F-35 can carry at least 12 bombs with an AAM loadout. Both planes are pretty capable in this area, and probably won't often need to load up to the maximum.

 

And if you want to go the low drag fighter route then the EF can carry 4x AMRAAM's on four very low drag weapons stations on the fuselage, causing little difference to its drag or radar signature.

It doesn't get the internal fuel load though. CFT's probably won't change subsonic performance much, but they might have effects at higher speed. The additional area of the AAM's is probably used to optimize the area ruling though. This is an area where the F-35 can't win regardless.

[Hummingbird]

Btw, the IRIS-T should be the equal of the AIM-9X as far as I can tell.