It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eurofighter is still a most deathly weapon system

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
No nation will surpass the US in terms of missile technology, let alone aircraft technology.


take a chill pill dude



you mean ever in the future




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
If you mean ever that's a bit of a tall thing to say. Ok, we the British were probably saying that at the height and even the decline of our empire but good things cannot last as we found out. Don't be another American living in an idealistic world, face the facts, ok you may be on top at the moment it will never last



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
No nation will surpass the US in terms of missile technology, let alone aircraft technology.


take a chill pill dude



you mean ever in the future




Not for the next 50 years. Read the sentence a few more times and maybe it will sink in.

I am chill, and why did you have to make it bold?


[edit on 18-7-2005 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567





Dream on.......


I think he was kidding, notice the smileys. No nation will surpass the US in terms of missile technology, let alone aircraft technology.


So how come the US industry has just launched a programme to develop a missile that will match or better the Meteor then? The reason why the US is coming out with new missiles such as the AIM-120D is to maintain air-to-air supremacy for years to come, much like they did with the other versions of AMRAAM.

Oh, thats right, you think the AIM 120C is superior to the Meteor don't you.


Your blind bias is amazing dude and I have finally been drawn into doing a little more than just reading your posts and grinning


I mean, the F/A-18E being better than Typhoon remark probably cracks me up the most when the RAF themselves have stated it comes nowhere near their requirement, which the Typhoon meets fully.

Incidentally the Typhoon pilot at Waddington who told he'd go up against anything qualified that comment by adding that 'we don't need to worry about the Raptor and ,OK it might be a bit close against the latest Flankers, but nothing else out there can touch us, *shake of head* No, nothing.

I reckon he would know.


Waynos, I respect you, but if you think the Meteor is SUPERIOR to the AMRAAM, you are kidding yourself buddy.

The Meteor hasn't even left the drawing board yet, and won't for a long time, it's not supposed to enter service until 2010.

You Eurofighter fan boys are way too overconfident in this jet, why don't you go to startegypage.com and check it out for yourself.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567


As of right now, the F-22, the F/A-18E/F, the F-15C, and the Rafale are ahead of the Typhoon.


BTW. Try telling the guys of 17 and 29 Sqns that the F-15 is better than the Typhoon, they will point you to several frustrated F-15 pilots who will tell you different.


[edit on 18-7-2005 by waynos]


What the hell are you praddling on about? A mock combat fight?

Why don't you use real records, oh wait, the Typhoon doesn't have one yet.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Ah come on hockeyguy, How can you slate the Typhoon for not having a "real" record and then spout off about the F22 being superior (which I believe it most certainly would prove to be in most areas) when it has no "real" record either? Similarly, how can you claim that the F35 will be the number 2 kid on the block in 10 years time when it hasn't even seen a production model off the line? A little consistency in your argument please!

I have a hard time believing that you would find many people in the USAF who would honestly support your argument that the F15C is superior to the Typhoon. Sure the F15 remains a very capable platform,and if fought correctly is not exactly a lamb to the slaughter, but in a BVR fight it is a comparative RCS barn door coming over the horizon when put up against the EF (which itself isn't exactly small when up against an F22). WVR? I know where my money is going. General Jumper of the USAF seemed quite impressed too.

The F18??????????????? Sorry too busy laughing to type much more on that particular statement.


And personally I haven't found a thing on Strategypage that supports your assertion that is in the least bit viable. Bloody hell, you're not Gixxerking by another name are you?


I hope you don't take this as anything personal as I enjoy, and am grateful, for your contributions to these boards. Just can't agree with you on this one.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I believe the EU2000 did beat the F-15 during competition. I read it somewhere on MIlitaryphotos.net .



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
What was that EF pilot talking about saying he doesn't even have to worry about the Raptor if he went up against he I’m pretty sure he would loose. Unless he means we don't have to worry about it being used against us.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badger
Ah come on hockeyguy, How can you slate the Typhoon for not having a "real" record and then spout off about the F22 being superior (which I believe it most certainly would prove to be in most areas) when it has no "real" record either? Similarly, how can you claim that the F35 will be the number 2 kid on the block in 10 years time when it hasn't even seen a production model off the line? A little consistency in your argument please!

I have a hard time believing that you would find many people in the USAF who would honestly support your argument that the F15C is superior to the Typhoon. Sure the F15 remains a very capable platform,and if fought correctly is not exactly a lamb to the slaughter, but in a BVR fight it is a comparative RCS barn door coming over the horizon when put up against the EF (which itself isn't exactly small when up against an F22). WVR? I know where my money is going. General Jumper of the USAF seemed quite impressed too.

The F18??????????????? Sorry too busy laughing to type much more on that particular statement.


And personally I haven't found a thing on Strategypage that supports your assertion that is in the least bit viable. Bloody hell, you're not Gixxerking by another name are you?


I hope you don't take this as anything personal as I enjoy, and am grateful, for your contributions to these boards. Just can't agree with you on this one.


No, i'm not gixxxering, but he is very intelligent when it comes to aircraft, i am T800m101, btw. DJim, USN-MID, Shaken, Gixxxerking, Shooter, gf-aust are the most knowledable posters. I like this forum, but it seems people have their information better collected on Strategy Page, they would slap down the "Typhoon is 2nd best" argument in a second. As of right now, I (and most people in aviation) would put the Rafale as the 2nd best fighter around (tied with the F-15C), I am very impressed with it, it has a smaller RCS than the Typhoon, and as of right now, it has a better Radar, the RBE2, compared to the Typhoon's Blue Vixen knock off, needs to be improved.

About the RCS of the F-15, yes, it is quite clear the F-15 has the RCS of Rodan, but with a full weapons loadout on the Typhoon, you might as well forget about the RCS advantage as of right now, it could change within the next 10 years. In terms of weapons system, the F-15C has better weapons, period, as of right now of course. Right now, the most advanced BVR weapon the Typhoon is cleared to launch is the AIM-120B (don't believe, pick up a subscription to Jane's or AvWeekly). And the F-15C is already cleared with the JHMQS with the AIM-9X that has a +90/-90 degree off boresight capability. The Typhoon does however have a marketly superior roll rate and instantaneous turn rate, but the sustained turn rates are quite similar (delta wing aircraft produce more turn drag because of the increased lift, therefore, sustained turn rates suffer.)

And quit bashing the Super Hornet for the love of God. You do know it has a signifigantly higher sustained AoA, at about 50 degrees, compared to the Typhoon's 33 degrees? It has already been cleared to carry the JHMQS with the AIM-9X, and the AESA radar, making that superior radar compared to the Typhoon. Not only that, but it has a smaller RCS compared to the Typhoon and the Rafale, and Block 3 Super Hornet's are to have even a smaller RCS.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
ohh, well, i will get some fun how some fans swearing that the f86 or f15c or f4 etc..are better than the typhoon only by the combat record.....and isnt american


the Typhoon is much more advanced than the f15c or the f16, its airframe is better designed and has aerodynamics and concept a generation above the f15c, also is a functional unstable design,and an good plataform in BVR, by the aerodynamics radar and engines,unlike the f16, the falcon is more an atttack plane

the f18 is famous by the very slow speed handling -due their high aspect ratio wing-, so at very low speeds the hornet could be better than the typhoon, like is better than the f15-16 at such flight enviorement , but the f18 suck in the medium subsonic to transonic speed dogfight, by the poor leading edge angle and low g-limit, the f18e could be better, but still its design is for very low speed -below 300 knots-, both the EF and f18e can supercruiser (arround M1.1-1.3) by the low bypass high dry thrust, but that isnt practical in the 18, its design induce too much drag

btw im tired with that "not proved in combat" argument, i mean all the USAF "proved" combat were done with AWACS, support, BVR, ECM support,etc...against foes that didnt have such systems



[edit on 19-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Greetings,

At the moment I would have to say that I would honestly have to doubt some of the recent comments made by Hockeyguy, I have read some of your previous posts and while some are quite true, there is a trend to discredit any non american aircraft as lacking.

As for Hockeyguys list, Yes, I will agree wholeheartly that the F/A-22 is a better aircraft than the Eurofighter, but as myself and others have mentioned over and over again, some nations neither have those Capabilities or have the money to pay for the aircraft. I honestly doubt that the Eurofighter will ever come against any US hardware, apart from mock combat.

The F-15C is a fine aircraft and I am sure there would be few people here that would berate its fine combat record, although I should note that the F-15C's True Combat record comes from service in a foreign Airforce [Israel], by True, I mean in combat where the enemy also had an effective counter. The F-15C is getting old, sure enough if you try to attack that sucker, it just isn't going to roll over on its back and die, but the USAF itself have acknoledged that the F-15C isn't at the top of the bread line any more.

The F/A-18E/F Model aircraft just didn't meet RAF requirements, thats as simple as that, no matter how much you make minor changes to the F/A-18s airframe, it is still an aircraft with a large RCS, sure you can bolt on some stealth and chance some parts of the airframe but the design itself was designed for different requirements and for a different time.

The Rafale I doubt that it would be an effective counter to the Eurofighter, but again it came down to requirements, the French simply didn't want an expensive aircraft with lots of capabilities, it wanted a light fighter which was cheap and had some capabilities. Thats what it came down to, I would say in my opinion that the Rafale is very close behind the Eurofighter, in nearly every respect. Plus it should be noted that the Rafale, has most of its sensor systems from the people that developed the sensor system for the eurofighter, Thales. Remember Cheaper.

The F/A-22 is unproven, the same as the Eurofighter, so untill the US employs the aircraft in any thing approaching a Conventual WAR situation, we can only assume what their abilities will be. Same goes for the Eurofighter.

I wouldn't be so bold as to say to any thing the americans build is the best on the planet. There are many fine companies out there that are developing technology that the US uses on its aircraft. The Eurofighter meets the RAFs requirements, thats good enough for me.

- Phil



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   


The F-15C is getting old, sure enough if you try to attack that sucker, it just isn't going to roll over on its back and die, but the USAF itself have acknoledged that the F-15C isn't at the top of the bread line any more.


The USAF never admitted it because it's not true. US congressmen however said that.




The F/A-18E/F Model aircraft just didn't meet RAF requirements, thats as simple as that, no matter how much you make minor changes to the F/A-18s airframe, it is still an aircraft with a large RCS, sure you can bolt on some stealth and chance some parts of the airframe but the design itself was designed for different requirements and for a different time.


You're gravely mistaken, as of right now, the Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than both the Typhoon and the Rafale, there are even further plans to make it an even smaller RCS.

www.janes.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567



The F-15C is getting old, sure enough if you try to attack that sucker, it just isn't going to roll over on its back and die, but the USAF itself have acknoledged that the F-15C isn't at the top of the bread line any more.


The USAF never admitted it because it's not true. US congressmen however said that.




The F/A-18E/F Model aircraft just didn't meet RAF requirements, thats as simple as that, no matter how much you make minor changes to the F/A-18s airframe, it is still an aircraft with a large RCS, sure you can bolt on some stealth and chance some parts of the airframe but the design itself was designed for different requirements and for a different time.


You're gravely mistaken, as of right now, the Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than both the Typhoon and the Rafale, there are even further plans to make it an even smaller RCS.

www.janes.com...


Greetings,

In current military exercises with foreign nations have shown that with the development of new european aircraft and indeed Russian aircraft. Sure the F-15C is great for cruising over Iraq with AWACs Support and ELINT Support, sure she is great, but you seem to be having issues if you still think that the F-15C is still top of the pile, sure she is a capable fighter and isn't easy in any term but she is old and is clearly finding it hard to meet new threats, there is nothing wrong with that, she did her duty finely but her time has come and gone. If as you say, that the F-15 is still the king of the sky's why did they start the FCA program? Why is the F/A-22 being built? Surely you could just keep building F-15s.

As for the Super Hornet, that link you provided merely says that it has a small RCS, in no way does it say that it is smaller than the Eurofighter or Rafale. Could you provide a better link if you wish to continue to make that assumption.

I must say that it seems childish to a degree that you can't accept that some one or some nation are coming close to having some thing better or AS capable as any of your craft. I agree on one point out of this whole thread, at present the F/A-22 is the king... for the moment.

- Phil

[edit on 19-7-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   


As for the Super Hornet, that link you provided merely says that it has a small RCS, in no way does it say that it is smaller than the Eurofighter or Rafale. Could you provide a better link if you wish to continue to make that assumption.


It was in either a Jane's magazine or an AvWeekly mag, but anybody with a brain and does the right research knows that the Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than the Typhoon.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567



As for the Super Hornet, that link you provided merely says that it has a small RCS, in no way does it say that it is smaller than the Eurofighter or Rafale. Could you provide a better link if you wish to continue to make that assumption.


It was in either a Jane's magazine or an AvWeekly mag, but anybody with a brain and does the right research knows that the Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than the Typhoon.


Greetings,

I don't believe that insults is a good way of winning an argument, but if you feel the need.

Again, I read a number of Military magazines, including Janes and I have yet to see mention of the respective RCS aspects of the Eurofighter/Rafale and the F/A-18E/F. I would also say that my half brain begs the question, how can you expect a design that was orginally designed with RCS in mind [The Eurofighter and Rafale] could be worse than a modified design that never had RCS in mind during the design and construction phases [The F/A-18]. As for stealth, yes, the Super Hornet has adopted a number of features to reduce its RCE, these include new intakes and RAM material around the intakes and the leading edges of the wings. The Super Hornet is merely a mod of a design with increased payload and range in mind, sure her RCS is better but still not as good as the European kids on the block. Thats my opinion.

As for your sources, if you believe sources from computer game sites, be my guest, but they rarely provide factual information, on any thing but the most basic of information e.g. It has two engines not three etc

I have yet to find either research or for that matter an article stating the RCS of the respective aircraft, again I ask if you have research that could back that assumption up, I am more than willing to accept it.

- Phil



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

asposted by gooseuk
Again, I read a number of Military magazines, including Janes and I have yet to see mention of the respective RCS aspects of the Eurofighter/Rafale and the F/A-18E/F.


Hi gooseuk.
Bear in mind that the "real" RCS numbers are official government 'secrets' and will likely never be known to the general public, but an excellent and very credible site, which has been posted before by aerospaceweb, me and a couple others, lists such unofficial RCS values. In descending order from the least to best.


Aircraft --- RCS[dBsm] --- RCS[m2] --- RCS[ft2]
F-15 Eagle --- +26 --- 400 --- 4,305
F-4 Phantom II --- +20 --- 100 --- 1,076
B-52 Stratofortress --- +20 --- 100 --- 1,076
Su-27 --- +12 --- 15 --- 161
B-1A --- +10 --- 10 --- 108
F-16 Fighting Falcon --- +7 --- 5 --- 54
B-1B Lancer --- 0 --- 1 --- 11
F-18E/F Super Hornet --- 0 --- 1 --- 11
Rafale --- 0 --- 1 --- 11

Typhoon --- -3 --- 0.5 --- 5.5
AGM-86 ALCM --- -6 --- 0.25 --- 2.5
BGM-109 Tomahawk --- -13 --- 0.05 --- 0.5
SR-71 Blackbird --- -18 --- 0.015 --- 0.15
F-22 Raptor --- -22 --- 0.0065 --- 0.07
F-117 Nighthawk --- -25 --- 0.003 --- 0.03
B-2 Spirit --- -28 --- 0.0015 --- 0.02
AGM-129 ACM --- -30 --- 0.001 --- 0.01
Boeing Bird of Prey --- -70 --- 0.0000001 --- 0.000008

Radar Cross Section


Hope that helps.






seekerof

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Greetings,

I thank you for posting that RCS data Seekerof, If I am reading those values correctly, it appears that the Rafale and F/A-18E/F have the same projected RCS values, with the Eurofighter having a better RCS projected profile.

- Phil



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
"Unofficially" disclosed, that would be correct , though the Block 3 add-on for the F-18E/F has not been factored in being it is a new block series, gooseuk.
Officially, I would think they would relatively be in the same descending order, barring Block series and Tranche add ons, just the values would be a bit better or worse.

In general, I think the RCS value chart is close to being within reason.




seekerof

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What was that EF pilot talking about saying he doesn't even have to worry about the Raptor if he went up against he I’m pretty sure he would loose. Unless he means we don't have to worry about it being used against us.


It was the last part westy me old mate, he was saying that we don't have to worry about the Raptor because we wont be fighting against the USAF and nobody we might be fighting any time soon will get the Raptor to use against us.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
very interesting figures seekerof, thank you. They are the first such figures I have ever seen so I wont take them as absolute gospel (hope you understand), but very good all the same





[edit on 19-7-2005 by waynos]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join