The Best of the Best....Air superiority Fighters

The Typhoon technically was the winner in the Singapore competition but political pressure moved them to the F-15. The Typhoon I believe is a superior fighter to the F-15 as it should be. I wouldn't be surprised if similar circumstances were apparent in the SK evaluation.

The F-15 is a good plane but for a next generation evaluation, it wouldn't be my first choice. The Typhoon, Rafale, and Lightning would be ahead of it in my eyes.

*I dont see the political pressure here because the EF-2000 lost in the first round of the competition. I never heard of this Singapore competition and it being pushed in a politcal manner, can you send me a link?

*Yes the EF-2000 and French Raf are very good fighters but there still 4th generation fighters right? I dont think the EF-2000 even features thrust vectoring, i heard of proposed plans. Also a EF-2000 can only supercruise on 6 missles and no fuel tanks. So judging i dont see the EF-2000 outmatching a F-15, obviously theres alot more stuff to factor but im thinking quick.

en.wikipedia.org...

I dont see the Typhoon outmatching a F-15 either, especially not the F-15K. But you gotta give the Typhoon that its newer and incorporates more "things" than the F-15.

But if the USA F-15 fleet was upgraded with AESA, AIM-9X, AIM-120D (whenever it out) and ACTIVE i can see it being better than the Typhoon. But this is also a what if situtation.

Here's an extremely interesting bit from that wikipedia article linked by ghost on 4th gen (and beyond) fighters:



Would definitely like to know more about this..
CW?

I don't know what you mean by outmatching but the Typhoon incorprates a much greater display of sensor fusion and electronic advancement than the F-15. It has a higher thrust-weight ratio and better wing-loading number than the F-15. The Typhoon has a full FBW system which is something that is critical in the manueverability concept(Eagle does not have it). Don't forget about supercruise capability.

Also, the Eagle cannot match the agility of the Eurofighter. It some circumstances the Typhoon has 1/3rd the turn radius of an F-16C. You will never see an F-15 out-turn an F-16 in a dogfight unless something went wrong.

The K model Eagle is a good multi-role fighter. It has a heavier payload and more range than the Typhoon. Long-range strike is what the Strike Eagle does best.


That is very "what-if" situation. You will never see it happen. The F-15 already has the AIM-9X and some of them have AESA radars. You won't see a TVC system on them however. The C model airframes in USAF are stressed enough as it is.

The Eurofighter can supercruise with six missiles and a center tank. This has been verified many times. The Eurofighter and Rafale are 4.5 gen airplanes. Their aerodynamic and avionic development is beyond fighters such as the F-15, F-16, MiG-29, and Su-27.

Read the air to ground section in the Typhoon's wikipedia entry. It says that the Typhoon was the 'preferred technical solution'. The software needed just wasn't there at the time otherwise the Typhoon would hav probably won.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by JFrazier]

the typhoon doesnt have thrust vectoring and the only planes i do know is the
f-22 raptor
f-15k(f-15s/mtd)ACTIVE
su-37 terminator
any others cause these are the only planes i know that has thrust vectoring.



no.imeant to say dont self promote your self.but dont worry i belived you the first
time you said it.and dont worry ill kepp your words in my mind the next time it happens



tech.military.com...
didnt have space for the next part.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by phsyco]

(mod edit to add possible link to source and reduce size of huge copy paste)

[edit on 25-9-2006 by pantha]

and so:

www.fas.org...
if i get my hands on more info.i'll tell you guys

(mod edit to add link to possible source and reduce size of copy paste)

[edit on 25-9-2006 by pantha]

Psycho, you need to lose this misconception you have that you are comparing real aircraft.

The F-22 and Typhoon are real, in production, in service fighters. The other two are not.
The 'Su-37 Terminator' was a project which as now died, for example;



www.milavia.net...

Furthermore you equating of the F-15K with the F-15 SMTD is just plain fantasy (or even 'plane fantasy' )

The SMTD was a technology demonstrator produced as part of the ATF (F-22) programme, it was never intended to be used to upgrade F-15's in service and never will, it is now defunct, deceased, over, kaput. It is pushing up the daisies. It is an ex-project.

The F-15K however is simply an export multi role fighter based on the F-15E, simple as that, with none of the whizz bang gadgetry you are ascribing to it.

Also you areposting external information that shoots itself down with silly mistakes, for example where it says above that the name Typhoon is only intended for export markets outside Europe. Er, Hello? If that can get something so simple and basic so completely wrong, why trust the rest of it?

In the real world the F-22 outperforms the the Typhoon, which is less expensive and the Typhoon outperforms the F-15, completely in the A2A role if not (yet) A2G, which is cheaper still, due largely to the economy of scale brought about by the long production run it has enjoyed.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by waynos]

*The typhoon has a pretty expensive price tag, that being 70-100 mil and the F-15 being half that being like 43 mil.
www.globalsecurity.org...
*I read for sure that the EF-2000 was over budgedted and over due, but that doesnt make it any worse.
*The EF-2000 is very amazing fighter but it does not completly defeat an F-15 in A2A, why do you figure this? F-15 in the Future will have moe powerful radars, AIM-9X, AIM-120D and still have the "High Speed Fire Missle Factor" my own words lol.
*WVR wise, yes F-15 is done pretty much.
*A2G, no doubt in my mind that a F-15E will perform much better unless you have some amazing new information i havent seen?

(mod edit to remove unnecessary quote of post immediatly before this one)

[edit on 25-9-2006 by pantha]

Even though currently the F-15E may be a cheaper solution than the EF-2000, only a few handful of F-15E's and F-15C's will be upgraded with AESA radar and AIM-120Ds and AIM-9Xs. To me, when put next to the current fleet of F-15's; not enough will be getting the upgrades.

IMO saying that the F-15 will be better because it will be getting the upgrade is a bit misleading because no all the aircraft will be recieving the upgrades, only a few are actually on the board to recieve it, maybe later in the near future they might decide to take another group of F-15s to upgrade because the F-22A might be too expensive to handle, but for now we don't need the entire fleet upgraded because we have the F-22A.

Shattered OUT...

ACGoDZ, you raise some points which I would like to return to


Unfortunately the price tag of the Typhoon is extremely difficult to get hold of, most estimates I have seen on the net are just guesses and the only solid figure I've seen is the price of 61m (euros) paid by Austria. In any case all such deals are subject to various offsets and discounts and whatknot making extrapolating an accurrate price from any deal impossible, the general rule however is that the Typhoon costs about half as much as a Raptor (aided by the larger production run as well as the less expensive technology level) while the F-15 is indeed almost half as expensive again (for the same reasons). Any actual figures you might have come across are not to beas taken at face value.



Yes, absolutely. But then again so is almost everything else in the sky.



Think about that statement again, if you would. "in the future" and "will have" apply to the Typhoon just as much as they do to the F-15, with AMSAR and Meteor, for example still to come for the European aircraft, as well as a genuine prospect of recieving TVC which the F-15 will not have. Actual operational F-15's of today have one advantage over the Typhoon, that is that they are proven to be reliable and effective where the Typhoon is still working up to full IOC, much the same as the F-22 currently is as well. On the other hand while some F-15's are now getting AESA there is nothing in the US inventory at the moment with the same capabilities as PIRATE, the equivalent system intended for the F-22 having been dropped to cut costs.




If we are talking current Typhoon F2 vs F-15E in A2G then yes, absolutely. Also in terms of range and payload the F-15 will continue to have an edge despite the A2G upgrades that Typhoon is to recieve.

However there is a huge raft of modifications in the pipeline (for the RAF at least, it remains to be seen who else adopts them) with a wide range of smart and stealthy weapons to be integrated in order to allow the Typhoon top replace the Tornado GR.4, one of which is conformal tanks to increase range such as the F-15E already uses, at this point the difference in performance between the two types in the A2G role will be negligible, if slightly in favour of the F-15E.

Actually the new F-15s are around 70 million. I've heard the Typhoon at around 80-85 million. An F-22 squadron commander was quoted as saying that Boeing offered the USAF new Eagles for around the first price.


What makes you think that the Typhoon will not be updated as well?

Psycho can you please stop posting those links? Most of us have seen those already and they are outdated.

* can you find me a link with the F-15 being 70 mil, seems 30 mil to expensive. I got a figure of 43 mil.
* And of course i see the Typhoon will get upgraded but so will the F-15, of course the Typhoon is better because it being a newer airframe where the F-15 was made over 30 years ago.
* But you can pretty much get 1.5 - 3 (2 being normal) for 1 typhoon, also can be better if you buy a large order > A/CMART


www.globalsecurity.org...

Waynos actually i read about the PIRATE and found nothing to any indication of it being better than anything we have?

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - removed quote from post above

[edit on 25-9-2006 by masqua]

Dozer was asked about future integration of an IRST/FLIR system on the F-22 an said that the space and integration capability is there but the idea was being but on the backburner for now. They are focusing more on improving the AN/APG-77 in the A2G role, so it's all about priories at the moment, and I'm sure cost factors in as well. It's still a possibility but not an immediate one.

BTW, is the AN/APG-63(v)2,3,4 better than the CAPTOR on the current Typhoons?

You get 43 million because you are reading an outdated website and the F-15C airframe isn't built anymore. The Strike Eagle airframes are the only ones built now and yes, they go for around 70-80 million as quoted by an F-22 squadron commander.


Military purchases do not work like that. Otherwise you could buy around 2 F-15s for every F-22. Which one would you rather have?



There is no other system on an American fighter that is comparable. American fighters have IFR targeting systems but nothing for passive IR missile tracking and detection.

I would never be so foolhardy as to claim it is 'better than anything' America has. What I said was that America currently has nothing in service with the same sort of capability, ie an IRST that has anything like the range and sensitivity, the ability to scan and individually track separate targets whilst prioritising them, just like a radar does, and which works equally effectively in the A2A and A2G roles and which meshes seamlessly with the radars own processing systems to enhance its abilities. Unless you know of one I have missed?

Westy, you are correct, it hasn't been ruled out that such an item will be fitted at some point and the current priority is the F-22'S radar, however it was put on the back burner for cost, rather than operational reasons and was part of the original spec, pretty much like the RAF Typhoon's cannon

Regarding the radar being better or not, I am just guessing but I reckon the AESA equipped APG-63 variants will have advantages in beam agility and all versions will be very reliable from the V1 onwards due to the huge experience gained with the set over previous years with earlier versions, indeed the V1 was created as a result of a drive to improve reliability, rather than performance.

The CAPTOR is designed to be at least as good, if not better, than the non AESA versions with the CAESAR model being the equivalent to these, but whether or not it actually is better I'm not in a position to say, especially as its actual performance parameters are classified, apart from the odd titbit of information such as a fighter sized target being successfully tracked from 86nm away at a deflection of 130 degrees. This isn''t saying its a maximum, just that it has been achieved.

I do know that the US APG-65 radar was evaluated for the Luftwaffe 'Typhoon 2000' but was rejected. I suppose its not just a case of which one is 'better', but which one meets the needs of the force that has to use it?



[edit on 25-9-2006 by waynos]

Are you sure it was the 65 they evaluated? The 65 is the old Hornet radar, replaced by the APG-73. The 65 has been outdated for a quite a few years now, when we finally made it out of the stone age and got the 73, the difference was phenomenal. No wonder they didn't go with it!

Yeah, it was the 65, this was when Germany was desperate to cut the costs. They even considered buying F-18's instead too. They eventually settled for cutting their order down to 180 aircraft and leaving off the DASS.